1 comment

Open Letter to Tom Roddy Normandin:

Over the years I have been a participant in owning my own business and being the proud husband of a professional wife, with two sons, both United States Marines. Tom, you may think that being a lawyer is fulfilling, however, your attempt to diminish my character in the forum of a deposition is not something you should be proud of.

If the day comes when I can flippantly use serious mental health terms and disorders toward someone in order to discredit them like you did, I will retire from society. When a typical day for me is setting up a camera on someone and using the disguise of reputable law to discredit them, I hope I know when to quit.

Tom, you have openly mocked me, called me names, however, when you attempt to bring shame to my family, this is where I take issue. I am proud to be a father of two Marines on active duty. Our family is held together with the love and respect we have for each other. We are not psychotic, nor do I beat my wife as you so easily tried to accuse me of.

Mental health disorders are a serious issue for some, and should not be brought up as a label even in a deposition. As a licensed attorney you are no more allowed to diagnose mental health disorders as you are to perform open heart surgery.

I expect your attacks, lies and fabrications of the truth when it comes to representing your clients. Personal attacks on me and my family reveal a quality about you and that is something you should not be proud of.

Remember that time in law school when you felt like you would make a difference in someone's life with the justice they deserve? Now fast forward to today, where you have anointed yourself protector of corporate criminals and use your talents to redefine the law for a paycheck. Money, is that what your driving force is? At what cost to the people you destroy?

My family and I will continue to fight for justice. We want to make a difference, provide for our families, help our fellow man, protect our country, and provide care to the underserved in our community.

We will stand up to those who try to pull others down to their level as well as the individuals who have aligned themselves, and represents in court, any Goliath willing to retain you.

Judge Benjamin Cardozo said that "the final cause of law is the welfare of society". Tom, you have failed as an attorney and your humanity is called into question.

We the people of the United States need open Internet for America.

Sent to the White House 12/11/2009 by Michael Grissom

Idea # 207Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and National Security, dealer services corporation

Had an Experience with Other Company?

Write a review

Comments

Terms of Service
Post Comment
Cancel
Anonymous
#117439

INTRODUCTION

Attorney Tom Normandin’s motives for Grissom’s deposition were disclosed immediately. Grissom was there to attend Alfred King’s deposition, as Grissom’s was not scheduled until the next day, December 8, 2010.

Tom Normandin had ordered the receptionist to not allow Grissom to take the elevator to the law offices of Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh & Dawe and to remain in building in the lobby. Attorney Normandin appears with DSC counsel John Wick and defendant Carlos Bosch. Attorney Rick Gaxiola was also present, but his client, Alfred King was missing. Normandin makes an announcement that we will wait ten more minutes for King to appear at his deposition.

Alfred King’s attorney Rick Gaxiola sat motionless, not even concerned enough to telephone his own client. However, there was no need to make the call as Normandin and Gaxiola both knew King would not show. This deception, contempious in any court, was to catch Grissom off-guard in order to perpetuate a fraud.

Normandin asks Grissom if he could be deposed in place of King. Grissom states “Tom, I am not prepared for this today. I am here to listen to Al King’s deposition.” Grissom explains again that he had not brought any documents and was only there to listen to Alfred King’s deposition.

Normandin said that it would be a tremendous cost savings if Grissom would agree to being deposed a day early. Normandin claims that we want to “hear about your...

Grissom was now in a room, unrepresented by counsel, facing three attorneys. He was shocked by one of the first questions from Normandin’s mouth “Have you brought documents that are responsive to these requests…?” Only minutes earlier, Normandin pledged not to ask about documents that were not due to be produced for another twenty-four hours.

Grissom’s thoughts went immediately to all the lies Tom Normandin and Benjamin Griffin had already told, misleading this Court that DSC was a long standing honest business, properly licensed to do business in California. The truth was DSC had only started business twelve months earlier, lied about having a lenders license, filed false and fraudulent documents to obtain a lenders license, all the while their attorneys obstructed justice at their pleasure.

