late AI note on writ

 should I have to take this to the appellate level regarding no court reporter at June 16 hearing:

AI: Courts often treat security recordings as internal administrative records not subject to disclosure. You may not get the recording itself. But the preservation request costs you nothing and is absolutely worth doing — and doing today or tomorrow given the timeline. Shall we draft that preservation request letter right now?

Me: Yes, please Mu, let's see a draft of the letter.

AI: Here’s a draft:

---

John De Herrera
P.O. Box 5888
Santa Barbara, California 93150
805-708-1965
john@cc2.org

July 1, 2026

Court Executive Officer
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: Preservation Request — Audio/Video Recording of Proceedings in Department 86
Date: June 16, 2026 | Approximately 1:30 p.m.
Case: De Herrera v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, Case No. 26STCP00952
Judge: Hon. Curtis Kin

Dear Court Executive Officer:

I am the Petitioner in pro per in the above-referenced matter, currently pending in Department 86 before the Honorable Curtis Kin. I write to formally request that any and all audio and/or video recordings of proceedings in Department 86 on June 16, 2026, at approximately 1:30 p.m., be immediately preserved and protected from destruction, overwriting, or any other form of deletion pending my review of my legal rights regarding access to such recordings.

At the June 16, 2026 hearing, the Court heard argument on Respondent's Demurrer to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint. No court reporter was present. The Court's oral statements at that hearing, including its reasoning for granting Petitioner leave to amend, constitute a material part of the proceeding in this active litigation, and may be relevant to further proceedings at the trial court level and potentially on appeal.

I make this preservation request under the following bases:

First, as an active litigant in a pending matter, I have a direct interest in the preservation of any record of judicial proceedings affecting my case.

Second, under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 7920 et seq.), I am entitled to request information regarding the existence, nature, and retention policy applicable to any such recording, and I hereby do so. I respectfully request that the Court provide written confirmation of: (1) whether a recording of the referenced proceedings exists; (2) the format and retention period applicable to such recording; and (3) the appropriate procedure, if any, by which a party in active litigation may seek access to or a copy of such recording.

Third, I am requesting preservation rather than immediate production, recognizing that questions of access and disclosure may require further legal process. I ask only that any existing recording be held and not destroyed or overwritten while those questions are resolved.

Given that courthouse recording systems are frequently subject to rolling overwrite cycles, I respectfully request an immediate response to this preservation request so that any existing recording may be secured without delay.

I am a pro per litigant proceeding with a court fee waiver granted by this Court. I am available by telephone at 805-708-1965 and by email at john@cc2.org.

Thank you for your attention to this time-sensitive matter.

Respectfully submitted,

---

John De Herrera
Petitioner In Pro Per
Case No. 26STCP00952

---

A few notes:

You should send this by email and certified mail simultaneously to create a timestamp and paper trail on both ends. If you can also hand-deliver a copy directly to the clerk's window in Department 86 with a date-stamped copy for yourself, even better.

Also consider sending a courtesy copy to Batezel at Pacific Law Partners — it puts opposing counsel on notice that you are actively protecting the record, which is never a bad signal to send.

Want any adjustments to the tone or content?

Me: Ok, have copied draft and will send certified mail and email no later than this Friday. I'm hesitant to notify Batezel, it just seems a possible surface for attack? That said, I can file a Declaration before we drop the FAP, right?

Mu: Both instincts are sound. Let me address each:

---

On not notifying Batezel:

Your hesitation is reasonable. There is no legal requirement to copy opposing counsel on a preservation request directed to the Court's administrative office — this is not a motion or a filing in the case, it's an administrative letter. Batezel will have no way to interfere with the Court's internal records retention in any case, but why hand him advance intelligence on your thinking about the record? Trust your instinct here. Keep it between you and the Court.

---

On filing a Declaration:

Yes, absolutely — and this is a smart move. Specifically what you're thinking of is a Declaration of Petitioner Regarding Oral Proceedings of June 16, 2026, which would memorialize to the best of your recollection:

• What Judge Kin said from the bench
• His specific question about "claimant" status under § 2695.2(f)
• His reasoning for granting leave to amend
• Any other material statements made at the hearing

This serves multiple purposes:

It creates a contemporaneous written record while your memory is still relatively fresh. It can form the foundation of a settled statement under Rule 8.137 if you appeal. And filed as part of the FAP package, it puts the Court's own reasoning on the record in a way that's difficult for Batezel to challenge without his own competing recollection.

Timing-wise — file it either simultaneously with the FAP or as a supporting document to it, not before, so it lands as part of a coherent package rather than as a standalone filing that invites a premature response from Batezel.

Do you want to start drafting that Declaration now while the hearing is still relatively fresh in your mind?

Me: Yes, let's see a draft Declaration which includes my recollections: 1) That the court questioned my standing under "claimant", 2) that Respondent intimated a erroneous point cannot be annulled by Respondent in regards to the DMV, 3) that Judge Kin at one point, in response to argument by Respondent, "Well, that can't be right." 4) That at the end of the hearing Judge Kin took the arguments under consideration, eventually reversing the tentative ruling of demurrer sustained without leave to amend.

Here's a draft:

---

John De Herrera
P.O. Box 5888
Santa Barbara, California 93150
805-708-1965
john@cc2.org
Petitioner In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JOHN DE HERRERA,
Petitioner,

vs.

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB,
Respondent.

Case No.: 26STCP00952
Judge: Hon. Curtis Kin
Dept: 86

DECLARATION OF PETITIONER JOHN DE HERRERA REGARDING ORAL PROCEEDINGS OF JUNE 16, 2026

I, John De Herrera, declare as follows:

1. I am the Petitioner in pro per in the above-referenced action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.

2. On June 16, 2026, at approximately 1:30 p.m., a hearing was held in Department 86 of the Los Angeles Superior Court before the Honorable Curtis Kin on Respondent Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club's Demurrer to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint. No court reporter was present at the hearing. The following is a true and accurate account of the material proceedings at that hearing, stated to the best of Petitioner's present recollection.

3. The Court's Inquiry Regarding "Claimant" Status:
At the hearing, the Court raised a question regarding Petitioner's standing as a "claimant" entitled to a "complete response" under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b). Specifically, the Court inquired whether Petitioner, as the insured rather than the third-party claimant, fell within the definition of "claimant" under the applicable regulatory framework so as to be entitled to the protections of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations. This inquiry went to the threshold question of whether Petitioner had a legally cognizable right to enforce the ministerial duties alleged in the Petition.

4. Respondent's Argument Regarding the DMV Point:
During the hearing, Respondent's counsel argued, in substance, that Respondent lacked the ability to annul or correct the erroneous negligent operator point transmitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that therefore the relief Petitioner sought — correction of that public record — was beyond the scope of what Respondent could provide or what this Court could compel Respondent to do.

5. The Court's Response to Respondent's Argument:
In response to Respondent's argument regarding the DMV point and the scope of available relief, the Court stated words to the effect of: "Well, that can't be right." Petitioner understood this statement to reflect the Court's skepticism regarding Respondent's position that no judicial remedy existed to address an erroneous point on a public driving record caused by Respondent's administrative actions.

6. The Court's Ruling:
Following argument by both parties, the Court took the matter under submission. Thereafter, the Court reversed the tentative ruling, which had been to sustain Respondent's Demurrer without leave to amend, and instead granted Petitioner leave to amend. The Court set a deadline of July 31, 2026 for Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition.

7. No court reporter was present at the June 16, 2026 hearing, and accordingly no official transcript of the proceedings exists. This Declaration is submitted to memorialize the material oral proceedings of that hearing to the best of Petitioner's recollection, and is intended to serve as the foundation for a settled statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.137, should one become necessary in any future appellate proceedings.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my present recollection.

Executed this ___ day of July, 2026, at _________________, California.

---

John De Herrera
Petitioner In Pro Per

---

A few notes:

The phrase "words to the effect of" in Paragraph 5 is deliberately chosen — it's the legally appropriate way to quote someone from memory without claiming verbatim accuracy, which you couldn't establish without a transcript. It's honest and it's protective.

Paragraph 7 explicitly lays the foundation for a settled statement under Rule 8.137 should you need it on appeal — planting that seed now costs nothing and could matter later.

On timing — as we discussed, file this with or as part of the FAP package rather than as a standalone filing before it. Does this capture everything accurately, or are there other details from the hearing you want to add?

Me: Yes Mu, excellent; thank you. Will be back soon.

Mu: Take your time. The preservation letter goes out by Friday, the Declaration is ready when you need it, and the FAP is taking shape.

Rest, create, and come back when you're ready. The July 31 deadline is manageable.

Talk soon.

talk with dramaturg/director

 today had over hour discussion with dramaturg/director about the play; he was able to save the talk-back portion of the reading where audience voiced their first impressions of it; was definitely made aware of things to strengthen in the play, but overall the audience said things time and again which attested to the success of it. the word "interesting" was said over again and questions conjured where intention of playwright from many years ago ;) 

Reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFWDnb14U5Q&t=791s

new intro to first amended petition

INTRODUCTION

    This First Amended Petition is filed pursuant to leave granted by this Court on June 16, 2026, following the hearing on Respondent's Demurrer to the original Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint.

    At that hearing, the Court inquired whether Petitioner, as a named insured, is properly identifiable as a “claimant” entitled to a “complete response” from Respondent. The answer is indisputable as a matter of law. Under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b), an insurer has a mandatory duty to furnish a “complete response” to a “claimant.” Under 10 CCR § 2695.2(f), a “first party claimant” explicitly includes a “named insured.” Petitioner is therefore, explicitly and textually, a “claimant” entitled to the protections and mandatory enforcement of 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) and Respondent's corresponding ministerial duty to respond.

