Jeffrey S.

Newton
30766 Woodward Avenue, Suite 210
Royal Oak, Michigan 48073
(248) 694-1400
JEFFREY S. NEWTON, IN PRO PER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

JEFFREY S. NEWTON, ESTATE OF JOYCE )A.Case No.: 30-2011-00469301-CU-EN-CJC

NEWTON (Deceased), )
) NEWTONS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
Plaintiffs, ) AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE
) TOFREYDLSMOTION TO VACATE
vs. ) CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT
)
THOMAS PATRICK FREYDL, ind. and ) Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
D/B/A FREYDL & ASSOCIATES, ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
) Location: Dept.
Defendants ) Judge: Hon. Franz E. Miller
) Date Action Filed: April 21, 2011
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Jeffrey S. Newton hereby submits the following Memorandum of

Points and Authorities in Reply to Defendant/Judgment Debtor Thomas Patrick Freydls Motion to

Vacate California Judgment (Freydl Vacation Motion). The Court should deny Freydls Vacation

Motion in its entirety or, in the alternative, either (a) take the matter under advisement or (b) stay

enforcement of Newtons California Judgment and grant a continuance of Newtons OSC re:

Contempt of Freydl & Gamarrapending the decision of the Michigan trial Judge1 on Newtons

Motion For Relief From Order Granting Freydls Motion To Vacate Renewal Of Michigan Judgment,

1
The Honorable Denise Langford-Morris took Newtons Motion For Relief under advisement on
October 15, 2014. Newtons Brief is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 2.

-1-
ORDER
and require both Freydl and Third Parties Richard Gamarra, Focus on Cars, Inc., South Bay Studios

(a division of Focus on Cars) and California Tequila to post bond pursuant to CCP 1750(c)(1).

1. INTRODUCTION.

Newton urges the Court to be mindful that this matter arose out of the theft of Newtons life

savings at the hands of Freydl, a savvy professional thief and disbarred Michigan and California

attorney whose disbarment resulted from the stealing of money from a multiplicity of clients.

Freydl has perfect contempt for the rule of law, for the rights of others and for the judicial system.

He has no conscience whatsoever. Freydls venom and spite toward Newton, whose life he destroyed

by his avarice and greed, literally oozes out of the pages of his Vacation Motion. Freydls belittling,

condescending attitude and supercharged, gargantuan-sized ego are palpable from his gratuitous use

of obscure words and unnecessary invectives hurled at his criminal victim, Newton. Visual evidence

of Freydls contempt, utter lack of civility and outright hatred towards Newton is attached hereto and

labeled as Exhibit 1.2

2. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

Newton incorporates herein by reference the factual and procedural portion of his Reply to

Gamarras Opposition Re: Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt, previously filed herein.

3. ARGUMENT.

3.1 Freydls Challenge To The 2011 California Judgment Is Fatally Time-Barred.

The time period to challenge the 2011 California Judgment fatally expired 30 days after

Freydl was served with the Notice of Domestication of Sister State Judgment pursuant to CCP

2
Freydls giving Newton the bird was accomplished in the hallway of this Courthouse immediately
after the Court arraigned Freydl on contempt charges on August 4, 2014. Newtons photograph is
being partially blocked by Steven T. Devlin, Esq., who represented Freydl in the Assignment Order
proceedings in 2011, when Mr. Devlins law office was located next to Freydls at the Focus on Cars
compound in Long Beach, California.

-2-
ORDER
1710.30(a).3Conseco Marketing v. IFI And Insurance Services, Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 831 (2013).

The Notice was served on Freydl on May 10, 2011 (Exhibit 3 hereto). Accordingly, Freydl only had

until June 9, 2011 to file his California Judgment Vacation Motion, which he irrefutably did not do.

Therefore, he cannot meet his burden of proof.4

CCP 1710.40(b)5 is the exclusive vehicle for challenges to domesticated sister state

judgments. Liquidator of Integrity Insurance Company v. Hendrix, 54 Cal.App.4th 971, 978 (1997)

([t]he procedural remedy for vacating entry of a sister state judgment lies within section

1710.40 alone) (emphasis added). However, Freydls Motion To Vacate California Judgment is

3
CCP 1710.30(a) provides:

Notice of entry of judgment shall be served promptlyby the judgment creditor upon
the judgment debtor in the mannerprovided for service of summons by Article 3
(commencing with Section415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2. Notice shall be in
a formprescribed by the Judicial Council and shall inform the judgment debtor that
the judgment debtor has 30 days within which to make a motion to vacate the
judgment.Id. (emphasis added).
4
Freydl must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) his motion is not time-barred, and
(2) plead and prove a viable defense to an action in California on the sister state judgment. Id.

