Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
P.O. Box 862156
Los Angeles, CA 90086
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHWEST DISTRICT, VAN NUYS, CA
Albert L. Peia,Plaintiff ) Case No. 02E07192
Bernal P. Ojeda, et als) Plaintiff’s
and John Does 1 – 10, ) Declaration and Exhibits In
Defendants ) Opposition to Defendant ojeda’s
------------------------- Motion to Set Aside Default and
Order Striking Answer;
I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify and declare under
penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am the pro se plaintiff in the present matter and if
called upon to testify I could and would competently
testify (truthfully) to the following facts of my own
2. It should be noted at the outset that in accordance
with the order of the Honorable GREGORY KEOSIAN, JUDGE,
Exhibit “A”, plaintiff proceeded with the default judgment
which by way of scheduled prove-up hearing was entered in
plaintiff’s favor on December , 2004, Exhibit “B”.
3. As set forth hereinafter, the facts underpinning the
entry of said judgment evince a brazened disregard of the
both the law, civil and criminal, as well as canons of
ethics governing attorneys as purported officers of the
court on the part of defendant ojeda, and a lack of good
faith, militating against defendant ojeda’s requested
4. It appears from the letter of dearenosa dated 2-21-04,
Exhibit “C”, that ojeda had discussed the question of
service in the federal case (mailed with acknowledgement
of service) with dearenosa and was aware of perjuriously
false nature of dearenosa’s declaration, Exhibit “D”.
5. Moreover, said perjuriously false declaration was
(probably prepared,) witnessed at and mailed in an
envelope from the office defendant ojeda which they
apparently shared, Exhibit “E”.
6. The outrageous and culpable wrongful conduct has
previously been sanctioned by this court. Indeed, this
“good liar”/”bad liar” scenario foisted off upon this
court once again defies credulity and represents another
sham/fraud upon this court.
7. CCP §473 under which defendant ojeda yet again moves
this court does not dispense with the requirement of
diligence. Indeed, reasonable diligence might be said to
have warranted defendant ojeda to seek new counsel or pro-
ceed in pro per after the first similar purported
defalcation of duty, and as well in light of other
inappropriate behavior previously sanctioned by this
8. At the hearing on the scheduled trial date,9-8-04,
before Judge Keosian, defendant ojeda was specifically
asked by the Court if he wanted to proceed in pro per,
which he declined. It should be noted that defendant ojeda
had no difficulty reaching the office of dearenosa.
9. Defendant ojeda was aware of the OSC returnable on 10-
13-04 but neither he nor dearenosa appeared nor did ojeda
attempt to secure counsel nor proceed in pro per. Again,
reasonable diligence would reasonably have required at
least defendant ojeda picking up a phone, especially under
all of the circumstances, before wasting the court’s
resources and time.
10. No response was filed by either dearenosa or ojeda. As
a purported “attorney/officer of the court”, defendant
ojeda was well aware of the potential for sanctions,
particularly given the history of this case. This case
itself involves outrageous, wrongfully culpable conduct
evidencing ojeda’s unfitness to practice law. Both ojeda
and dearenosa should be disbarred.
11. This is the third sanction upon dearenosa for brazenly
and flagrantly disregarding orders of court in this case,
as well as sanctions in a separate matter involving both
defendant ojeda and dearenosa.
12. The date set forth in the subpoena referenced in
dearenosa’s declaration is September 15, 2004, a week
after the scheduled trial date. DeArenosa is a known
perjurer to this court and apparently continues to act as
a “shill” for defendant ojeda.
13. Dearenosa is a known perjurer to this Court.
14. Defendant ojeda, apparently sharing an office with
dearenosa aided and abetted and conspired to perpetrate
the perjury of dearenosa and fraud upon this court,
Exhibit “E“, by way of the perjuriously false declaration
which was (probably prepared,) witnessed at and mailed in
an envelope from the office defendant ojeda.
15. Defendant ojeda is clearly within the ambit of aiding
and abetting culpability inasmuch as (1) he was associated
with the wrongful conduct (the perjury of which he was
aware, sending the perjurious declaration from his office
and having consulted with defendant dearenosa regarding
plaintiff’s declaration in support of motion to enter
default judgment) (2) participated in it with intent to
bring it about and (3) sought by his actions to make it
succeed, which efforts continue to this day and are a sham
and fraud upon the court causing plaintiff damage thereby.
For all of the foregoing reasons it is respectfully
Defendant ojeda’s Motion
to Set Aside Default and
Order Striking Answer be DENIED;
AND AIDING AND ABETTING SAID PERJURY BE GRANTED.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the
laws of the state of California and the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: December , 2004
Respectfully Submitted by and
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Declaration and Exhibits In Opposition to Defendant ojeda’s Motion to Set Aside Default ;
bernal p. ojeda
13655 Victory Blvd., Suite 204
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Dated: 12- -04 Signed:_____________________________
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se