Gold Coast Enterprises Jerry Uffelman Ph.D, CCAM, Gold Coast Enterprises' Criminal Behavior Orange, California

GOLD COAST ENTERPRISES is a property management company that owes a duty to the people who hire them.

On January 30, 2006 Gold Coast Enterprise/Property Management was the property managers for Shadow Crest Homeowners Association (HOA) located in Cathedral City California. Darlene Teryison -- your employee -- was assigned as Property Manager to the property of Shadow Crest Homeowners Association.

Ms. Teryison was well aware there were many problems including criminal behavior and illegalities of board members, and that there were several unhappy homeowners.  She saw this in board meetings.

On January 30, 2006 a letter was issued re: Behavior of Your Mother, that told her to appear at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 21, 2006, Cathedral City Library. The meeting was then changed to the office of Gold Coast Enterprises in Cathedral City.

I can only presume the letter was written by Ms. Teryison, as a part of her duties as property manager, or by Kent Robbins, the then HOA board president.

Within this letter are several false, perjurious and slanderous/libelous accusations which were never proven to be true, and in fact were dismissed in Case INF 054715

When my daughter, my son and myself arrived at the meeting we were met at the door by a man, Ron Door, who allowed my daughter, and my son [not a resident of Shadow Crest] to enter but who told me, YOU may not come in because there is a restraining order against you! and rudely closed the door in my face. (Restraining orders under CCP 527.6  may not be used to keep people out of open HOA board meetings.) I continued to stand outside and knock a few times, and to call to the people on the inside to please let me talk.  They all ignored me. 

Suddenly the police showed up and asked me what was going on. They laughed when I told them. (Cathedral City police are well aware of the problems in Shadow Crest that began when a drug family, The Riddles, a board member, moved in and began to deal drugs.) When Ms. Tryison came outside and talked with them they listened patiently, smiled knowingly at me, and then left without even taking a report. 

However, Ms Tryison than filed for a frivolous, void on the face petition for a restraining order under CCP 527.6, Case INC 057008 on February 23, 2006

I am sure this was at the insistence of Kent Robbins, Jill Reed and other HOA board members. On the petition she included the name of Jerry Uffleman, Chief Executive Officer / Owner/Founder of Gold Coast Enterprises as a protected person; therefore he had knowledge of this petition. Ms. Tryison also named several other Gold Coast employees as protected persons. This petition was not made without the knowledge of all named on the petition.

Jerry Uffleman as a property manager, AND Legal Interface can be presumed to be familiar with the laws of restraining orders as they are used, albeit unlawfully, often in HOAs to shut up and control innocent homeowners that complain.

On March 17, 2006 I went into court on Darlene Trysisons void on the face application for a CCP 527.6  Case INC 057008 restraining order. Kent Robbins went with her, along with Ron Door, of Gold Coast Enterprises. A Charging Affidavit was attached showing Robbins and Trylisons conspiracy and elder abuse. Commissioner McCoy tried to talk Tryison out of continuing once he saw my response and the inclusive law, however she and Kent Robbins wanted to continue and it was then reassigned to Judge Olefields court.  Judge Oldfield would not allow me to give my side of the story and therefore denied me due process, automatically making the case void. Now it was doubly void. The court did not follow the law and had no jurisdiction to issue an order under CCP 527.6 and under all stated law and facts, along with lack of due process,  the Tryison case is void.

Under Federal Law, which all judges must follow and is applicable in all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated if a court is without authority, (does not follow the law)  its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities They are not voidable, but simply void They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers.  Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828);  When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

Void on the face judgments never die in the State of California and CCP 473, and 473(a) has no direct reference to void orders, i.e., the time limitation is not applicable. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal App 4th 1186,1194   

Even an Appeal will not prevent the court from at any time lopping off what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree a void order. Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal App. 2d 638, 641-642 [239 P2d 650], and  see:6 Witken, Cal Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal Sec. 7, pp. 4024-4025

"Civil Code of Procedure 527.6 was enacted to, supplement the existing law of Torts of 'invasion of privacy' and 'intentional infliction of emotional distress,' therefore a person must prove these two elements." Grant v. Clampett (1997 2nd Dist) 56 Cal App 4th 586, 65 Cal Rptr 2d 727 

"There must be clear and convincing evidence of suffering great medical or psychological distress." Sheild vRubin (1991, 2nd Dist) 232 Cal App 3d 755, 283 Cal Rptr 533

 "Great or irreparable harm must be proven." Nebel v Sulach (1999 4th Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 1363, 1369, 87 Cal Rptr 2d 3851 

We can also seek guidance from the phrase "severe emotional distress" -- in the context of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress -- which has been interpreted to mean distress "'so severe that no reasonable [person] in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.'" (Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397, relying on comment to section 46 of the Restatement Second, of Torts.)