The Court inTsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd., 12
Cal.App.4th at pp. 8990, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 585(1993) set forth a two-part procedure to vacate the entry
of a sister state judgment: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a meritorious defense such that a
different result would follow if a new trial were granted in the sister state; and (2) there must be a
procedural ground in California to vacate the judgment. Freydl cannot demonstrate a meritorious
defense since he entered into a consent judgment and was represented by counsel. Moreover, in
Michigan, Judgment Renewal is a matter of absolute right and generally accomplished on an ex
parte basis. Neither service of process nor even notice of the renewal is required. Michigan Ex Parte
Judgment Renewal Form (attached hereto as Exhibit 4).
5
CCP 1710.40(b) provides:

Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to
Section 1710.30, proof of which has been made inthe manner provided by Article 5
(commencing with Section 417.10) ofChapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment
debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the
judgment under this section.Id. (emphasis added).

-3-
ORDER
based exclusively upon CCP 473 (which deals with mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, et. cetera

and which is the equivalent of MCR 2.612) is not available to challenge Newtons California

Judgment. Id.

The sole exception to CCP 1710.40(b)s 30 day limit is a challenge to the fundamental

jurisdiction of the Michigan Court to enter the judgment itself. However, this challenge is only

available if the issue of jurisdiction was not litigated in the sister state. Freydl consented to personal

jurisdiction in Michigan in 19976 and waived the opportunity to litigate this issue there, and,

6
Freydl signed the Acknowledgement of Service of the 1997 Summons and Complaint. Therefore,
the rule that the 30 day limit does not apply where the judgment debtor was not served properly with
process in the sister state action is inapplicable to the case at bar. Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda,
177 Cal.App.4th 14, 20, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 66(2009) (30 day limit does not apply where sister state
judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction). When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental
sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.
[internal citation authority omitted]. People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653,
660, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020 (2004). In addition to the irrefutable fact that Freydl consented
to jurisdiction in Michigan, was personally served with the Summons and Complaint and litigated the
matter for 2 years before entering into a consent judgment, for renewal purposes, the Michigan Court
of Appeals held in Van Reken v. Darden, Neef & Heitsch, 259 Mich. App. 454; 674 N.W.2d 731
(2004) that:

we agree with other jurisdictions which have generally deemed any action on the
judgment, whether pursuant to a new complaint or a writ of scire facias, to be a
continuation of the original action such that jurisdiction is proper in the court which
rendered the original judgment."Van Reken v. Darden, Neef & Heitsch, 259 Mich.
App. 454; 674 N.W.2d 731 (2004). Id. (emphasis added).

A copy of the Van Reken decision is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. It is irrefutable that
Newton filed an action in the Michigan litigation prior to the 10 year anniversary of the Michigan
Judgment (August 11, 2009). Michigan Docket, 2009 Case (attached as Exhibit 6 hereto).
Accordingly, jurisdiction was proper in the Michigan Court and Freydls California Judgment
Vacation Motion is lethally time-barred. See also McGraw v Parsons, 142 Mich App 22 (1985), also
Exhibit 5 hereto.

Moreover, Freydl utilized MCR 2.612(B), entitled Relief From Judgment Or Order
Defendant Not Personally Notified to acquire the Judgment Vacation Order. It provides:

A defendant over whom personal jurisdiction was necessary and acquired, but who
did not in fact have knowledge of the pendency of the action, may enter an appearance

-4-
ORDER
accordingly, this challenge is not available to him in California. Moreover, his challenge is subject to

this Courts scrutiny of his credibility, which is less than zero. Conseco, supra.

Finally, the extent to which Freydl contends that the Michigan Court lost jurisdiction over him

(due to an alleged failure of service of process) is the extent to which the statute of limitations is and

remains tolled, pursuant to Michigan Complied Laws (MCL) 600.5853, which provides:

If any person is outside of this state at the time any claim accrues against him the
period of limitation shall only begin to run when he enters this stateunless a means
of service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him
was available to the plaintiff. If after any claim accrues the person against whom the
claim accrued is absent from this state, any and all periods of absence in excess of 2
months at a time shall not be counted as any part of the time limited for the
commencement of the action unless while he was outside of this state a means for
service of process sufficient to vest the jurisdiction of a Michigan court over him was
available to the plaintiff. Id. (emphasis added).

