THE MATRIX & TERMINATOR MOVIE WAS STOLEN feat Sophia Stewart

MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

SOPHIA STEWART
P.O. BOX 31725
Las Vegas, NV 89173

In Propria Persona
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH
SOPHIA STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN and JOHN DOES I through X, individuals whose identities are not yet known,

MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR AN EXPEDITED JUDGMENT DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT, AND PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Case No. 2:07cv00552
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Brooke C. Wells


COMES NOW PLAINTIFF SOPHIA STEWART, brings forth this Motion and Request Reconsideration For An Expedited Judgment Due to Fraud Upon The Court, Perjury, Contempt, and Subverting the Due administration of Justice of the California and Utah Courts, as well as, the business of the Federal Branches of Government in Violation of Plaintiff’s Civil and Constitutional Rights in Contravention to 18 U.S.C. 241 to be heard on the ______ day of September, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter, as counsel maybe heard in the above-entitled courtroom, located at U.S. District Court, District of Utah 350 South Main Street, Room 150, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 against Co-conspirators Michael T. Stoller, Jonathan Lubell, Dean Webb, and Gary Brown. This movement is filed in conjunction with Stewart’s Objection To Court Order and Ruling dated September 9, 2009, Denying Plaintiff Judgment Against Defendants. Plaintiff hereby Request to pick “A Jury Trial” pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants have left the battlefield warranting Judgment. Plaintiff asserts the Defendants totally lost their case when the Court issued a Ruling on August 11, 2009, and there is no need for Stewart to hire an attorney after the smoke has cleared.
COGNIZABLE FACTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars for “Non-legitimate” legal services to “Gather” and “Enter” all Probative Evidence on the issue of “Legal Rights of Ownership” into Court Record which affirmed the “Fraudulent Assignment Copyrights” for the Terminator and Matrix Movies, screenplays, and no less than 600 pages of Probative Evidence, and the Defendants with “Wanton / Malice Intent” deliberately did not enter “Any Evidence” (“Emphasis Added”) that was “Within their Possession” into Court Record, thus constituting “Intrinsic Fraud” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
WANTON / WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE

Gary Brown:

“And I’m happy to also voice the fact, that “I haven’t seen” (“Emphasis Added”) the “Terminator” or “Matrix” movies. They are sitting on my “Shelf” (“Emphasis Added”) at home for me to “View.” (Exhs. 190, 191, Reporter’s Transcript Proceedings “Sept. 27, 2004”)

What is sitting on the “Shelf” (Emphasis Added”)?

Jonathan Lubell:

“I sent you “600 Pages of Documents” along with a listing describing the documents and, where “APPLICABLE” (“Emphasis Added”) the SIGNIFICANT.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Exh. 240, dated “May 3, 2005” (Emphasis Added”))
Jonathan Lubell:

“From what I understand, “No one Else” “sent documents to be produced” (“Emphasis Added”) in response to the defendants’ Rule 34 demands.” (Exh. 240)

MALICE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION OF DEPOSITIONS
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars to for non-legitimate legal services and “Blocked” Stewart from attending her depositions, while operating in consort to misrepresent the “True Nature” of judicial proceedings for the times and dates of said deposition, of which, resulted in Stewart being procedurally “Bared/Gagged,” from timely Entering Any Evidence, for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
GARY BROWN: “We are going to postpone it.” (Exh. 316)

W.B. Attorney David Boren:

“Therefore, both Lubell and Brown “Unilaterally” cancelled Ms. Stewart’s deposition one business day before it was scheduled to take place.” (Exhs. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, Declaration David H. Boren, dated March 28, 2005)

“On Monday, February 21, 2005, (President Day), Bruce Isaacs received a call from an associate of Ms. Stewart, who stated that he was calling on behalf of Ms. Stewart. The associate (Lawyer) left a VOICEMAIL MESSAGE (“Emphasis Added) stating that Ms. Stewart was “unsure whether her deposition was going forward” and she was “unsure whether she should BOARD AN AIRPLANE (“Emphasis Added”) and FLY to Los Angeles to attend her DEPOSITION.” “The associate asked that Bruce call him to let him know whether Ms. Stewart should board and Airplane to fly to Los Angeles for her Deposition. This phone message showed that Ms. Stewart was “Indeed Available” to attend her deposition on February 22, 2005.” “Therefore, we were “Mystified” why Jonathan and Gary “Unilaterally Cancelled” Ms. Stewart’s “Deposition” when she was “Clearly Available” to be “Deposed.” (Exhs. Declaration of David H. Boren, pg. 7, dated March 28, 2005) (Exhs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, Letter, March 18, 2005, pg. 3, lines 3-11); (Exh. 29, Gary Brown Dep. Cancellation, dated Feb. 18, 2005);

