[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
Thank you both.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
This matter is submitted.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
Madam Clerk, please call the last case.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
In-Rae Kim, Hyeong-Soo Kim, appellant to appearing pro se, Craig S. Sternberg appearing for appellee.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
Mr. Kim, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
How much time?

[00:00:32] Speaker 04:
About a few minutes because I already submitted a written statement because of my health condition and I barely hear something, you know, like a severe tyros.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
All right, so we'll say three minutes, three minutes.

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
Yeah, maybe five minutes.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
Five minutes.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
Five.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
Fine.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
Please go ahead.

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
Your honor, thank you for the time.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
This appeal is about basic fairness and due process.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
In 2015, I was never properly served.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
On March 24, 2015, Appeals Council confirmed my correct office address and my Lakewood store address, but he did not use those addresses at all.

[00:01:27] Speaker 04:
Instead, he mailed someone to my CPA office more than three months later.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
I received in late July with no proof of service.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Later... Mr. Kim, can I ask a quick question?

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
I think you told Judge Doar the same facts, and he determined that

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
Because there was a state court judgment that was final and bankruptcy courts don't get to act like appellate courts on state court matters.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
He couldn't do anything about that.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
He couldn't give you any relief based on that.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Now, if you think that was a mistake, tell us why, but that's really what we have to figure out here.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
As I process, I was looking at all the, you know, possible law like, you know, reference like Cornell Law School and just here and Google Scholar searching that in order to making a summary judgment, it should have, you know, follow the rule 56.

[00:02:39] Speaker 04:
And there shouldn't be any, you know, other

[00:02:43] Speaker 04:
the debate issue shouldn't be there.

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
But he just making a judgment based on regardless, that's what the transcript saying.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
He knows there is the RFA's defectiveness and they using a tactic somehow

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
They try to not to get documentation and correctly.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
However, there are many things and also I put in the, you know.

[00:03:20] Speaker 04:
Several motions and especially a state by violation and the.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Mr. Brian Song put in another lawsuit in California year 2025 in January with the same incident without putting the related case and without the POS and also he put it in the amendment.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
And so he tried to prove

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
is their tactic and as well as a pattern.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
So, you know, in that case, I was in an adversary trial that I put in the motion and also I put in a motion to compel.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
However, all of a sudden, Mr. Craig Stamberg put it in a summary judgment motion.

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
And I put in three times on deny opposition motion to motion.

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
But, you know, he make a judgment, as I say, based on the regardless.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you another question?

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
Part of the basis for Judge Doar granting the motion for summary judgment was the assertion that

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
one aspect of the embezzlement claim had been admitted.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
And I'm just going to read to you the paragraph from the complaint that I think was relied on for that.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
It's paragraph 24.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
And it says, payment of prior commissions under the agreement indicate the debtors understood their responsibility to forward commission funds earned by plaintiff to plaintiff

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
which indicates a felonious intent on debtor's part.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
Now, for whatever reason, that paragraph was admitted in your answer.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
Do you have any commentary or any thoughts about that?

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
Well, first thing, I was being a pro se, I learned how to looking at the dockets in beginning of this year.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
And I didn't know such a public system is available.

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:06:01] Speaker 04:
And so I looking through the, you know, California docket entirely.

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
And over hundreds of pages and many the statement was distorted, especially Judge Overton in year 2017.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
Judgment was based on only the conversion.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
And she declined three other categories, which is the investment, there's no investment, there's no fraud, and so on and so forth.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
But they didn't submit such things.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
However, they misrepresented, and over and over again, in the year 2024, as quote,

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kim, just to follow up on what Judge Lafferty was asking, I think he was suggesting that the answer that he's talking about was an answer that was filed in the adversary complaint to the adversary complaint in Judge Doar's court.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
I guess the real question is, were you represented by counsel at that time when the answer was filed or not?

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
Actually, I had a former attorney, Mark McClelland, he resigned in February.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
I think that's what his point was.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
Yeah, thank you very much.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
I appreciate it.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
No, it's no problem.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
He was suggesting, did you have a comment about the fact that the answer in the bankruptcy

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
adversary proceeding, seemingly admitted, you seemingly admitted through your answer that you didn't contest one of the claims that was being asserted by the creditor, and that is that you knew that the money that was being collected by your company or yourself was actually being

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
owed and paid over over a period of months to the.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
No, go ahead.

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
He is not a dealer.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
He is not a what he kind of Verizon wireless sub dealer neither.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
So he doesn't have any deal code.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
He just occupied on on officially occupy my place to doing his own business.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
And I didn't even

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
No, he was putting in the file lawsuit because the store closed year year 2013 and he claimed year 2015.