Freydl was absent from Michigan when the 1999 Michigan Consent Judgment was entered,

and his own testimony constitutes an admission that he remained outside of Michigan, un-locatable

by design, for most of the next ten years.7Exhibits 8and 9 hereto. In other words, the Michigan

Judgment doesnt even need renewing yet.8

within 1 year after final judgment, and if the defendant shows reason justifying relief
from the judgment and innocent third persons will not be prejudiced, the court may
relieve the defendant from the judgment, order, or proceedings for which personal
jurisdiction was necessary, on payment of costs or on conditions the court deems just.
Id. (emphasis added).

Freydls Michigan Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. In typical Freydl duplicity, he

intentionally mislabeled this Motion as a motion to Vacate a Renewal Judgment (so that he could
claim that the resulting Order is a Judgment with preclusive effect), when the document is irrefutably
an Order, not a new Judgment.Freydl could not have utilized this rule unless the Michigan Court
accomplished and retained personal jurisdiction over him, which Freydl also admitted on the record
on July 13, 2011. Accordingly, his California Judgment Vacation Motion is terminally time-barred.
7
Freydls claim of failure of service of the Judgment Renewal Complaint upon him is mutually
exclusive to his claim that the Michigan Court did not have (or lost) personal jurisdiction over him.
He cannot have it both ways, and either way by itself is deadly to his challenge. If the Michigan
Court had (or retained) jurisdiction, his challenge to Newtons California Judgment is time-barred. If

-5-
ORDER
 3.2 CCP 473 Is Unavailable To Vacate The California Judgment Or For Relief
From The Assignment Order.

CCP 473 is unavailable to vacate the California Judgment because CCP 1710.40(b) is the

exclusive procedural vehiclefor such relief, absent extremely limited equitable circumstances, which

are not present here. Liquidator of Integrity, supra.Freydl has unclean hands9 and is guilty of

laches.10To the extent that 473 is otherwise available to either Freydl or Gamarra for relief (from

either the California Judgment itself or the June 23, 2011 Assignment Order) their inequitable

the Michigan Court didnt have (or retain) jurisdiction, the statute has not run, the Michigan
Judgment survives, and Freydl thus lacks any basis to challenge the California Judgment.
8
Pursuant to Freydls testimony at the Evidentiary Hearing in Michigan, he was absent from
Michigan when the Consent Judgment was entered and for almost all of the next 10 years, thereby
extending the limitations period for several years from the present (Exhibit 8 hereto).
9
Freydl stole nearly $100,000.00 from Newton under false pretenses, resulting in the Michigan and
California Consent Judgments. The fact that Freydl agreed to repay Newton should equitably estop
him from finagling the Michigan Judgment renewal to his advantage. Moreover, he hid from Newton
from the date of entry of the Michigan Judgment (August 11, 1999) until 2011, when Newton found
him via the Internet and Freydl vs. Meringolo. In the meantime, Gamarra and Freydl conspired to
throw Newton off course by falsely claiming that Gamarra threw Freydl out of Focus on Cars in
2003, when this was untrue, delaying both collection and judgment renewal. Similarly, in 2009,
Gamarra and Freydl again conspired to attempt to defeat judgment renewal by (a) instructing the
South Bay Studios security guard to block service of the renewal package (the guard was substitute
served anyway, discussed, infra) and (b) failing to give Freydl his mail (ultimately resulting in the
December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal Vacation Order). Likewise, in 2011, Gamarra and
Freydl conspired to feign lack of notice of the June 23, 2011 Assignment Order by again conscripting
the South Bay Studios security guard to block service of said Order (again, the guard was substitute
served anyway). Finally, in the ultimate act of inequity, Freydl actually lied under oathin the
Michigan Court, falsely testifying that he was in New York when he was served in California with
the Michigan Judgment renewal package. His perjury and malfeasance is more fully set forth and
completely exposed in Exhibit 2 hereto. If this behavior is somehow equitable and deserving of
equitable relief, then so is mass murder.
10
Freydl never sought to vacate the April 21, 2011 California Judgment (despite being personally
served with Notice of it on May 10, 2011) for over three years, until October, 2014, while literally on
the precipice of incarceration for his flagrant contempt. Surely, this is laches.