In an utterly disgusting show of their criminal behavior, DSC’s attorney they went so far as to instruct Alfred King to give false testimony at his deposition. Normandin arrogantly tells this Court that Alfred King’s testimony of a partnership with Grissom is now the truth, as opposed to the truth that King stated in his Demurrer to Grissom’s Amended Complaint on November 28, 2007 “Once Plaintiff took possession of the vehicles from the wholesaler, he no longer “owned” the funds under the credit line. The funds were then held in trust by DSC for the benefit of the wholesaler”.

NO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS

The California Rules of Court require that “a separate statement filed by the examiner that lists each question or demand for production, the deponet’s response that allegedly constitutes a failure to answer or produce, and the factual and legal reason the examiner has for compelling it.

Grissom answered questions posed to him. Normandin claims that this deposition was to get information regarding DSC’s allegation that Grissom and King were partners. Grissom answered that they were never partners. Grissom also answered questions Normandin asked that appeared to be questions to harass, belittle, embarrass and intimidate:

That’s what I’ll say. He talks. He’s a salesman, ladies and gentlemen. He’s a used car salesman. Don’t believe a word he says. (Page 150 9-12).

Other than the unfair business practices, what else is not in your complaint that you still have a problem with DSC about?

Other than the lender’s license, the unfair business practices, of Mr. Griffin’s issues, what else do you have – what other problems do you have with DSC?

Did your attorney Johnwilly Osuji ever tell you that you had a claim against Dealer Services?

How much do you owe Mr. Johnwilly?

What about Jeffrey McMillan? He was another one of your attorneys, correct?

What about Mr. Chapman? Did he ever tell you you had a claim against Dealer Services? I know you’ve testified you told Mr. Chapman you had a claim, but did Mr. Chapman ever tell you that you had a claim against Dealer Services?

We’ll get into that in a little bit. When did you first suspect there was a problem with Dealer Services? What was the first event and when was the first event?

When you told the representatives of Dealer Services that you were the only one allowed to place cars on the line of credit, who was there?

You don’t pay your bills, you know that. You don’t pay your State Board of Equalization tax. You have a tax lien or you have a lien by your attorney. You don’t pay your bills.

You’re familiar with the Internet, right?

Have you ever been diagnosed as schizophrenic or multiple personalities?

You don’t direct any attention to Mr. Wick or anybody else other than myself. I’m, the one asking you the questions. You do know that you’re making no sense whatsoever and fabricating facts and you’re not going to be believed in any event? You do realize that, right?

You don’t know how inventory financing works, do you Mr. Grissom?

Mr. Grissom, going back to your conversation with Mr. Marquez where he told you that Mr. White had walked into Dealer Service’s office with titles to cars that apparently were on your line of credit and was given checks for those titles.

What’s RICO?

DSC counsel John Wick mocks Grissom repeatedly when there are breaks in the deposition. However, Wick’s badgering is caught on tape when Grissom refuses to go off the record: JOHN WICK: By the way, Mike, since we're off the record, those are exhibits that are going to the deposition so of course you're going to get them. Of course, you're a lawyer so you would know that.

No Mandated Meet and Confer

Normandin again lies to this Court about his attempts to have any meet and confers as required under CCP §2025.480(b). In fact, it was Plaintiff who was making the phone calls to Normandin’s office.

Normandin not only refused to discuss any issues, he also refused to allow Grissom the opportunity to view the video of his deposition or the opportunity to view the transcripts. Normandin’s orders were that I must purchase anything I wanted to see. I was told I needed to pay nearly $3,000 for the opportunity to obtain the documents and videos. I did not have the funds immediately available so I purchased the less expensive videos for $1,000 before I was able to complete the purchase of all transcripts.

In a remarkable coincidence, my Certified Copies were missing key information and exhibits. The Court Reporter was finally able to deliver me a corrected copy of Volume II on February 19, 2010. The video’s I purchased are misidentified, having the wrong dates on the labels.

EXHIBIT “B” ENTERED BY TOM NORMANDIN

Exhibit B below was presented to Alfred King examine.who asked him if this document sso to verify the when he came to his deposition two days late.

.

///

///

DATED: February 22, 2010 by: ________________________________________

Michael Grissom in Pro Per

///

///

Dated: February 10, 2010 By: ________________________________________

Michael Grissom in Pro Per

Show more

You May Also Like