Complaint Review: Bruce Birkett and Jerome Edelman - Irvine California

Mr. Birkett was represented by a competnent and aggressive team of attorneys. His first attorney was Mr. Jerome Edelman. Mr. Edelman then handed off the case to a Mr. Jeffrey Virden, based in Santa Ana, CA. Mr. Virden is the attorney that represented Birkett when he ultimately lost the case. Subsequent to Judge Colaws ruling, Birkett appealed the case twice and lost again. The litigation went on for nearly 4 years at great expense to all the parties envolved. Bit by bit the truth of the situation finally become known in the courtoom. In the end it was very simple. It was proven, not by Hertneck, but by attorney Stuart Knight (Santa Ana)representing Sepulveda, Ventura and Burns that Birkett was in the wrong and that Birkett was the liar. As a buy product of the litigation between Birkett vs. Burns etal, Hertneck was exhonerated of any wrong doing realted to the entire matter. See the courts ruling in an earlier rebuttal by Hertneck. The fact is that Birkett, a well educated, articulate man (He was a financial Planner with IDS/American Express and later with H.Beck/Capitol Financial Group with an MBA from the University of Chicago)now about 65 years of age, fails to understand that the rulings against him and his unhappiness of having lost are a direct result of his own misdeeds. Birkett fails to accept the consequences of his wrongful actions. Throughout the trial, Judge Colaw was extremely fair to Birkett and sometimes during the litigation it appeared that the court actually favored Birkett's side. Birkett was afforded every opportunity to prove his case....and he and his attorneys', Edelman and Virden, failed to do so. Presently, Birkett takes occaissional pot-shots, from afar, at people he erroneously believes have wronged him. Birkett is a bitter fellow who has failed at every legitimate job I ever knew him to attempt in the 15 years I lived with him. Birkett is a bitter fellow because he and his sister, Leslie Jacobs (an attorney married to a retired Federal Judge, Jack Jacobs)dissipated most of their inheritance on attorney's fees because they both refused to split the estate according to their parent's wills.....the split was 50/50! Birkett is a bitter fellow because his younger lover by 15, who stood by him for 15 years years couldn't stand living with Birkett who had become a drunkard and through his financial desperation became inolved in increasingly dubious business transactions. Birkett got a new, younger boyfriend and they moved to South Africa. Than that boyfriend was diagnosed with AIDS and they moved to the Czech Repbulic where they kid came from. That situation will make anyone really unhappy! Birkett has always been the arthur of his fate and Birkett should be MAD AS HELL....AT HIMSELF! What Birkett has done to others came back on him. Birkett has a metaphysical side to him and he understands the rule of reciprocity.....but he iis so full of bitterness and hate he is blinded to the truth. Now Birkett has an opportunity to turn over a fresh page and do something honest, positive and productive with his life.....or will he wallow in his well deserved pain and just become a pathetic bitter old man with an abnoxious mouth on him? Birkett, we have all moved on. For me and I assume the others that you have damaged as well, you are merely a bad memory eventually to be completely forgotten. Birkett it is time for you to move on...it is time that you should....GET A LIFE! Nick Hertneck

Rip-OFF Response Perhaps my letter to the judge will best present what a LIAR and SICK, VINDICTIVE person HERTNECK is. Dear Judge Colaw: I have written in my mind any number of versions of this letter and will keep it extremely short. A 'prove-up hearing' on the second of the above cases is coming up on November 14, so perhaps that has occasioned the timing of this letter. You made your decision on the first case in the favor of Nicholas Hertneck. You stated that you believed him and not my view of what happened. All of that is over. I did not have the money for an appeal and my being in Europe made it impossible for me to timely comply with the appeal requirements so that is done. Therefore, there is clearly no ulterior legal motive for my sending you this letter with respect to my own case. Rather, it is just to let you know that on a personal level, you failed to see that it is Hertneck who was the liar. Whether called a sociopath or some other more specific psychological or social term, Hertneck lied and I did not. My cousin was a county judge in Ithaca, New York and my brother-in-law is a retired federal judge. Both I know placed great importance on their ability to sift the truth from a lie. My cousin found out years later that two policeman in his area had lied for a number of years and realized that a number of people he had convicted had been wrongly convicted. He agonized over remedying these legal errors. Perhaps you will feel the same way at some time with respect to my case and that will help you make more fair decisions going forward. Evidence to support my having told the truth could be simply seen by looking at my statement of lost property. The simplest such property would be the picture of the grandmother who raised me that I was not allowed to take from my house and that was never returned to me. She raised me. It had little or no monetary value. Why would I give it up? The list of such family property is extremely extensive. Hertneck stole this property and never gave me a chance to get it back. The jury also found him to be liar earlier on in the case. This should not be ignored. Your decision on my case has made me feel like a victim of Hurricane Katrina. My house was taken, in part through the legal act, which you yourself recognized in your decision. My personal property was stolen as part of the same action and your decision let all of the miscreant's off Scot-free. No insurance, no recovery for me a total wipe out. Therefore, I know I have no further recourse and am left here in Europe with my business, house and personal property wiped out by the 'hurricane' wrought by Burns, Ventura, Sepulveda and Hertneck. And, your decision denied me any financial recovery to get a restart to rebuild. So be it! I just hope that you might see that you misread the facts and that you might recognize that you let the real criminals off and punished the innocent. Therefore, in the future, you may be able to avoid making the same error in judgment when it comes to the persons telling the truth and those who are lying. Regards,

IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING, NEARLY 4 YEARS OF LITIGATION AND IT IS OVER. ON DECEMBER 2, 2004 JUDGE THIERRY COLAW AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, WEST JUSTICE CENTER, DEPT. 12W RULED ON THE LITIGATION THAT INVOLVED HERTNECK, BIRKETT AND OTHER PARTIES. MR. BIRKETT (PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED BY EDELMAN) WAS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY JEFFREY VIRDEN. MR. HERTNECK ACTED IN PRO-PER. OTHER PARIES, SEPULVEDA, VENTURA AND BURNS REPRESENTED BY STUART KNIGHT. MR. BIRKETT WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE LITIGATION. MR. BIRKETT LOST ON ALL THE POINTS OF THE LITIGATION. THE DECISION IS PUBLISHED AS FOLLOWS: a. WAS THERE A SEPERATE ORAL AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN HERTNECK AND BIRKETT? YES, THERE WAS. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION BETWEEN HERTNECK AND BIRKETT WHEREBY HERTNECK HAD OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF MOST OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY FURNITURE, PAINTINS AND BRIC-A-BRAC CONTENTS OF THE ENSENADA RESIDENCE ACCULULATED BY THE TWO MEN. IN EXCHANGE BIRKETT GOT MONEY CONTAINED IN INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS THAT THE TWO MEN OWNED AND ACCUMULATED WHILE THEY WERE DOMESTIC PARTNERS. IT ALSO IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT HTE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT BIRKETT WOULD RETAIN ANY LEGAL RIGHTS THE TWO MIGHT HAVE HAD IN THE ENSENADA WAY HOME. WHILE NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR FROM THE FACTS, IT APPEARS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE HOME WENT INTO FORECLOSURE BECAUSE BIRKETT HAD NOT MADE TIMELY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS AS AGREED HE WOULD DO. THE HOME WAS IN HERTNECK'S NAME ONLY, THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT ONCE FORECLOSURE OCCURRED, BIRKETT INTENDED TO BUY IT BACK FOR HIMSELF FROM THE BVS DEFENDANTS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE HOME AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE. HERTNECK TESTIFIED THAT THIS AGREEMENT TOOK PLACE IN PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN HIM AND BIRKETT ON OCTOBER 11, 2000. BIRKETT DENIES THAT THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT. MR BIRKETT, HOWEVER, HAS SERIOUS CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS THAT WERE APPARENT TO THE COURT BASED ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS. BIRKETT'S CONVENIENT MEMORY, HIS NUMEROUS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, AND HIS DEMEANOR ALL COMBINED TO MAKE HIM NOT CREDIBLE ON THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORAL AGREEMENT. HER CERTAINLY DID ALL BUT BLURT OUT CONFIRMATION OF THE ORAL AGREEMENT IN HIS DEPOSITION AT PAGE 643-644 [EXHIBIT "B"]. HIS LAWSUIT HERE IS AGAINST THE BVS DEFENDANTS, NOT HERTNECK WHO WAS BROUGHT IN BY BVS ON AN INDEMNITY CROSS-COMPLAINT. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT. IT IS PROBABLY THAT BIRKETT DID NOT SUE HERTNECK BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENTAND HIS DESIRETO KEEP THE INVESTMENT PROPERTY. WHEY DID THE TWO MEN MAKE THIS AGREEMENT AND KEEP SO MUCH FROM THEIR LAWYERS WHO EVIDENTLY WERE IN THE DARK ABOUT OR AT LEAST DID NOT KNOW ALL THE DETAILS? MR. BIRKETT, AND MR. HERTNECK APPARENTLY TO A LESSER EXTENT, WANTED TO KEEP SUCH INFORMATION SECRET FROM OTHER PERSONS FOR THEIR OWN REASONS WHICH INCLUDED TAX PURPOSES AND AVOIDANCE OF THE SCRUTINY OF ANY BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT MR. HERTNECK WAS MORE CREDIBLE ON THE ISSUE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT THAN MR. BIRKETT. THE AGREEMENT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN C.C. #1690. THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT. THERE WAS A SEPERATE ORAL AGREEMENT SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES. THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HERTNECK AND BIRKETT PROVIDED THAT HERTNECK WOULD GIVE UP THE INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS AND ANY RIGHTS TO HIS ENSENADA HOUSE. IN EXCHANGE BIRKETT WOULD GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ENSENADA HOUSE AFTER THE EVICTION OF APPROXIMATELY 18 SEPTEMBER 2000. HERTNECK MOVED HIS OWN EFFECTS TO THE EAST COAST, NOT THOSE OF BIRKETT. BIRKETT REMOVED ITEMS OF CLOTHING, OFFICE EQUIPMENT, FILES AND SOME OTHER PERSONAL AND BUSINESS EFFECTS FROM THE HOUSE AT ABOUT THE TIME OF THE EVICTION OR SHORTLY THERAFTER, BUT BEFORE THE REMOVAL BY HERTNECK. THIS WAS PERMITTED BY THE BVS DEFENDANTS WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY THAT HERTNECK TOOK TO THE EAST COAST WAS ALL HIS PROPERTY BY RIGHT OF THE AGREEMENT. B. WAS THERE CONVERSION BY THE BVS DEFENDANTS OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF BIRKETT? NO. BIRKETT FAILS TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THIS ISSUE. THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE ANY CONVERSION OF ANY OF BIRKETT'S PROPERTY BY ANYONE. THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT HERTNECK MAY HAVE CONVERTED SOME OF THE DISPUTED PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE PERIOD OF REMOVAL FROM THE HOUSE BY THE MOVERS TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT ON OCTOBER 11, 2000. HERTNECK, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SUED BY BIRKETT, AND ANY NOMINAL DAMAGES BIRKETT WOULD HAVE HAD AGAINST HERTNECK WAS RESOLVED WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. THE BVS DEFENDANTS WERE TEMPORARY CUSTODIANS OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT ANY ACTIONS BY THEM AMOUNTED TO A CONVERSION. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO CONVERT THEM TO THEIR OWN USE. C. WAS THERE A WRONGFUL EVICTION OF BIRKETT FROM THE ENSENDA PROPERTY? NO. AS FOUND BY FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY JUDGE RYAN, BIRKETT HAD NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. HE HAD NOT STANDING TO ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC BANKRUPTCY STAY. BIRKETT WAS NOT IN BANKRUPTCY. ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL NAMED KEAFFABER WAS IN BANKRUPTCY. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOUND THAT A BANKTUPTCY STAY COULD NOT BE USED BY A NON-DEBTOR SUCH AS BIRKETT. THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S STAY IN ANY EVENT. AS A MATTER OF LAW BIRKETT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE. FURTHER, BIRKETT FAILS TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ISSUE OF WRONGFUL EVICTION. MOREOVER, THE EVICTION WAS DONE BY TEH ENSENADA TRUST, NOT BY BURNS, VENTURA OR SEPULVEDA INDIVIDUALLY. THE TRUST WAS NOT SUED IN THIS ACTION. FOR ALL THESE REASON BIRKETT FAILS TO PREVAIL ON THE WRONGFUL EVICTION CUASE OF ACTION. DISPOSITION A. BIRKETT TAKS NOTHING BY WAS OF HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST BVS DEFENDANTS ON ANY CAUSE OF ACTION. THE BVS DEFENDANTS ARE THE PREVAILING PARTIES ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT OF BIRKETT AND ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT WHICH THEY SHALL PREPARE. B. HERTNECK IS THE PREVAILING PARTY ON HIS CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A SEPERATE ORAL AGREEMENT WHICH WAS EXECUTED AND FOR WHICH THERE WAS CONSIDERATION. THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT HE HAS IN HIS POSSESSION FROM THE ENSENADA PROPERTY IS HIS PROPERTY ALONE AS AGAINST ANY PARTY HERETO. THE PERSONAL PROPERTY HE HAS SOLD OR OF WHICH HE HAS OTHERWISE DISPOSED WAS HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF SALE OF OTHER DISPOSITION. HERTNECK TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE JUDGEMENT. CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