-6-
ORDER
behavior fully estops them from enjoying it, pursuant to the equitable maxim of he who seeks equity

must do equity. Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. McKey, 294 U.S. 442 (1935).11

3.3 The Doctrine of Res Judicata Is Inapplicable.

The doctrine of res judicata is not a bar to re-litigation of the Michigan Judgment Vacation

Order.Said Order is NOT a Judgment. Freydls contrary intentionally misplaced contrary reasoning

ignores the fundamental rule that the doctrine of res judicataapplies exclusively to final

judgments.12In the Michigan case, the one and only final judgment is the August 11, 1999 Revised

11
The maxim [h]e who seeks equity must do equity presupposes that equitable, as distinguished
from legal, rights have arisen from the subject matter in favor of each of the parties, and it requires
that such rights shall not be enforced in favor of one who affirmatively seeks their enforcement,
except upon condition that he accord to the other his correlative equitable rights.Id. at 449
(emphasis added).
12
As the Court in In re Eatons Estate v Armour, et. al,38 Cal.App.2d 180 (1940) stated:

.it is only when the judgment or decree becomes final that the matter is res judicata.
There can be but one final judgment or its equivalent in any proceeding.Such
intermediate orders, sought to be relied upon as final, are as a matter of law not final
and cannot be given such effect by any voluntary or gratuitous order of the court.Id.
(emphasis added).

Similarly, in the case at bar, the Michigan Judgment Vacation Order was not a final order
and is not res judicata. Indeed, it is precisely because said Order (achieved under MCR 2.612(B),
discussed, infra) is not a final order that Newton did not have an appeal as of right from it under
the Michigan Court Rules. MCR 7.203 provides, in pertinent part:

Rule 7.203 Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

(A) Appeal of Right. The court has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by an
aggrieved party from the following:
(1) A final judgment or final order of the circuit court, or court of claims, as defined
in MCR 7.202(6). Id.

Meanwhile, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) provides:

(6) "final judgment" or "final order" means:

(a) In a civilcase,
(i) the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims andadjudicates the
rights and liabilities of all the parties, including such an order entered after reversal
of an earlier final judgment or order. Id. (emphasis added).

-7-
ORDER
Final Consent Judgment, and it is this Order,13 only, that is entitled to full faith and credit and that is

a bar to re-litigation under the doctrine of res judicata.

Moreover, even if the doctrine of res judicata applied to orders as well as judgments, the

December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal Vacation Order was an interlocutoryorder in the

sense that it did not finally dispose of the litigation, but rather reopened it for further proceedings. 14

Accordingly, the August 11, 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment is the onlyfinal order in
the Michigan case, and, therefore, the only order entitled to bar re-litigation under the doctrine of res
judicata.
13
All judgments are orders, but not all orders are judgments.
14
As set forth in the definitive Michigan treatise on the Michigan Court Rules, Michigan Court Rules
Practice (Dean & Longhofer):

An order denying a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C) is final and
appealable. An order granting such a motion is technically interlocutory, in the sense
that it does not finally dispose of the case but reopens it for further proceedings in the
trial court. However, its operation in this respect is essentially the same as an order
granting a new trial after final judgment. As observed in the Authors Commentary on
Rule 2.611, there are good reasons for appellate review of such an order before the
new trial is undertaken, and in recent years the appellate courts have quite routinely
granted leave to appeal in such situations. The same practice should apply to appeals
from orders granting relief from a judgment under MCR 2.6123(C). Id., 2612.19,
Page 625 (emphasis added).

Parenthetically, Newton took his yearlong Civil Procedure class at the University of Michigan
Law School with the treatises first and main author, the late James Martin, a luminous legal scholar
and textbook author in Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws and Contracts. Professor Martin also held a
PhD in applied mathematics.

Newtons Application to Appeal the December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal
Vacation Order was timely filed pursuant to longstanding Michigan practice.However, the Michigan
Supreme Court unilaterally shortened the time for such an appeal from 12 to 6 months without
publishing said rule change, and Newtons motion was denied on said procedural ground exclusively.
Accordingly, it was not considered and decided on any substantive grounds, and any argument by
either Freydl or Gamarra that the December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal Vacation Order
was upheld on appeal must be viewed exclusively in this regard, rather than as any substantive ruling
on the merits of Newtons appeal.