“Bruce and I called Stoller back at 4:30 PM to find out why we had not received the “Production of Documents” which were promised to be delivered that day, as well as, the other discovery responses.”
ABANDONMENT OF CASE
Right after Judge Morrow’s ruling of the dismissal of the RICO claims without prejudice with leave to amend, Dean Webb immediately abandoned the case after he sabotaged the Amended Complaint, and all Defendant Attorneys had “Knowledge of it, and operated in consort to conceal Webb abandoning the case, while simultaneously “Padding Their Bills,” thus constituting “Civil Conspiracy” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
JONATHAN LUBELL:
“Dean abandoned his representation of Sophia Stewart in the fall of 2004. He was responsible for Sophia’s RICO Claims and the First Amended Complaint which mainly focused on the seven RICO causes of Action.” (Exh. 240)
FRAUD / IMPEACHED TESTIMONY
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars and with “Malice Aforethought” did not perform “Any” legitimate legal services and through the use of the federal mails and federal interstate wires the defendants have fraudulently and wrongfully gained access to, acquired, feloniously absorbed, misappropriated, and / or tortuously and/or criminally obtained, by and through “False Pretenses” encroached upon Stewart’s Inalienable Rights of Ownership / Property; in order, to “Fraudulently Convert” her “Protected Literary” work, for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
Gary Brown:

“Further, she “Never Paid” me “Anything.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Docket 73, Gary Brown Opposition to Application For Default of Judgment and Request for Judicial Notice, pg. 2); (Exhs. 44.1, 44.2, Padded Bill Gary Brown)

“Our “Main Job” (“Emphasis Added”) now is “carefully assembling evidence” (“Emphasis Added”) and helping you prepare for a deposition.” (Exh. 225, Brown Memo, dated “October 30, 2004”)

“I don’t want us to become “Discredited” (“Emphasis Added”) by an “Unauthorized Move.” (Exh. 225)

FRAUD, FRAUD AND MORE FRAUD

“Thanks for sending money.” (“Emphasis Added”); (Exh. 225, Brown Memo, dated “October 30, 2004”) ; (Exhs. 217, 218, T-Shirt - “Slogan” (“Emphasis Added”); (U.S. TAX CODE TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART IX, Sec. 269A - Personal service corporations formed or availed of to avoid or evade income tax); (“Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Government Functions,” prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §371 falls under guideline 2C1.7., See id. App. a, § 2C1.7”); (U.S. TAX CODE - TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 68, Subchapter B, PART II, Sec. 6723, Added Pub. L. 99-514, title XV, Sec. 1501(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2733; amended Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Sec. 7711(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2390); (Exh. 44.10, 44.11, Padded Bills)
“PREPARATION OF FRAUDULENT ADMISSIONS”
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars and did not perform “Any Legitimate Legal” Services and through the use of the federal mail and federal interstate wires, all of the Defendants were “Aware” that Jonathan Lubell with Wanton Malice Intent “Prepared” a plethora of “Fraudulent Admissions” having “Forged” his Clients Signature” that the Co-conspirators entered into the California Judiciary without Stewart’s knowledge while concealing the same; in order, to Fraudulently Convert “Inalienable Rights Of Ownership,” for which Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
JONATHAN LUBELL:
“Furthermore, after I completed the responses to all “Eight” (“Emphasis Added”) Requests for Admissions and to two of the Special Interrogatories “Without” substantive assistance of “Anyone Else.” (“Emphasis Added”)
Defendants Michael Stoller, Dean Webb, Gary Brown, and Jonathan Lubell fraudulently billed Stewart no less than $50,000.00 dollars to for non-legitimate legal services and through the use of the federal mails and federal interstate wires Gary Brown interfered and encroached upon Stewart’s Civil and Constitutional Rights by “Scaring off” and/or “Threatening” Stewart’s attorney Ted McBride while providing “Material Instructions” (“Emphasis Added”) to McBride to “Fix” the current case now before the court by specifically cutting out the “Fraud Claims” stated in the Amended Civil Complaint to be solely replaced with a “Malpractice Claim,” because the Co-conspirators are “Aware” that a “Malpractice Claim” by itself cannot “Overturn” the initial U.S. District Court of California Case, thus the Plaintiff hereby states Claims for relief to be based pursuant to First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), Second Cause of Action (Breach of Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third Cause of Action (Malpractice), Fourth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy), Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud), Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duties), and Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion) .
GARY BROWN:
“the fundamental legal theory to be applied is about “legal malpractice” and not breach of contract, “FRAUD” (“Emphasis Added”) or “Conspiracy.” (Exh. 312)
“The applicable statute…for “Legal Malpractice” in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.6, which “Limits Actions”…(“Emphasis Added”)…. “Discovery of the Wrongful Conduct” (“Emphasis Added”) and “DAMAGE” (“Emphasis Added”) by the Plaintiff. (Exh. 312)
TERRORIST THREATS AGAINST LEGAL COUNSEL
18 U.S.C. 241 / RICO
Gary Brown:
“I also assure the Court that I have never “Intended” (“Emphasis Added”) to bother Mr. McBride about his representation of Ms. Stewart.” (Exh. 121)

