/Ls090124a01PnxFL2001FL2009/fd090302ft1901d01a03.doc (Page 1 of 1) VizSys.comL2s Law - Home
Transcription_of: rd060901rt1903c01a04.txt This_filename_was: fd090302ft1901a01a04.txt
[This file is: fd090302ft1901b01a04.doc, which is a Leroy Strong update of the DRAFT (rd060901rt1903c01a04.txt) that Beverly W. Quinn gave Leroy to review and edit on September 1, 2006. Leroy's first and updated DRAFT, as of March 2, 2009, is as follows:]
DECLARATION OF LEROY L. STRONG
I, LEROY L. STRONG, declare that the following is of my personal knowledge, and that if called as a witness herein, I could and would testify competently as follows:
I offer the within declaration in lieu of personal testimony pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 2009 and 2015.5, California Rules of Court, Rule 1225, Reifler v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal. 3d 479, and Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 1051.
CHANGE OF VENUE
I respectfully request a change of venue out of the Los Angeles County area. In my criminal defense case, I have complaints against DAs at the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, against PDs at the L.A. Co. Public Defender's office, against Sam Le - Forensic Scientist for the L.A. Co. Sheriff's Dept., and against more than one Judge. In my current divorce case, I have complaints against Judge Richard Hughes and the children's Attorney, Deborah Manning, all representing Los Angeles County. Further, it needs to be stated for the record, that I have complaints filed at the Los Angeles County BAR Association against my present divorce attorney, Beverly W. Quinn for withholding my files and suppression of evidence, for not filing and meeting deadlines, among a few of my complaints. I justifiably accused her of conspiring with other attorneys and with the Los Angeles County Judge to suppress knowledge of all my files, especially the perjured/fraudulent files by the Petitioner, in order to minimize my compensation and relief sought from the Petitioner and the L.A. County Legal system. At a minimum, L.A. County pressured Beverly W. Quinn in favor of the Petitioner. Even with the BAR Association looking over Beverly Quinn's shoulder, She still gave me only a portion of pertinent files that is in the Pomona courthouse. If this wasn't bad enough, when I did in fact go to Pomona to examine and copy the files there, not only did I discover the documents that Ms. Quinn was fraudulently suppressing from me, but I also discovered that the Pomona file was, in itself, incomplete. Either, the clerk was suppressing documents at that time of my request, or documents were previously destroyed or "misfiled." In any event, I STILL HAVE ADDITIONAL AND ACTIONABLE DISCOVERY IN MY DIVORCE CASE! A similar problem exists at the West Covina Courthouse, I STILL HAVE ADDITIONAL AND ACTIONABLE DISCOVERY IN MY CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASE! A fact admitted to, under oath, by my previous Public Defender, no less! No wonder I request/demand a change of venue in both cases!
For more detailed descriptions, my divorce attorney is expected to reference and/or extract relevant complaints from my Citizen Complaint to United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA online at >
(Pages 01-49);
and online at >
(Pages 50-76);
and also from the Press Release: Heir To A Multimillion-Dollar Bahamian Estate Being Held A Political Prisoner (House Arrest) In The USA!!! online at >
and also from the complaints filed with the BAR.
REQUEST FOR EX PARTE ORDERS
I respectfully request this Court to issue an order shortening time for service and hearing of the orders requested hereinbelow on the grounds that I need immediate orders in place regarding child support, child support arrears and related issues so that I may obtain a United States passport and travel to the Bahamas to probate the estate of my father, Leroy Strachan, Sr. Without resolving my child support issues, I cannot apply for a passport, and I need a valid passport in order to travel to the Bahamas. There are several additional issues, which need to be addressed by the Court, and I have set them forth in sequential order.
