https://music.apple.com/us/album/dont-cry/1440896026?i=1440896173 Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
haha; what year is this again?
https://music.apple.com/us/album/still-the-same/1440888092?i=1440888099 Sent from my iPhone
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