SUBVERTING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS /ASCENTING IN CONSORT TO FRAUDULENT “EXTORTION LIENS” WITH CALCULATED FORETHOUGHT TO SCARE OFF ATTORNEYS

Jonathan Lubell:

“Affiant has not been involved in any activity which would have compromised or scared off attorneys.” (Docket 72, pg. 13); (Exhs. 21, 22, 63, 115, 116) (Uwe Geertz, Steven Fishman vs. Johnathan Lubell, Margaret M. Morrow, Judge, No. BC 122 468, dated 25 Dec 1995, Super. Crt., Cal., Cty., LA) - “Malicious Prosecution Complaint / Deprivation of Right to Counsel”)

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff graciously requests that the Court host a hearing to Authenticate the “Signatures of the Fraudulent Admissions Jonathan Lubell forged and concealed the same on behalf of his client Sophia Stewart? The Court has acknowledged that the Plaintiff has submitted overwhelming evidence. In light of the above, Rule 60 Fed.R.Civ.P. permits the Court to impose disciplinary measures from its judgments or orders for certain reasons and more than “Two Sentences of fraud in this case are Obvious including “Forgery.” (“Emphasis Added”) Among those reasons are (b) (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, “Forgery” or excusable neglect. And (b)(3) actual fraud (whether heretofore denominated Intrinsic or Extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. As such Plaintiff by this liberally construed Objection brings Requests Judgment and/or Motion Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60, because the Defendants have left the battlefield. (TCBY Sys. Inc. v. EGB. Assoc., Inc. 2 F.3d 288, 290-91 [8th Cir. 1993]. For the reasons stated above, plaintiff hereby prays for relief.
I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: 09/16/09 Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________













CERTICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this __16____ day of September 2009, I caused to be mailed via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing S. Stewart Objection + Memorandum to the following:

Jonathan Lubell
1325 6th Ave.
28th Floor
N.Y., New York 10019
212-763-8550
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Michael Stroller
Attorney at Law
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, California 90212

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Gary Brown
One Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 301
Pasadena, California 91105

__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
Kathleen Liuzzi
DUNN & DUNN, PC
505 East 200 South 2nd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
__X__Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
c/o Court Clerk
United States District Court, District of Utah
350 South Main Street, Room 150,
Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
(1 Original & 2 Copies)
__X__U.S. Mail
_____Facsimile
_____Electronic Transmission
_____Hand-delivery
_____Other
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Utah that the above is true and correct.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: 09/16/09



Sophia Stewart

DONE,DONE,DONE, SOPHIA'S CASE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH

SOPHIA STEWART,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN

LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN

and JOHN DOES I through X,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 2:07-cv-00552

ORDER & RULING

JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C.

WELLS

_____________________________________________________________________

On July 2, 2009, Defendant Michael Stoller filed his Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s

Pleadings 1 In response, Plaintiff Sophia Stewart filed an objection and response to the

motion.2 Upon review of the pending motion, the Court now rules as stated herein and

denies defendant’s Motion To Strike.

1Initially, it appears that Mr. Stoller’s motion was actually filed as part of

defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. See,

Docket Number 74. However, at the request of the court clerk’s office, Mr. Stoller filed

his motion to strike separate from his affidavit. Docket Number 76.

2Docket Number 78 and 79. Pleading entitled “Objection And Response To

Jonathan Lubell, Gary Brown, Dean Webb, and Michael Stoller’s Objection To Motions

And Memorandums For Default Of Judgment And Motion To Strike.” See also, Docket

Number 82 pleading entitled “Objection To Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion To

Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings; Points And Authorities.”

In his pending motion, Mr. Stoller addresses plaintiff’s failure to follow rules and

procedures, ultimately requesting that this Court “strike the sham pleadings filed by the

Plaintiff.”3 Defendant’s motion, however, is unclear as to which of plaintiff’s pleadings

he seeks to strike. Specifically, the Court is uncertain whether Mr. Stoller’s motion

seeks to strike all of plaintiff’s pleadings, those pleading’s most recently filed, or is in

fact a motion to dismiss the entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

If Mr. Stoller’s motion is characterized as a motion to dismiss, on August 28,

2008, Judge Waddoups issued a Memorandum Decision and Order 4 denying Mr.

Stoller’s previously filed motion to dismiss.5 Moreover, if plaintiff’s motion is in

reference to plaintiff’s recently filed pleadings, on June 14, 2009, this Court entered an

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, motion for default judgment and

motion to amend.6 Absent additional information from defendant as to the substance of

his motion, the courts’ prior rulings appear to moot the pending matter.

Thus, given both the amorphous nature of the motion and the previous rulings

issued by both Judge Waddoups and this court, the court hereby denies defendant’s

motion to dismiss.

3Docket Number 76. Defendant Stoller’s Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings;

Points And Authorities.

4Docket No. 35.

5Docket No. 20.

6Docket No. 75.

2

DATED this 11 day of August, 2009.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

Brooke C. Wells

United States Magistrate Judge

3--
GUILT-LESS NESS, JOY YES-NESS, FREEDOM!!!!!!