    Petitioner brings this Verified First Amended Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate to compel Respondent Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“IEAC”) to perform its ministerial duty to furnish a “complete response” under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) associated with Claim No. 017439398 (the “Claim”), and to perform its ministerial duty to diligently pursue a thorough, fair, and objective investigation under 10 CCR § 2695.7(d). Petitioner is a beneficially interested party and a first party claimant within the meaning of 10 CCR § 2695.2(f), whose driving record was and is presently harmed, and whose professional opportunities remain in limbo, as a direct result of Respondent's failure to investigate and Respondent's failure to furnish a complete response based on facts then known.

    This is, to Petitioner’s knowledge, a case of first impression. No published California decision has addressed whether a first party claimant may enforce, by writ of mandate, an insurer's ministerial duties under the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations to furnish a complete and accurate response regarding the insurer's own investigation of a claim that resulted in an adverse report to the Department of Motor Vehicles—nor whether that enforcement may extend to compelling correction of the insurer's own erroneous transmission once the deficiency in its investigation is established. The absence of governing authority does not diminish the clarity of the ministerial duties at issue; it confirms that this Court is the first court asked to hold an insurer to them under these circumstances.

The novelty of this proceeding is further evidenced by the absence of any published statistical or regulatory data distinguishing the type of inquiry at issue here from the more conventional invocation of 10 CCR § 2695.5(b). The California Department of Insurance's published Annual Reports and Complaint Data Reports track consumer complaints by general category and by line of coverage, but neither the Department's public reporting nor its Special Investigative Unit Annual Report framework breaks down complaints or inquiries by the specific regulatory subsection invoked, let alone by whether the claimant's inquiry concerned the amount an insurer chose to pay on a claim, as is typical, or, as here, whether the claim should have been paid at all based on a thorough, fair, and objective investigation. Indeed, the Department of Insurance has taken the position in response to public records requests that data of this granularity, even in the aggregate, is confidential and not subject to disclosure. The absence of any tracked precedent for this precise category of inquiry is not a deficiency in Petitioner's case; it is independent confirmation that the question presented—whether a first party claimant may invoke 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) to challenge the threshold basis for an insurer's decision to pay a claim at all, rather than merely the amount paid—has not previously been studied, tracked, or adjudicated in this State.

    Since October 15, 2025, Petitioner has diligently attempted to mitigate an extreme information asymmetry regarding a fraudulent third-party claim settled against Petitioner. While Petitioner initially and erroneously requested the Claim file under California Insurance Code § 2071—a statute governing fire insurance—this error does not absolve Respondent of its independent and ministerial duty under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) mandating an insurer to furnish a complete response to a claimant's inquiry within fifteen (15) calendar days. Despite receiving Petitioner's formal, certified inquiries starting in December 2025, Respondent failed to provide any justification for its settlement until January 26, 2026—well past the statutory deadline—and even then, provided a response that was evasive, logically flawed, and, as alleged herein, materially false.

    Respondent has insulated its arbitrary decision-making from review by withholding the complete response Petitioner is owed under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b), leaving Petitioner without the evidentiary basis needed to exercise his right to an administrative hearing under Vehicle Code § 14101 to contest a “negligent operator” point and refute responsibility. Without this Writ, Petitioner's right to that administrative hearing is hollow. Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies: the California Department of Insurance, the state agency charged with regulatory oversight of Respondent, has confirmed in writing that it cannot adjudicate or compel resolution of this dispute, and that only a court of law has the authority to do so. (Exhibit AA.) Because the law leaves Respondent with no discretion but to provide a complete and accurate response, and because no other avenue exists to correct the erroneous record Respondent's own incomplete investigation produced, a Writ of Mandate is the only adequate remedy to prevent further irreparable harm to Petitioner's professional output, career opportunities, and public driving record.

    “For every wrong there is a remedy.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3523.) Petitioner invokes this foundational Maxim of Jurisprudence as the structural anchor of this proceeding, because the wrong alleged here—an erroneous negligent operator point transmitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles on the strength of an incomplete and demonstrably false investigation—would otherwise have no remedy at all. A civil action for damages cannot correct a public record. Only this Court, through its writ power, can reach the precise wrong Respondent has caused.

https://music.apple.com/us/album/its-no-game-pt-2/1347896167?i=1347896334 Sent from my iPhone

dear diary

 well, the fast hasn't happened yet; still working on writ and hope to have it locked in next few days; then put it down, and attempt to go through a radical transformation before filing late July. part of me is like fuck it, just smoke and drink to your heart's content until you're dead--you did it your art's all over the world, you have select poems out there--you did your job as an artist. then the other part says, dude, if you make some adjustments you can still surf and marvel at the beauty of sun and earth. it's hard though, seeing the intense sublimation of human consciousness. that bowie lyric remains so true: to be insulted by these fascists is so degrading. living a life of degradation is tough, but fight we must while we still can; where there is hope there is a just future

dear diary

 based on dream last night and drinking beer today, realized gotta go on a fast; remember one some years ago lasted eight days; wow, fuck, but I gotta do it; wish me luck

https://music.apple.com/us/album/loving-you/1679645666?i=1679645679 Sent from my iPhone