Mr. Birkett's comments about Hertneck are untrue. Mr. Birkett signed a release for the items that Mr. Hertneck has obtained from his home. Mr. Hertneck signed a release so that Mr. Birkett could keep previously joint investments. Mr. Hertneck and Mr. Birkett mutually dismissed their lawsuite. No one was found guilty of anything. Mr. Birkett subsequently initiated a opportunistic lawsuite against a third party for the property that Mr. Birkett had already released to Mr. Hertneck. This third party is L.H. Burns, Danny Ventura and Steve Sepulveda. Mr. Birkett claims that these third parties wrongly released property to Mr. Hertneck. This litigation has not been settled and there are no judgements. Mr. Birkett's claim that Mr. Hertneck has been found guilty of anything is untrue. No such ruling has been recorded and the case is still open. The case is still open because Mr. Birkett claims that he is unable to attend the trial that he demanded due to his own business activities. For a second time the trial has been postponed. Mr. Hertneck is not represented by an attorney in this current litigation initiated by Birkett. Mr. Hertneck is acting in Proper. Mr. Birkett has not made any claim directly against Hertneck since dismissing his original counterclaim against Hertneck. Mr. Birkett has known that Mr. Hertneck had possession of the items Birkett now claims are stolen for several years and Birkett has taken no direct action against Hertneck. Birkett's claims against Hertneck are unfounded. Since writing the last complaint against Birkett and his attorney Jerome Edelman, it has come to the attention of Hertneck and others that Birkett has engaged in various other litigations of no merit, just as he is now against L.H. Burns, Ventura and Sepulveda in which Hertneck has been drug into by L.H. Burns, et al. Birkett initiated litigations against the estates of two of his friends claiming that he should be receiving more from these estates than he recieved. These were the Estate of Philip May and the Estate of William Gamble. Both estates were represented by an attorney in Laguna Niguel, CA by the name of Dennis Kastan. Mr. Kastan was successful at defending the estates against the attack by Birkett. Upon the death of his parents, HElen and Harold BIrkett who lived in Oceanside, California, Mr. Birkett made a claim against his sister claiming that he should get more than the half of the estate left to him. He and his sister, Ms Leslie Jacobs of Sea Cliff, NY and an attorney herself, dissipated the estate of their parents with attorney;s fees because Birkett was so greedy. THis matter did not go to trial and was finally settled. Mr. John Woodbury, the owner of a cabinet shop in Costa MEsa, CA has stated that Birkett misled him in forming corporations in order to lessen his taxes....according to Mr. Woodbury's accountant, Birkett and Edelman have left Woodbury with tax problems. Mrs. Teela Cornell of Laguna Beach, Ca a widow, a financial client of Birkett, found that Birkett was using her savings to make hardmoney loans and was obtaining undisclosed favors and fees back from those to which Birkett was making the loans. Another widow, in Laguna Niguel, CA, Mrs. Ladd Kirsten had the same experience as Teela Cornell from Birkett. Mr. Birkett has had two automobiles repossessed from him, a new cadillac that he leased and a couple of years later a new mercedes benz that he leased. Mr. Birkett filed bankruptcy for his residence at 24241 Porto Verde, Laguna Niguel CA when he failed to make payments, lied to his partner (me) about making the payments and was forced into selling the house. Mr. Birkett lied that he was makign the payments directly to the lender rather than pay rent to the owner (Mr. Hertneck) on the property located at 1220 Ensendada Ave. Laguna Beach, CA. Mr. Birkett refused to move out of the property for a couple of years, filing a string of fraudulent bankruptcies in the name of Mr. Hertneck and that of the Domus Trust and Domus Corp, which he formed for the purpose of filing bankrupcty to forestall him from being evicted from the property he was not making payments to stay in. Evidence has been obtained and presented in court showing that Mr. Birkett has committed bank fraud in obtaining severak loans. Mr. Birkett has called Mr. Hertneck a theif and a liar......Mr. Birkett should be looking at his own actions which have put him into what must be a uncomfortable situation. Mr. Birkett now claims to be living in the Republic of South Africa and conducting a bamboo export business with a woman by the name of Martha Draber, she resides in Capetown or near by. Parts of the business plan for this enterprise were submitted as evidence to the court. These portions of the business plan were exact copies of a business plan Mr. BIrkett and Mr. Hertneck made for a client of Mr. Birkett, Mr. Ed Scarlett. It appears that Mr. Birkett took Mr. Scarletts idea (and business plan) and is using it in South Africa.....Mr. Scarlett does not appear to be associated with the enterprise at all...which was his brain-child. Strangely, it came to your attention just yesterday that Mr. Birkett is making enquiries about the status of some furniture he is having upholstered in Costa Mesa, CA. Why if Mr. Birkett is living in South AFrica, now for more than a year, is he having upholstered furniture made in Costa Mesa? One wonders if the man in really in South Africa...where he claims he is and why he can't come to the USA to proceed with the litigations that he started. Well, I hope that Mr. BIrkett, sees this rebuttal and writes one of his own.

Hertneck is lying in the above.

Hertneck tried to extort money and property from Birkett. He admitted in Court (June 2002) that he hired his contingency attorney, Paul Moses, and never paid him. Even though Moses helped him to illegally obtain my property.

There is an ongoing lawsuit initiated by me related to the above.

The first part of the trial exonerated Hertneck's attorney, Moses, but not Hertneck. The JURY found Hertneck guilty.

Beware of doing any business with Hertneck. He is malicious, sociopathic and a liar.