MODIFICATION OF CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION
I respectfully request this Court to modify the existing orders for child custody and visitation in the above-entitled case. The Petitioner and I are the parents of two minor children, JUSTIN LE STRONG, DOB 3-6-96, and JESSICA MONIQUE STRONG, DOB 7-19-99. I never received notice of, and therefore did not participate in, the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on March 2, 2004, which led to the filing of a judgment re custody, visitation, child support and division of property. In that proceeding, a hearing was held without my knowledge and out of my presence, wherein a final judgment of dissolution was filed March 2, 2004, which awarded sole legal and physical custody of those children to the Petitioner and I was awarded monitored visits with the minor children on days and at times mutually agreed upon between the parties, and when services of the S.A.F.E. program are available.
I respectfully request that this order be modified to award me sole legal and physical custody of the children and the Petitioner awarded monitored visits with the minor children on days and at times mutually agreed upon between the parties, and when services of the S.A.F.E. program are available. I love my children and I have always been a good father to them. Over five years ago, I was fraudulently/illegally convicted of an offense involving domestic violence. There was an incident, which occurred on April 4, 2001 between the Petitioner and myself, but there was no felony or misdemeanor offense committed by me. Unbeknownst to me until after the sham court trial was over, that the Petitioner had filed a false police report with the West Covina PD. At the trial, I was both tricked and coerced to plea guilty on April 28, 2001 in order to be released on that day. The court trial was a sham with the Petitioner's brother, Sam Le (a managing forensic scientist for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department with an office in the same West Covina Courthouse where my sham court trial was held); manipulating the DA and the Judge to cover-up the fraudulent police report that the Petitioner made concerning the alleged domestic abuse. I am appealing that conviction, demanding a jury trial - which was denied me, and expected to have all of the criminal files against me expunged. Further, I am pressing charges against the Petitioner for illegally putting various obstacles between me and the children, for the false police report, for the false testimony at the court trial, for falsely reintroducing the illegal conviction into this divorce proceeding, for ruining my reputation and for destroying/eliminating my personal and business property. In addition to the request of 100% custody of the children, I expect the Petitioner will be remanded into custody and expected to serve many years in prison for her lies, frauds and perjuries whereby I will be granted child custody by default anyway.
The original conviction was used against me in these family law proceedings to deprive me of meaningful time with our children. I have not actually seen my children because the last time I attempted to see the children, I was arrested while going to see them and pick them up for the day. I did not pursue monitored visitation because of fear of further false allegations and arrests. Due to the passage of time and the fact I've had no further allegations of domestic violence, I would respectfully request this Court to revisit the issues of custody and visitation. Because over five years have passed since the guilty plea, as per Family Code Sections 3011 and 3044, the rebuttable presumption set forth in Section 3044(a) no longer applies. It is therefore in the best interest of the minor children that they have frequent and continuing contact with both parents, and I request this Court to implement an appropriate parenting plan.
I respectfully request this Court to set aside the child custody and visitation portions of the judgment herein.
CHILD SUPPORT AND ARREARS
At the earliest opportunity, I respectfully request this Court to modify the present orders as contained in the judgment of March 2, 2004, regarding child support and child support arrears on the grounds that I had no notice of the hearing and the resultant judgment as it pertains to child support was based on perjured testimony in Petitioner's income and expense declaration dated March 2, 2004.
I had no notice that a judgment would be entered against me on March 2, 2004, as I had no notice of the hearing and received no notice that a hearing would occur on that date. On March 2, 2004, I was not represented by counsel. In a document entitled Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial prepared by Petitioner's former attorney, Matthew R. Ferguson, and dated December 10, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto, labeled Exhibit 1, the proof of service states that Angela Davis, an employee of Mr. Ferguson, mailed the document to me as follows:
Leroy Strong, Jr.
In Pro Per
301 San Bernardino Road, #326
Upland, CA 91786
On December 10, 2003, I did not reside at 301 San Bernardino Road, #326. In fact, I have never at any time resided at 301 San Bernardino Road, #326, a fact that was well known to the Petitioner. My true and correct address on December 10, 2003, was 1301 San Bernardino Road, #326. Moreover, 301 San Bernardino Road, #326, is a non-existent address. San Bernardino Road in Upland starts at the 700 block and the numbers go up. A copy of the Thomas Guide of the section of Upland in which San Bernardino Road is located is attached hereto, labeled Exhibit 2. As the address did not exist, the United States Post Office would have, in all likelihood, returned the letter containing the notice to the sender, Matthew R. Ferguson, and he would have known in plenty of time prior to the March 2, 2004, hearing that I did not receive notice of the hearing.
