- 10 -
Nonetheless, Izen proceeded to take Johnson’s ex parte
statement in the form of a deposition and sought to use it as
evidence in these cases. Petitioners’ trial memorandum, due
November 17, 2000, and mailed November 27, 2000, with a false
certificate of service representing that it was mailed on
November 22, 2000, indicated that Johnson would testify “through
deposition testimony” concerning the NJSJ Trust, discovery, ill
health, and an ongoing criminal investigation. (The dates are
mentioned because they are consistent with Izen’s chronic
delinquency in filings and misrepresentations in these cases and
in the other cases mentioned below.) In attempting to justify
his noticing of a deposition of his own client, a party, contrary
to the Rules of the Court, Izen claims that the pendency of a
sanctions order against him makes Johnson “not a party” to a
“proceeding within a proceeding”. The statement that he secured
from Johnson dealt solely with her health, her efforts to secure
certain bank checks in response to discovery requests, her
assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and her desire to
withdraw the petition and instruction to Izen not to pursue the
case. No testimony was attempted with respect to the merits of
the within cases.
At the time of trial, petitioners were not ready and did not
intend to proceed. Izen objected to the attorney’s fees claimed
by respondent to the extent that they included fees incurred in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011