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
So you know there was time gap and also I didn't timely notified any of documentation so or you know notice.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you for the answer.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
You're welcome, Your Honor.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
Do you want to stop here or is there anything else you'd like to say before you reserve?

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
So, another thing is, in 2017, Judge Carol Overton made a judgment

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
based on conversion only.

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
It should dismiss or reject other three cause of action.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
There was no finding of fraud, malice, or embezzlement.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
But bankruptcy court, appeal, and counsel describe the judgment as it include fraud or embezzlement.

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
Those words do not appear in the minute order or judgment.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
Under Peckler, Sewell, Brown, or Grogan, Bankruptcy Court must make an independent decision on non-dischargeability.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
Conversion itself does not meet Section 523A4 of 6.

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
But Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment even after noting that RFA

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
were undeliverable and while my discovery and compare motion were still pending.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
This was not full review on the Rule 56.

[00:10:48] Speaker 04:
In summary, defective service in year 2015 mischaracterized judgment in late filings, recycle incorrect document,

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
2024-25 and state violation and a repeat of defective service in year 25 California filing.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
And as I closing for this reason, I respectfully ask panel to reverse or remand or making a direct decision and discharge ability based on due process principle.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
All right, thank you.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
The rest of your time will be reserved.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
Mr. Sternberg.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you for allowing us to have this time to argue this case.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
I think the third lawyer in this case for the plaintiff, and it's not always easy to deal with a pro se defendant.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
Can I stop?

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
See, we actually have a lot to talk with you about.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
Let's begin.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
See if we're in agreement.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
This is a motion for summary judgment.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
The review is de novo in all respects, correct?

[00:12:14] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
I was a little bit confused by some statements in your brief to Judge Doar, as well as your brief to this panel about preclusion.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
Because most of the argument here goes to preclusion, right?

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
We're going to rely on what the state court did.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
The argument that you advanced in both places essentially said, well, rest judicata is the preclusion argument.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
It's this big umbrella within that somehow is issue preclusion.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
It's otherwise called collateral estoppel.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
If you said that, that is a no theory and accurate statement of the law.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
Claim preclusion is one thing, issue preclusion is another.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
They have different requirements.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
And to the extent there was an implication in that, that somehow claim preclusion exists in bankruptcy law, I hope you will agree with me that the Supreme Court's told us very definitively that ain't so, correct?

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
I think that's right.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
No such thing as claim preclusion.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
So we're talking about issue preclusion, right?

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
So we're talking about, I'll just read off the factors.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
The issue sought to be precluded from relitigation is identical to that decided in the former proceeding.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Not so clear here.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
The issue was actually litigated in the former proceeding, maybe.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
The issue was necessarily decided in the former proceeding.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
We're going to have to talk about that.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
The decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
You got that one.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
The party against whom preclusion is sought was the same or in privity with the party of the former proceeding.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
We may have some questions there.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
And then overall, this is California, we've got to apply California Issue Preclusion Law.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
On top of all that, quote, California further places an additional limitation on issue of preclusion.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
Courts may give preclusive effect to a judgment only if application of preclusion furthers the public policies underlined.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
The doctrine closed, quote, that's Harmon versus Cobran, Henry Harmon, 250 F-third, 1240.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
Let me begin with,

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
Was Judge Doar's determination based on anything other than the judgment that was actually reached?

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
I think so, Your Honor.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
Like what?

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Like the declaration of Dae-hyeon Kim.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
which recites all of the facts, and I must say, there was never a declaration filed.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
Well, look, we're trying to figure out whether preclusion was appropriate.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
To the extent that Judge Doar relied left, right, and center on the RFAs in state court, and I think he did.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
You can see that?

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
I don't think he did, just solely on that.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
He did focus on that.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
Well, but to the extent he did, do you think that's problematic?

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
I really don't, not in this case.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
Let me tell you why I think it is, okay?

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Here's the first reason.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
Proclusion has to be based on the judgment.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
It's not a cafeteria thing where you've got the judgment, oh, I've got these RFAs, I'll lump them together, I can get there.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
It doesn't work that way.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Proclusion relies on the judgment.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
Secondly, are you aware of whether under California law, RFAs can be used in a subsequent proceeding?

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
In a subsequent proceeding?

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
I'm not aware of that.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Well, let me educate you, okay?