The Mandatory Settlement Conference hearing set on March 2, 2004, apparently proceeded without me. The Petitioner submitted an income and expense declaration (Form FL-150) to the Court which was a computer-generated document, but Petitioner's estimate of my income was handwritten in, probably at a later time, and the amount, $4,300.00, bore no relation to reality. The Form-150 dated March 2, 2004, is clearly a perjured document. I had no prior notice of the hearing and no prior notice that she was estimating my income at $4,300.00.
In all previous income and expense declarations filed by Petitioner in the above-entitled matter, prior to March 2, 2004, she estimated my income on page 1, line 11, of Form FL-150, as "unknown."
I never had notice that the Petitioner was seeking a support order against me based on an estimated income of $4,300.00. Although Family Code Section 4001 gives a trial court power to make a child support order, adequate notice of the request for child support must nevertheless be given to the support obligor. (See In Re Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1160, 1171, 801 P. 2d 1041, 1047, 276 Cal. Rptr. 290, 295.)
Suddenly, on March 2, 2004, Petitioner declared under penalty of perjury that my estimated monthly income was $4,300.00 per month. That was a lie. My income has never been $4,300.00 per month. From 2002 on, I never even had a regular job.
Prior to March 2, 2004, I was never served with Notice of the Mandatory Settlement Conference and never served with Petitioner's settlement conference brief or most recent income and expense declaration.
I did not discover the perjury until August 29, 2006, when I was meeting with my new attorney, Beverly W. Quinn. She and I reviewed all documents filed in this case on March 2, 2004, and I discovered for the first time that Petitioner had falsely stated to the Court that my income was $4,300.00 per month and the Court thereafter made a child support order based on the perjury.
An action to set aside a judgment based on perjury which occurred in the most recent income and expense declaration required under Family Code Sections 2100-2113 must be brought within one year after the moving party discovers, or should have discovered, the perjury. (Family Code Section 2122(b).) I filed this motion immediately upon discovering the perjury.
There are many other defects in the judgment dated March 2, 2004:
1) The support order is not based on statewide uniform guidelines, as required by Family Code Section 4052.
2) The order does not take into account each parent's actual income and level of responsibility for the children, as required by Family Code Section 4053(c). On March 2, 2004, this Court ordered me to pay the sum of $1,571.00 for child support without making any findings as to the respective incomes and/or earning abilities of the parties.
For all the above reasons, I respectfully request this Court to set aside the support orders contained herein.
PROPERTY DIVISION
After the Petitioner gets out of prison, she can live in motels and/or with her relatives for several years, just as I have had to do for the past 6 years.
As for my office space, I need a location where I can operate my electronics business (now VizSys, LLC), just like the warehouse I was operating from prior to the accrual of my DAMAGES.
As for my personal and business property that the Petitioner destroyed or otherwise disposed of, she must be required to enter into a repayment schedule for my property loss of more than $50,000. Though I am able to do some work as a sub-contractor, there isn't a day that goes by where I'm not reminded of the tools, equipment, files, and etc. that the Petitioner maliciously disposed of in order to punish me for wanting to divorce her (I wanted to divorce Kelly more than she did me. She just filed first for more "political advantage"!!!)
As for my personal and business credit lines, I respectfully request court orders (from the appropriate court jurisdictions) restoring my credit lines to those ratings prior to the accrual of my DAMAGES (committed by Los Angeles County officials and the Petitioner) values. My credit line rating was approximately 730+.
[Beverly W. Quinn never even drafted property division in this Draft Declaration. She did accept $500.00 in cash (in 2006) over and above the $7,500.00 retainer "in order to have a real estate appraiser estimate the value of the family community property at 1821 Lanai Street, West Covina, CA 91792-1430. There was no appraisal conducted of the property and she gave no refund of the $500.00 fee.]