Darlene Tryison proved none of the above, therefore her restraining order is void on the face.

Such void on the face judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored as they neither bind, nor bar anyone. "Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Judgment, 286, p. 828.).

On June 8, 2006 I was going into court to have the case noted as dismissed and I was falsely arrested by District Attorney Investigator Twiss, [ who had met with Jill Reed and Darlene Trylson on their [void] restraining orders] and this led to my false arrest, over a year in jail, mostly in solitary confinement because of  Kent Robbins and Darlene Trylson, along with all of the HOA board members, and others from the Cathedral City Police Department, and Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia Office participated in provable perjury and used their void on the face restraining orders to have me incarcerated. Case INF 054715   

This Case INF 054715 is being challenged as void under CCP 473(d) in which the case will be dismissed not only because all of the testimony was based on void on the face restraining orders, and other provable perjury, and false evidence presented by Deputy District Attorney Belcher, but because all of the sitting judges received judicial benefits [bribes under federal law] and could not sit on any case involving the county,  (SEE: CASE NO.: MWV  903720 SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT [RANCHO DIVISION)   NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION TO VOID  and ANNUL ALL ORDERS and JUDGMENTS  INCLUDING ANY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MADE BY JUDGE SHELA S. SABET;  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND UTHORITIES  DECLARATION OF SHARON STEPHENS), starting with Judge B.J. Bjork, who did receive judicial benefits from the county making them ineligible to sit on any case where the county is a party to the proceedings.

Jerry Uffleman, as employer of Darlene Tryison is guilty of  Vicarious Liability: (California Civil Code 2338) Vicarious liability is a legal principle under which one person is held liable for the tortious act of another, The most common form of vicarious liability occurs in the area of employment. An employer is liable for any tortious act committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment. 

Joint And Several Liability: (California Civil Code 1431.2(a)(b)(2)) Unless required by or under the authority of law to employ that particular agent, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal.

 In cases in which two or more defendants were found responsible for a plaintiff's injury, the law traditionally made the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages. In other words, a plaintiff had the right to collect the damage award from any defendant individually or from the defendants as a whole, depending on the plaintiff's preference.

The California legislature has decided that the doctrine of joint and several liability resulted in inequity and injustice to defendants who bore only slight responsibility for an injury but had to pay the entire damage award. (These defendants sometimes are referred to as having "deep pockets.") Thus, liability for non-economic damages is several only in California, and not joint. That is, while defendants may be jointly and severally liable for economic damages, each defendant is only liable for the amount of non-economic damages directly in proportion to that defendant's percentage of
fault. Non economic damages compensate for subjective, non-monetary losses such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of consortium, and injury to reputation.

Darlene Tryison, and Jerry Ufflman do not bear slight responsibility but full responsibility each as they did knowingly cause me MUCH distress and harm and suffering, emotional distress and loss to reputation as well as a false unlawful incarceration for a year due to perjury and conspiracy.  Jerry Uffleman, knowing the law he claims on his website he is A LEGAL INTERFACERhe could, and ought not to have allowed his employee to file a false, frivolous and void on the face restraining order in which he is named as a protected person.

Respondeat Superior: Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an employee's torts, including intentional torts, if the employee was acting within the scope of employment. To establish that the employee's conduct was within the scope of employment: (1) the conduct must have occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employment; (2) the employee must have been motivated, at least partially, by a purpose to serve the employer; and (3) the act must have been of a kind that the employee was hired to perform, such as a property manager, who was a Legal Interfacer.

As a direct result of the Tryison/Gold Coast Enterprises void on the face restraining order, the conspiracy, fraud, elder abuse, presentation of false evidence, false arrests and unlawful incarceration, and more, I lost my home, my car, social security and about $500.000. I will settle for $450,000

Gold Coast needs to settle with me for my losses.