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
California Code of Civil Procedure 2033.410B says, notwithstanding Subdivision A, which doesn't really apply here, any admission made by a party under this section is binding only on that party and is made for the purpose of the pending action only.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
It is not an admission by that party for any other purpose and it shall not be used in any manner

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
against that party in any other proceeding.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
Now, I know our pro se party here didn't raise that, but if issue preclusion requires consideration of the public policy of California, it seems to me that a prohibition against using RFAs in any other proceeding would fall in there.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Would you agree with that?

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
I would accept that we do have the declaration.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
Well, tell me about the declaration.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
In my mind, the RFAs, for whatever purpose, are done.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
I don't think Judge Doar had the ability to look at those.

[00:16:37] Speaker 03:
But he makes those same... Mr. Kim makes those same... Mr. Daehyun Kim.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
My Mr. Kim.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kim does make the same allegations in his declaration.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
They are not met with any affidavit, any declaration or denial.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
There was an admission also in the complaint about... Let's talk about the admission and the complaint.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I read the language to you.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
now you didn't draft it right no i did not okay shall i read the language again sure why don't i okay um let me get it up here in front of me the language of the complaint or the complaint in front of judge door okay i have that in front of me oh no i don't i'm sorry i will i had a different complaint

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
Now, this is pretty badly misnumbered.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
This is, as some have pointed out, the second paragraph 24.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
Payment of prior commissions under the agreement indicate the debtors understood their responsibility to forward commission funds earned by plaintiff to plaintiff, which indicates a felonious intent on debtors' part.

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
Minus that established, it didn't say that, did it?

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure I understand the question.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
Well, there's a difference between indicate and established.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
So, so help me out with that.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Well, I can't help you out with it.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
I didn't draft it, but I would say that's not, I mean, think about the effect of it.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
I could, and I could say that there could have been a response to it other than an admission.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
No, I understand.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
I understand.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
I can't argue with that part, okay?

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to figure out what to do with this, which you clearly relied on.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
I read the transcript from the hearing.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
You clearly relied on this paragraph.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure it's as helpful as you think.

[00:18:38] Speaker 02:
Let me move to something else.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
On the conversion cause of action.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
To what extent is intent an element of conversion under California law?

[00:18:48] Speaker 03:
But the conversion provision in the complaint

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
under the California case was only a caption because the last paragraph, I think it's paragraph 21 says, the defendant acted intentionally, willfully, fraudulently, and maliciously due to fraud and opress.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
Let's do this respectfully.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
Let's do this methodically.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
If we're relying, first of all, on the judgment, to what extent was intent an element of conversion with respect to that judgment?

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
The answer is not at all, right?

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
Was it actually litigated in California?

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
The answer is no, right?

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
I don't think they actually litigated in California.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
Okay, so then help me out with how else you get there.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
Well, the admission, the declaration of Mr. Kim, who states the same thing, that it was intentionally, willfully, et cetera.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
It was, he states that in his declaration.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
How can Mr., okay.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
Your client, Mr. Kim, states in the declaration, I think this is done intentionally and willfully.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Is that evidence?

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
I mean, is that anything other than he thinks that?

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
Well, it's not denied and there's no declaration.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
So it has to be taken as the truth, you know, with all... It could be the truth.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
Does it have probative value?

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
I don't know if it has probative value, depends on who's looking at it, but there are a couple of other things that we have to look at here too.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
Let her rip.

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
First of all, the old Rooker Feldman where the court... We're not talking about that.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
Nobody is undoing what the state court did.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
We're asking about the effect of it.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
Okay?

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
I see what you're saying.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:20:43] Speaker 02:
Look, if the state court got something wrong, God love them.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
It's way too late to talk about it.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
You're right about that for sure.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
We're trying to figure out what could have been done

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
with this judgment and whatever else occurred in that action.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
And if Judge Dorber lied on something other than the judgment, was that a mistake?

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
I'm concerned it might be, which is why we're having this conversation.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
And what else was there to support the judgment you got?

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
That's what we're talking about, okay?

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
Well, I think I'm talking about a fairly substantial record, which has actually been expanded after the record was put in.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
It's been expanded by a number of supplemental

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
supplemental responses, or supplemental authorities, or whatever it was that Mr. Hayun Kim has filed.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
I'm aware of those.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
If you want to talk about them, you can.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
You don't have to.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
No, I don't want to talk about that, but I want to talk about what's in some of them.

[00:21:39] Speaker 03:
And there is proof that regardless of the probative effect in the judgment,

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
There was, in fact, proof that the judgment was domesticated in the state of Washington.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
There was a lawsuit filed in the state of Washington to do that.

[00:22:00] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kim admits he received that.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
The judgment was recorded not once but twice in the state of Washington in King County.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
And that was all done in 2018 and 2019.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
What's the point of that?

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
The point of that is, Your Honor, the point of that is very clear.

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
The point is, is that if there weren't an error, he could have gone back to the state court.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
We don't care.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
We don't care if there was an error.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
What I'm trying to make, and what Judge Lafferty has been trying to get you to understand, is you're relying on the state court judgment.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
That's all you've got.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
That's all you have.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
You can rely on the RFAs, you can rely on an admission if you made one in the bank case, but you can't rely on anything other than the judgment.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
And the judgment is for conversion.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
Conversion is a strict liability tort.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
It doesn't require intent.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
Embezzlement requires intent, wrongful conduct intentionally done.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
How do you get from conversion to embezzlement when all you have is a state court judgment?

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
That's why I don't care if it was domesticated or not domesticated.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
You still only have one judgment.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
California.

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
The judgment in part, or the judgment in facts, well, wait a second, the judgment- No, no, but Mr. Kim, no.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
The judgment itself relies on the count of conversion.

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
The count of conversion includes willful, fraudulently, and maliciously to defraud and oppress a camp.

[00:23:39] Speaker 03:
I have to go and post it.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you one quick question.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
Is there a statement of decision that has findings and conclusions?

[00:23:46] Speaker 02:
Is there a statement of what?

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
Is there a statement of decision that has findings and conclusions?

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
Uh, not that I'm aware of, no, I think then that that argument is going to be challenging with all due respect.

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
I hear what you're saying.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
No, that's whatever.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
I'm just looking for, I'm looking for Mr. Kim's declaration because I believe there's two elements where this also comes through.

[00:24:12] Speaker 03:
One is in the declaration of Mr. Kim.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
So I've requested- That's your client, right?

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
Yeah, my client, Mr. Kim.

[00:24:18] Speaker 03:
Yeah, okay.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
And the second thing is, is in the proof of claim.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
And the proof of claim also I think is evidence of this because it states those facts within the proof of claim.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
So the proof of claim is part of the record of this case.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
And I think you'd look at the proof of claim.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
I think you look at the declaration.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
I think you look at the fact that there's been no denial of it.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
There is no evidence of any denial of these actions.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
And I think that that's an emotion for summary judgment.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
My question is, if he contracted, Mr. Dedder Kim contracted with your client and your client's proof of claim suggests that he is owed money

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
for conversion.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
I had a contract or he owed me the money.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
He didn't give me the money.

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
I got a judgment against him.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Here's the underlying judgment that supports my proof of claim.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
Here's the underlying judgment that supports my non-dischargeability.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
In the absence of a finding of intent that he knew what he was doing was wrongful, which is not part of a conversion judgment in California, the strict liability tort,

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
How do you get to that proof without a trial?

[00:25:31] Speaker 01:
Irrespective of what your client says, I believe he knew.

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
That's a fact question.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
The court can't resolve that on summary judgment.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
Can't rely on a declaration when he denies that he's responsible and wants a trial.

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
Can he?

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
I think he can.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
I think he can because those allegations are made in the motion for summary judgment and they are never met.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
There is no declaration for Mr. Hyun Kim that denies any of those allegations.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
I'm entitled to a judgment just based on that.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
Well, can I pull that apart a little bit?

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
Excuse me, I'm getting excited.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
It's OK.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, look, I don't blame you.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
You may not have expected the Spanish Inquisition here, OK?

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
It's OK.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
But what I'm trying to figure out is your client files a deck

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
You know, I believe that he had felonious intent.

[00:26:26] Speaker 02:
Okay, he can think that.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
That's not proof whether somebody did or didn't.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
And, you know, getting to intent, I think you'll agree with this, Mr. Sternberg, is exactly the point where most courts say we gotta have a trial.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
And I'm not sure what, I mean, I will go back and look at that again.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure what the probative value of your client's declaration about this would be.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
And I promise to look at it, I will look at it in that spirit.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
And if you want to respond to that, we're a little over time.

[00:26:55] Speaker 02:
Judge Grant, are you okay?

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
Mr. Sturmberg, you go ahead.

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
We've taken all of your time, so give us a couple thoughts.

[00:27:02] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
First of all, thank you.

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
I appreciate that you will review it.

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
Judge Gann, I understand what you're telling me.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
I will have to admit, I don't practice in California, so it may be that I'm taking the judgment

[00:27:22] Speaker 03:
for its face value as opposed to the probative value behind it.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
I understand that.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
Yet I still think, and we're forgetting, this is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
And whether you're a pro se or the justice of the Supreme Court, you have to respond in a certain way.

[00:27:40] Speaker 03:
There was never such a response in this.

