No. 04-0078
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF
UDO
BIRNBAUM,
Petitioner
vs.
THE
LAW OFFICES OF G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C., ET AL.,
Respondents
On appeal from the
------------------------------
PETITION FOR
REVIEW
(Appendix bound separately)
------------------------------
Question presented:
Whether
the precedent of a
"[a] Congressional objective [in enacting civil RICO
with treble damages] of encouraging civil litigation not merely to compensate
victims but also to turn them into private
attorneys general, supplementing Government efforts by undertaking litigation in the public good." Rotella
v. Wood et al., 528
"clearly established that filing
a lawsuit was constitutionally protected conduct." Rutan
v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497
Udo Birnbaum, Pro Se
540 VZ 2916
(903) 479-3929
IDENTITY OF
PARTIES AND COUNSEL
PETITIONER (Defendant,
Counter-claimant, Third party plaintiff in Trial Court):
Udo Birnbaum, Pro
Se
540 VZ 2916
(903) 479-3929
(903) 479-3929 fax
RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff, etc. in the
trial court as indicated):
(Same attorney in the trial court and
the appeals court)
The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C.[1] Frank C. Fleming
Plaintiff, Counter-defendant PMB 305,
(214)
373-1234
(214)
373-3232 (fax)
G. David Westfall[2]
Frank
C. Fleming
Third party defendant
Stefani Podvin[3] Frank
C. Fleming
Third party defendant
Christina Westfall[4] Frank
C. Fleming
Third party defendant
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Identity
of Parties and Counsel
……………………………………………… ii
Table
of Contents …………………………………….……………………… iii
Index
of Authorities …………………………….…………………………… iv
Statement
of the Case …………………………………….…………………. v
Statement
of Jurisdiction …………………………………………………….. v
Issues
Presented ……………………………………………………………. vi
Points
of Error …………………………………………………………….. vii
Statement
of Facts …………………………………………………….….. 1
Misstatements
of facts by the Court of Appeals
…………………… 2
Summary
of the Argument ………………………………………………... 8
Argument ………………………………………………………………….. 9
The $59,280.66 Judgment is unlawful …………………………….. 9
Defendant Birnbaum had a Right to a
court-appointed auditor
……. 10
The "RICO Relief" summary
judgment is also unlawful
………….. 11
The $62,255.00 "Sanction"
judgment is also unlawful
……………. 12
"Fraud, fraud, and more fraud" ………………………….…………. 13
Due process demands a new trial ………………………..…………. 14
Conclusion ………………………………………………………….. 14
Prayer ……………………………………………………….……………….. 15
Certificate
of Service …………………………………………….………….. 16
Basis
to this whole suit (for real handy reference)
"Attorney retainer
agreement" ………………………...……… Exhibit A
Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition ……………………. Exhibit B
Index
(only) to separate Appendix …………………………………….
Exhibit C
INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES
Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Harco
Graphics, Inc.
D.C.N.Y.1983, 558 F.Supp.83 ……………………………..…. 11, 12
Jones v Andrews,
873 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 1994) ……………… 7 fn12
McCain, 856 S.W.2d at 757 …………………………………………. 7 fn13
Milligan v. R&S
Mechanical,
No. 05-87-01341- CV,
Court of Appeals, Fifthe District of
Rotella v. Wood et al., 528
Rutan v. Republican Party of
497
United Mine Workers v.
Bagwell,
512
RCP Rule 13
…………………………………………….. 3 fn8, 7
fn13
RCP Rule 172. Audit ………………………………………….. 11 fn23
RCP Rule 215-2b(7) ……………………………………………... 3 fn8
RCP Rule 301……………………………………………………... 7 fn14
18 U.S.C. §
1964(c) ("civil RICO")
…………….…. 1,
5 fn11, 9, 11, 12
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
Introductory Note: This is really a very simple case once one recognizes the pattern of FRAUD
from start to finish, intrinsic and extrinsic, turning into retaliation by
official oppression and unlawful judgments against pro se
Birnbaum for having made a civil racketeering ("civil RICO") defense
against a fraudulent suit by lawyers.
(1) Nature of the case
PLAINTIFF The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C. ("Law Office")
claimed an UNPAID OPEN ACCOUNT[5]
for "legal services" in the amount of $18,121.10 and pleaded no
other cause of action[6].
DEFENDANT Udo Birnbaum ("Birnbaum") answered
[7]
by denying such alleged "open account" under oath, asserted defenses
of FRAUD, counter-claimed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA),
and made cross and third party claims[8]
under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
("civil RICO") against three (3) persons associated with the
"Law Office" (G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani
[Westfall] Podvin, "The Westfalls"), and asked for trial by jury. Birnbaum also moved for APPOINTMENT OF AN
AUDITOR per RCP Rule 172 to investigate and report on the alleged OPEN ACCOUNT
[9]
to show that there existed no open account at all, nor systematic
records, etc. as claimed, but only a $20,000 prepaid non-refundable
retainer paid to lawyer G. David Westfall.[10]
(2) Judge
who signed the order and judgment: Hon. Paul Banner
(3) Trial Court: