Albert L. Peia, ProSe
P.O. Box 370434
obstruct justice andcriminal investigations by the instant
defendants, from theuse of the U.S. mails to perpetrate a
fraud with thedirect consequence of damage to plaintiff’s
property andbusiness. The state law claims are included in
the within action inlight of the fact that said claims are
so related to theRICO claims, deriving from the same
common nucleus ofoperative fact so as to constitute the
same case orcontroversy and hence, the exercise of supple-
mental jurisdictionby the instant court thereof. The
subject clear,incontrovertible crime(s) of perjury/fraud
by defendantDeArenosa also mandate the criminal referral
of same forthwith.Plaintiff’s Statement of Uncontroverted
Facts andConclusions of Law is immediately appended
terminating withouttrial actions in which “there is no
genuine issue ofmaterial fact and … the moving party is
entitled to judgmentas a matter of law.” F.R.Civ.R 56(c).
Moreover, a motionfor summary judgment “pierces” the
pleadings and putsthe opponent to the test of affirmative-
ly coming forwardwith sufficient evidence for its claims
or defenses tocreate a genuine issue for trial.
Celotex_Corp. v.Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548,
2554(1986); see alsoSchwarzer, Hirsh, & Barrans, The
Analysis andDecision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139FRD
441(1992). Thenonmovant must produce “significantly
probative”evidence to defeat the summary judgment motion.
It is not enough forthe nonmovant to rely on mere allega-
tions or denials ofthe movant’s pleading, United States v.
Shumway, 199F3rd 1093, 1104(9th Cir.1999), or to present
unsworn documents orpapers containing nothing more that
thenonmovant’s speculations. Slowiak v. Land O’Lakes,
Inc., 987 F.2nd1293,1295-1297(7th Cir.1993)(ie., unexplained
contradictoryaffidavits, etc.). Indeed, summary judgment
reinforces the goodfaith pleading requirements of Rule 11
(and sanctions forviolations of same) because meritless
claims and defensescan be easily pierced. F.R.Civ.P.
interposed (badfaith) general denials (to the averments of
plaintiff’ssworn verified complaint) which do not meet the
requisite burden ofshowing a genuine issue of material
fact. Gasaway v.Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,26 F3d
957,960(9thCir.1994); United States v. Shumway, supra;
F.R.Civ.P. 56(e).Indeed, sanctions (in addition to
judgment) pursuantto F.R.Civ.P. 56(g) are appropriate as
to defendantDeArenosa owing to his prior inconsistent,
perjuriousdeclaration. See generally, Acrotube, Inc. v.
J.K. Fin’lGroup, Inc., 653 F.Supp. 470(ND GA 1987); Van T.
Junkins &Assoc. v. United States Indus., Inc., 736 F2d 656
(11thCir.1984). Moreover, policy considerations (against
perjury in the legalprocess) mandate the entry of summary
judgment herein,particularly where busy courts and movants
are (through saidbad faith denials predicated on perjury)
drawn into thelengthy process of litigation thereby.
the paramountjudicial interests of truth and justice,
summary judgmentshould enter in favor of plaintiff, and a
criminal referral ofdefendant’s crime should issue