-8-
ORDER
 Finally, on December 21, 2012, Newton timely filed a Motion For Relief From Consent

Judgment Vacation Order, and said motion was heard by the Michigan trial Judge, the Honorable

Denise Langford-Morris, on Wednesday, October 15, 2014. Newton utilized the same Michigan

Court Rule that Freydl used to obtain the December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal Vacation

Order MCR 2.612.15 Judge Langford-Morris took the matter under advisement, and has yet to issue

her opinion and order. Accordingly, at minimum, this Honorable Court should either take the instant

matter under advisement or stay enforcement proceedings and require Freydl and Gamarra to post

bond pending Judge Langford-Morris ruling.16

3.4 Discussion Re: Witkin 447, Stay of Enforcement, Bond.

At the October 1, 2014 Hearing on Contempt, the Court expressed interest in 8 Witkin, Cal.

Proc. 5th (2008) Enf Judgm, 447 regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States

Constitution and its impact upon the Courts ability to enforce the California Judgment. That section

reads in its entirety:

(4) Judgment not enforceable in state of rendition. Under the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, the judgment will not be given greater effect in the state of the forum than in
the state of rendition. (See Gilmer v. Spitalny (1948) 84 C.A.2d 39, 44, 189 P.2d 744
[Arizona judgment against husband and wife on community debt was not enforceable
in California as personal judgment against wife]; Rall v. Lovell (1951) 105 C.A.2d
507, 510, 233 P.2d 681 [Montana child support judgment]; St. Sava Mission Corp. v.
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada (1990)
223 C.A.3d 1354, 1374, 273 C.R. 340 [Illinois judgment purporting to vest title in
church was not entitled to full faith and credit, where judgment was void as to
California corporation, under Illinois law, for failure to join it as indispensable party];
7 Summary (10th), Constitutional Law, 38.). Id., Page 484.

15
Accordingly, at minimum, if the Court is inclined to grant Freydls Motion but not hear Newtons,
it should defer adjudication of the matter until after the Michigan Judge hears and decides Newtons
Motion.
16
As set forth infra, Newton would have an appeal as of right from an adverse decision by Judge
Langford-Morris.

-9-
ORDER
 This section does not give this Honorable Court discretion to grant Freydls Vacation Motion,

only to temporarily deny enforcement of the California Judgment until the Michigan Judge reverses

herself on the basis of Freydls Fraud on the Court that culminated in the temporary vacation of the

Michigan Consent Judgment.17 The Court should bear in mind that CCP 1750(4) provides for a

stay of enforcement where [a]ny other circumstance exists where the interests of justicerequire a

stay of enforcement. Newton suggests that the instant matter presents such circumstances,

especially since if Newton loses his Michigan Motion for Relief, he shall immediately sue Freydl for

fraud on the Michigan court, which lawsuit (before a jury), shall result in a reinstatement of the

Michigan Judgment, notwithstanding any adverse ruling by Judge Langford-Morris. Pursuant to

MCR 2.612(C)(3), which provides:

(3) This subrule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action
to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding . or to set aside a judgment
for fraud on the court. Id. (emphasis added).

Since Freydl stole Newtons life savings and ruined his life, Newton will never stop attempting to

seek legal justice against Freydl, until Freydl (who is much older than Newton) is dead.

17
The Court should also be aware that Freydl could have simply honored the initial Michigan Consent
Judgment in full for only $35,000.00, as this was the amount that Newton needed in 1999 to save his
home from foreclosure. Freydls welching on the Consent Judgment not only cost Newton his home
and all of the equity in it ($300,000.00), but resulted in the nearly half million dollar California
Judgment that Freydl now seeks to weasel out of. Frankly, Newton has bent over backwards to
accommodate Freydl and his theft. Freydl manufactured the temporal vacation of the Michigan
Consent Judgment through perjury and intentionally interfering with that renewal. Gamarra also
intentionally interfered with the service of the Assignment Order, by instructing his guard to block
service. SeeBein v Brechtel-Jochim Group, 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 (1992) (substitute
service on the guard at a gated community is good service and notice).

Simply put, if Newton is, at this point in time, unable to finally get some justice against
Freydl and Gamarra in light of their multiple and repeated intentional interference with the legal
process, then they have unfortunately reduced the Court system to nothing more than a rule-bound
fraud.

