Are you ready to go down the rabbit hole? To visit a surreal world, where black is white and white is carrots?
A friend, Metacognician in Shanghai, describes the situation as follows: “Life is more absurd than movies. I've gone down the rabbit hole too, when it just becomes more and more strange and you wonder how that all is supposed to make sense.” I asked him if I should just embrace it. He answered, “Why should you ... change the universe?”
It started with a psychotic named Jim Kiraly who resides, we think, at 32 La Gaviota, Pismo Beach, California.
Jim Kiraly is a respected citizen. A churchgoer. A Vice President of Transamerica Corporation. And a violent abuser who tried to use an emergency anti-violence measure, one intended to protect battered women, to stop his victim in a wheelchair from writing a book.
Concise enough? :)
For attorneys: Jim Kiraly filed for CLETS against his son and victim, who lived 200 miles away, did not own a car, and was in a wheelchair. His son and victim was not asked to end communications. Jim had no (zero) specific and relevant allegations that were not perjury. But he turned down repeated offers of no-contact and a signed stipulation that gave him everything but CLETS. He insisted on CLETS if his victim ever once “discussed” him with third parties.
In the end, Jim Kiraly signed an agreement far weaker than the ones he'd been offered.
A review of Court paperwork and other materials will tend to confirm that Jim and other parties, including attorneys on all sides, committed multiple felonies, crimes, and even faux pas. :P
The word “abuser” is stated here publicly and without equivocation. A formal offer is hereby made to reaffirm the word in writing and under oath. Attorneys will understand the significance of the point. In short, there is little terror of a threatened defamation suit on this side. Actually, we feel that such a suit will fit nicely up Jim Kiraly's abuser ass.
Jim has one son, Ken Kiraly, who invented the Amazon Kindle and is one of the leads at Amazon's secret Lab126. Another son, Tom Kiraly is one of the leads, a Vice President-CFO type, at medical insurance firms, including one of the largest, Humana Corporation.
These people and some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley legal circles have committed or are involved in multiple crimes.
For the next decade or two, we're going to explore the crimes that these people committed, the motivations and the denial involved, the background and histories that led each person to make the choices that they did, and ways to build upon what happened and move towards positive societal goals.
There's plenty to go over. These people committed or were involved in: Spousal abuse, child abuse, DDOS (a highly prosecutable violation of CFAA), extortion, perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury (a possible felony), false police reports, conspiracy to file false police reports (a possible felony), unlawful threats, barratry, defamation, malpractice, civil harassment, criminal harassment, abuse of process, and violations of SCCBA Professional Standards.
The point was to force Jim's oldest son and victim, me, to sign a gag order. I was in a wheelchair. I'd never made a single inappropriate threat against my abuser. I wasn't even asked to not to call anybody. But Jim threatened to put me in a violence database unless I agreed never to write about him.
I won the right to write, but I lost my home of 25 years, most of my possessions, my chances for retirement, everything. Everything but a realization.
I can make a difference. I can conduct research for legitimate and reasonable purposes, document what happened, and analyze the choices of the people involved:
- Grace Kiraly, abuse victim and Christ Follower.
- Gail Cheda, slightly demented Realtor, spittle flying.
- Tom Stutzman of Thomas Chase Stutzman, a Family Law attorney whose hobbies include martial arts and alleged sexual harassment
- John Perrott of Thomas Chase Stutzman, a personable albeit lazy Family Law attorney who has a slight tendency towards fraud and malpractice
- Chris Burdick, head of the Santa Clara County Bar Association (SCCBA). Chris, you broke a written promise to speak with me because, you said, we had “Prior...” You didn't finish the sentence. Were you worried that I might take false statements to the State Bar? What's the deal with you and Hoge Fenton, anyway? What will we find if we dig?
- Tracie Zerr of Thomas Chase Stutzman, a woman of boundless intelligence and sensitivity.
Maggie told me that she didn't know what she could say to me about what happened. However, we have decades to work it out. It will be productive. I'd like to direct the attention of attorneys and other parties to the:
Questions or comments are welcome. For technical notes and disclaimers, click here.
The Kiralys and their associates have tried to take down the sites before. Actually, they've committed multiple felonies in the process. It's no big deal, but to make a point, we're giving everything away for the low, low, price of... well, free.
Here's a link to a ZIP file that contains a copy of the main Christ Follower site. It may be out of date but feel free to download the ZIP file and pass it around. The file is about 150MB in size.
The point? “The story is already out there, idiots. Keep it up and I'll demonstrate how something known as decentralized distribution works.”^ TOP
Wednesday 2012-12-05 — Possible Misrepresentation by Bonetto
This is intended as a confidential settlement communication and is not to be republished by any individual in any manner. This is also a protected settlement offer per Evidence Code Section 1152.
Michael included a revised settlement offer with his letter. The text quoted above was apparently intended to suggest that I'd be breaking the law if I posted the new document publicly. However, it appears that Michael may have misrepresented the role that Evidence Code Section 1152 plays in this type of situation.
Here's an excerpt from an article on the subject. The article ran in the Daily Journal and the use of an excerpt here is believed to fall under Fair Use guidelines.
If I understand the following text correctly, I may be able to treat threats that Michael makes in connection with Sections 1152 and 1154, should he choose to do so, as barratry. Not sure about this yet. Remarks by observers are welcome.
Lawyers routinely send and receive settlement communications marked “Privileged and Confidential Pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1152 and 1154.” They take solace in the quoted language, certain that what lawyers say in settlement discussions cannot be discovered later on in the litigation or in another case.
But in fact the two sections cited do not make anything privileged or confidential. They simply make settlement communications inadmissible to prove or dispute liability for the claim being negotiated. Settlement communications are often discoverable and admitted into evidence for purposes other than to buttress or attack liability for a given claim.
California Evidence Code section 1152(a) provides in general that evidence of settlement discussions cannot be admitted to prove liability. Its lesser-known counterpart, Evidence Code section 1154, focuses on offers by plaintiffs, and it states that an offer to discount a claim is inadmissible to prove the invalidity of the claim or any part of it.
Each of these sections covers more than the actual settlement offer, protecting “any conduct or statements made in negotiation” of a settlement. Both sections are designed to encourage open and forthright settlement discussions free of the fear that something said during negotiations might later be used to show the weakness of a party's case, or worse — be construed as an admission of liability.
In addition, a statement made in a settlement discussion cannot be admitted into evidence on the ground that it is contrary to testimony the witness will offer at trial.
These code sections have limits, however. Section 1152 “has no application where the evidence is not tendered as an admission of weakness by the party who settled or offered to settle, but for some other purpose.”
And as another court flatly proclaimed, “[c]ommunications made in the course of settlement discussions are not 'privileged.' ”