JOHN F. GOODSON, 001279 G000SON MANLEY FORAKIS PLC 340 East Palm Lane, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 252-5110
Pro Persona
08 APR Pfl3;j
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
DANIEL B. SCALF,
Petitioner,
vs. LAURIE HOUSTON, (fka, CALL, SCALF)
Respondent.
) Case No. FC2005-090504
)
) REPORT TO THE COURT BY
) JOHN F. GOODSON AND ) 000DSON MANLEY FORAKIS PLC
AS REQUESTED BY THE COURT
) (Assigned to: ) Judge Sherry Stephens)
1. 1 am filing this report as a verified report so that it suffices also as a
supporting affidavit.
2. The court desired that we validate that our firm neither had or received
any money from Daniel B. Scalf, the Petitioner, which was forwarded to us as his
attorneys.
3. At the present time we have no funds in any of our trust accounts
belonging to Daniel B. Scaif.
P:\ScaI !. DwviyResponsQ from JFG.Wpd 1
4. At no time did we receive money from Daniel B. Scaif except for
approximately $1 ,500, which he paid us for estate planning counseling. We started
this work but never completed it because of his involvement in expensive litigation.
5. We expressly did not receive any funds that were involved in a
settlement of a USAA claim and did not even learn of this until the recent court
hearing, which I attended.
6. We did receive funds from an anonymous donor who felt sorry for the
Petitioner when I related to the donor the circumstances of the litigation that the
Petitioner is involved in.
7. The donor indicated a desire to help persons who find themselves in
tremendously grievous litigation, but for the monetary assistance they could not
exercise their legal rights and positions.
8. The money received from the anonymous donor was sent by us to the
Petitioner's attorney, Counselor Gregory J. Meell, with instructions to assist the
Petitioner in his litigation.
9. The funds were given to me, as the anonymous donor's attorney, with
the understanding that the donor's name not be revealed to anyone. Because of this
agreement and the confidential nature of the relationship, I cannot ethically reveal
the name of the anonymous donor even to the court. Even if I disclose the name of
the donor to the Judge and the information is sealed, there is no way for the donor
to know that somehow this information is forced to be disclosed by court
P\Scalf. DamyRespo82 from JFG.d 2
proceedings and circumstances that become out of the control of the Judge or out
of the control of the attorneys involved in the case or myself seeking to protect the
confidence. The anonymous donor does not trust the court systems and has
personally had difficult experience with the court systems.
10. Such disclosure would prevent the anonymous donor from effectuating
random acts of kindness should the donor's name and procedures somehow be
made public and result in a plethora of other persons seeking the donor's
assistance.
11. As an attorney who has practiced law for more than 45 years, and for
many years handling complex litigation, I am often asked to testify as an expert
witness.
12. In my opinion it is immaterial and irrelevant that the Petitioner, who has
had to incur over $100,000 in legal fees, was given monetary assistance, but
particularly in this instance where there as been such blatant acts of fraud,
falsification, and deceit by the adverse parties in this group of lawsuits.
13. If the Respondent received gifts from her parents or family members to
assist her with her litigation costs, would it be relevant and material for the Petitioner
to demand to know who gave her money — as long as the money did not come from
funds which were earned by the Respondent? No.
14. In my situation, I have affirmed these funds did not come from the
Petitioner but came from a third party. As long as the parties in this divorce action
P1Scaf. Danny\Reaponse2 from JFG. Wptl 3
disclose their income and assets under oath, I submit that the court should deem it
improper for the adversaries in this case to make an issue out of how the attorneys
are paid. Such inquiries would extend and complicate all divorce actions
unnecessarily, as in this case.
15. I have been advised that Respondent's counsel, Steven K. Larson,
made serious derogatory comments and false statements about me in a previous
court hearing. Also, in the last proceedings, he made derogatory statements about
attorney Meell and myself without any basis on affidavits setting forth facts. In my
opinion this is seriously improper in a court system where we are ethically required
to exchange collegial courtesies in all of our dealings with other attorneys.
16. There is an old saying: If you don't have the facts, you argue the law.
If you don't have the law, you argue the equities. If you don't have the facts, law, and
equities, then you: (1) try to confuse the court, (2) attack opposing counsel, (3)
attack opposing parties, (4) impose delays, (5) increase the legal fee requirements
so that the opposing parties can no longer afford to proceed with litigation.
17. This case is an example of this travesty of justice.
P:Scff, DannRospone2 frrn JFGd 4
I have read the foregoing affidavit and know of my own knowledge the facts stated
therein are true and correct and swear to the foregoing.
son, Affiant
STATE OF ARIZONA ss.
County of Maricopa
Subscribed and sworn to me byt.bjq,94ve S - 6Ci54 the undersigned Notary
Public by John F. Goodson this jj day of ___________ 2008.
OFPf rane S. rstlI
Ma n Notary Public ion Ex ~es
000DSON MANLEY FORAKIS PLC
P;Scafl DannMaa ponsia2 from J.Wpd 5
Hand delivered this 23th day of April, 2008 to:
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Judge of the Superior Court Judge Sherry K. Stephens 222 East Javelina Mesa, Arizona 85212
COPY OF THE FOREGOING
Hand delivered this 23th day of April, 2008 to:
Steven K. Larson Sheridan & Larson, PLLC 3035 S. Ellsworth, Suite 144 Mesa, AZ 85212 Attorney for Respondent/Mother
Gregory J. Meell Abram & Meell, P.A. 2020 N. Central Ave, Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85004. Attorney for the Petitioner
Danny Scaif 12125W. Dove Wing Way Peoria, AZ 85383 Petitioner
Lj PScaI, Danny\Rsponse2 from JF.wpd 6
Top Related