[00:27:43] Speaker 03:
I'm entitled to the facts as laid out, and I'm entitled to a judgment

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
based on those facts, since there was no response to it.

[00:27:53] Speaker 03:
And I will, with that, thank you very much.

[00:27:56] Speaker 01:
Let me just follow up, just on one comment on that.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
The judge is required to look at what you file and determine, number one, are you entitled to judgment as a matter of law?

[00:28:08] Speaker 01:
If your judgment said he's guilty of embezzlement, then I think you have the case made.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
That's a question of law, application of,

[00:28:18] Speaker 01:
issue of preclusion based upon prior litigation of all the elements of whatever it is you're trying to seek for non-destructibility.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
In the absence of that, he's supposed to determine, are there issues of fact that are suggested by the pleadings?

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
And if there are, he's to deny summary judgment under Rule 56, irrespective of whether there's an actual meeting of all of the facts that you allege, because he can't

[00:28:43] Speaker 01:
way facts.

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
He can't determine facts on a motion for summary judgment, right?

[00:28:47] Speaker 03:
I agree with that, but look at his decision.

[00:28:51] Speaker 03:
Look at the transcript of his decision.

[00:28:53] Speaker 03:
Oh, I promise you we've read it.

[00:28:55] Speaker 03:
Yeah, because I think he finds those issues unmet in the first instance.

[00:29:02] Speaker 03:
outlined in the first instance, unmet in the second instance, and we're entitled to a judgment based on that.

[00:29:08] Speaker 03:
Thank you, and I appreciate your time.

[00:29:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:11] Speaker 02:
I know this was a little hotter than you might have thought it might be, but thank you.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
It was okay.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
All right, thank you.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
Mr. Kim, you have four minutes, so go ahead.

[00:29:23] Speaker 04:
Yeah, you know, here's the, what was, you know, debating right now is a misrepresentation of Mr. Craig Stamberg or Judge Dorr as well as

[00:29:39] Speaker 04:
attorney Brian Song, and I analyzed all first his complaint year 2015, there are four categories he complained about it.

[00:29:51] Speaker 04:
One is the common count, second is fraud, third is the breach of contract, and fourth is a conversion.

[00:30:00] Speaker 04:
However, Judge Carol Overton dismissed all three only

[00:30:06] Speaker 04:
She put it in the conversion.

[00:30:08] Speaker 04:
That means there's no fraud.

[00:30:10] Speaker 04:
There's no investment at all.

[00:30:13] Speaker 04:
That's what the judgment is saying.

[00:30:15] Speaker 04:
However, Brian Song continually misrepresented his complaint as a judgment.

[00:30:23] Speaker 04:
So, you know, when I researching every single document in the docket in California courtroom and

[00:30:34] Speaker 04:
I find, you know, some of them document that I never seen or, you know, that they were ever making a presentation through the bankruptcy adversary.

[00:30:46] Speaker 04:
And the other one is the Mr. Craig Stenberg saying that I didn't have any action, but no, that's not true because I hired the company hired, you know, a Tony in

[00:31:05] Speaker 04:
and he put it in the general denial PLD 050, I find in the document in the docket.

[00:31:15] Speaker 04:
So actually he denied every complaint, but since we ran out of retained money and he just left representing me.

[00:31:29] Speaker 04:
And after that, I never get any,

[00:31:34] Speaker 04:
Other documentation at all, not even notice, not even what is called.

[00:31:43] Speaker 04:
Any any types of the document until he send me over a foreign judgment that I learned that you know he couldn't.

[00:31:56] Speaker 04:
Go back to the you know the case at all.

[00:31:59] Speaker 04:
That's what other other attorneys saying that.

[00:32:03] Speaker 04:
So, actually, you know, the, as I say, he put it in the general denial and PLD 050, and I find the document in the California docket.

[00:32:17] Speaker 04:
So, you know, he respond.

[00:32:21] Speaker 01:
Well, your comments, just to clarify, Mr. Kim, the last comments you made were all related to the California litigation, not to the dischargeability litigation, correct?

[00:32:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:32:32] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:32:32] Speaker 01:
I just wanted to clarify.

[00:32:33] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:32:35] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:32:35] Speaker 00:
You have about a minute left.

[00:32:36] Speaker 00:
Do you have anything else you want to add?

[00:32:40] Speaker 04:
At this time?

[00:32:40] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:32:41] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:32:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you both very much.

[00:32:43] Speaker 00:
This matter is submitted.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:32:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:32:48] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:32:48] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:32:51] Speaker 00:
I think that concludes the calendar, so we are adjourned.

[00:32:55] Speaker 01:
Thank you.