- 10 -
ORDER
 If the Court grants a stay of enforcement (as opposed to taking the matter under advisement

pending the Michigan Judges decision), then Newton respectfully requests that the Court require that

both Freydl and Gamarra post bond pursuant to CCP 1750(c)(1), which provides:

(c) The court shall grant a stay of enforcement under this sectionon such terms and
conditions as are just including but not limitedto the following:
(1) The court may require an undertaking in an amount itdetermines to be just, but
the amount of the undertaking shall notexceed double the amount of the judgment
creditor's claim.Id. (emphasis added).

The current amount of the California Judgment is approximately $460,000.00 Accordingly,

Newton respectfully requests that both Freydl and Gamarra post bond in the amount of $920,000.00.

To the extent that Gamarra complains about this amount, Newton urges the Court to be mindful that

Gamarra has refused to disclose how much he paid Freydl since June 23, 2011 (the operative date of

the Assignment Order), that Gamarra sold his car businesses (Focus of Cars, South Bay Studios) and

his home of 30 years, all to concentrate on his tequila company, which is in Mexico (his probable

destination if freed by the Court). As to Freydl, his theft of Newtons life savings would have

resulted in a lifetime incarceration, but for Newtons charity toward Freydl in not prosecuting him.

Accordingly, since Freydl alone is responsible for any failure of renewal of the Michigan Judgment,

Freydl cannot be heard to complain about the amount of bond.

3.5 The Judgment Renewal Vacation Order Was Not Nunc Pro Tunc And Has No
Retroactive Effect.

- 11 -
ORDER
 The December 21, 2011 Michigan Judgment Renewal Vacation Order does not contain any

language that would make it nunc pro tunc.18 Since the Michigan Consent Judgment was already

renewed (on February 16, 2011), and since the California Judgment was already obtained, the

Judgment Renewal Vacation Order has no retroactive effect, the renewal was validly entered and any

actions taken prior to December 21, 2011 cannot be nullified by it. This is why CCP 1710.40(b)

imposes a 30 day limit to file a motion to vacate: then is no requirement to indefinitely keep a sister

state judgment, where the judgment debtor no longer lives and probably wont return, after

domestication in another state.

3.6 Freydl Was Served By Mail At The Focus On Cars Compound In August, 2009
With A Summons and Complaint For Judgment Renewal.

Freydl did not challenge whether the service by mail to him at the Focus on Cars compound

of the Summons and Complaint for Judgment Renewal was actually mailed by Newtons Michigan

Process Server, Richard Ferrette (Exhibit 10). Furthermore, Freydl did not challenge whether the

United States Postal Service actually fulfilled its mission to actually deliver that mailing to Freydl at

Focus on Cars. Rather, Freydl lied to the Court, testifying that he was in New York when the service

was received at Focus on Cars on or about August 18-20, 200919 and throughout the alleged life of

the Summons, i.e., until November 11, 2009. Freydls perjurious Affidavit stating that he was in

New York for most of 2009 and especially in mid-August, 2009 and then on is attached hereto and

18
The function of an order nunc pro tunc is to supply an omission in the record of action previously
taken by the court but not properly recorded; an order nunc pro tunc may not be utilized to supply
previously omitted action. Briefly stated, the purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is not to change or
alter an order or judgment actually made. In other words its function is not to make an order now for
then, but to enter now for then an order previously made. Sleboede v. Sleboede, 384 Mich. 555
(1971).

19
Ferrette mailed the Summons and Complaint on Sunday, August 16, 2009, by depositing same into
a mailbox located at the Royal Oak, Michigan Post Office, located a short walk from Ferrettes home
(where Newton has lived twice). Newton personally witnessed Ferrette accomplish this mailing.

- 12 -
ORDER
labeled as Exhibit 9. His perjury is utterly exposed and conclusively proven by the bank statements

of his corporation, Freydl & Associates, LTD (there are no associates), attached hereto and as

Exhibit 11. These statements conclusively demonstrate that, with the exception of a few days when

he flew from California to New York and back to file the Meringolo Complaint, Freydl was

consistently in Long Beach, California, precisely where Focus on Cars is located.20

Since the United States Postal Service is presumed to accomplish its mission and to deliver

mail, and since Freydl did not challenge Ferrettes mailing21 of the service of process of the Michigan

Judgment Renewal Complaint, and since, pursuant to Michigan law, service is complete upon

mailing, Freydl was, in fact, served with the said documents prior to the supposed expiration of the

Summons.22

3.7 Freydl Was Served By Substitute Service At The Focus On Cars Compound In
July, 2009 With A Complaint And Application/Petition For Judgment Renewal.

Freydl was also served in July, 2009, Freydl with an Application/Petition for Judgment

Renewal, as well as a Complaint for Judgment Renewal by substitute service on the Focus on Cars

20
It is irrefutable that Freydls own bank records, which prove that he used his ATM card near
Focus on Cars in mid-august, 2009, are conclusive proof that said Order was procured by intrinsic
fraud. Newton asks the Court to take judicial notice of these records (kept in the ordinary course of
business), disregard the December 21, 2011 Order(its not a Judgment) Vacating Michigan Consent
Judgment Renewal and instead recognize the February 16, 2009 Order (also not a Judgment) that
renewed the Michigan Consent Judgment (this ones a Judgment).
21
Freydl also wrongfully challenged (in Michigan) and continues to challenge (in his current Motion)
Newtons service of a February, 2009 Judgment Renewal Motion upon him at his Park Avenue, New
York lawfirm address, which he used on his Affidavit in the Meringolo litigation. Exhibit 13 hereto.
Freydl even claimed that Newton mailed it from Indiana (not Michigan) to deceive him, but Newton
was living in Indiana at the time. Due to Gamarras deception through Agent Kusumi, Newton
erroneously thought that Freydl had been given the boot from Focus on Cars. Freydl further claimed
and claims that said lawfirm didnt give him his mail. In reality, Freydl just ignored it, just like he
did in the 1990s when Newton worked for him.
22
MCR 2.107(C)(3) provides that.[s]ervice on a party must be made by delivery or by mailing to
the party at the address stated in the party's pleadings(3) Service by mail is complete at the time
of mailing. Id. (emphasis added).

- 13 -
ORDER
Guard and Agent of Gamarra. The Proof of Service of Patricia Rosenthal for said service (Exhibit 12

hereto) was not available until recently and, therefore, this service was not considered by the

Michigan Judge at the September 2, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing on Service, which concerned service

exclusively (and not limitation of action issues.

Accordingly, the successful renewal of the Michigan Consent Judgment is not dependent

upon whether or not service of the Complaint for Judgment Renewal was accomplished by mail23

upon Freydl at the Focus on Cars Compound and, accordingly, not dependent upon a ruling adverse

to Freydl at the September 2, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing.

3.8 Conclusion.

Freydls Motion to Vacate California Judgment is fatally time-barred. Freydl alone caused

failure of the renewal of the Michigan Judgment, and is equitably estopped from seeking relief

pursuant to CCP 473. Gamarra is similarly estopped from seeking relief from enforcement of the

Assignment Order. Accordingly, the Court should deny Freydls motion in its entirety and hold both

Freydl and Gamarra in contempt and punish them summarily. In the alternative, the Court, in its

discretion, should take the matter under advisement or stay enforcement and require both Freydl and

Gamarra to post bond in an amount of double the California Judgment pending resolution of the

Michigan Judgment renewal Motion.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey S. Newton
________________________
Jeffrey S. Newton
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor

23
Moreover, the successful renewal of the Michigan Consent Judgment is not dependent upon
whether Freydl ever received the substitute service upon the Focus on Cars Guard and Agent.
Pursuant to CCP 415.20, substitute service is complete 10 days after mailing.

- 14 -
ORDER
DATED: October 24, 2014 In Pro Per

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

1. Photo of Freydl Giving Newton The Bird

2. Newton Michigan Motion For Relief From Renewal Vacation Order
3. Notice of Domestication
4. Michigan Judgment Renewal Form
5. Van Reken Case, McGraw Case (Michigan)
6. Michigan Docket 2007 and 2009 Cases
7. Freydls Michigan Motion To Vacate Renewal Order
8. Evidentiary Hearing Transcript Excerpts
9. Freydl Affidavit, Newton vs. Freydl (Michigan)
10. Richard E. Ferrette Proof of Service
11. Account Statements, 2009 and 2011 and Signature Card (LTD)
12. Patricia Rosenthal Proof of Service
13. Freydl Affidavit, Freydl vs. Meringolo

- 15 -
ORDER