ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                              Case No: HED 011658


 1   9. CHANGE OF INCOME
 2          The responden...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                        Case No: HED 011658


 1   being ill, tell his partner Gary Alexander he wasn’...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                          Case No: HED 011658


 1

 2   8:44a.m. Leah Burno / Respondent MDD

 3   “I...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                       Case No: HED 011658


 1
     some thing he would be out there doing something ...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                        Case No: HED 011658


 1
     Case No: RIC 530059
     Danielson v. Riverside ...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                             Case No: HED 011658


 1   5/30/2007 REVIEW
               RESPONSIVE DEC...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                       Case No: HED 011658


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

1...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                       Case No: HED 011658


 1

 2
                                     _____________...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                       Case No: HED 011658


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6
                       EXHIBIT A
 ...
ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON                       Case No: HED 011658


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9
                      ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Attachment S Fl150e Hed 0116582009

294 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
294
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Attachment S Fl150e Hed 0116582009

  1. 1. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 9. CHANGE OF INCOME 2 The respondents income has significantly decrease based 3 from the results of the opposing parties discovering the 4 respondents employment opportunities, personal relationships in order to continue there objective in violation 5 6 18 U.S.C. § 1589: (Forced labor) 7 Obtaining labor or services by (1) threats of serious harm to, or 8 physical restraint against victim or another person; (2) scheme, 9 plan, etc. causing victim to believe she’d suffer serious harm or 10 physical restraint if labor/services not performed; (3) abuse or 11 threatened abuse of law or the legal process. 12 13 There is a reasonable indication, based on the statements the respondent encountered on Oct 30 and November 14 5, the respondents former employer Competrol was subject to 15 engaged in the illegal activity due to the following 16 conversations and questions made at Competrol in reference to 17 the respondent. 18 19 October 31 20 Approx. 6:42a.m. 21 The respondent was on his way to a job site in Helendale next 22 to TXI Riverside Cement Oro Grande and receives a phone by his boss Rob Iorio and was in a panic of fear state. Rob said 23 something happened at home and he was turning back around, I 24 asked him if everything was okay, Rob replied I don’t know 25 some thing happen to his wife or daughter, and I was to 26 contact his clients/appointments and reschedule them due to 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  2. 2. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 being ill, tell his partner Gary Alexander he wasn’t able to 2 make it, and his phone will be off. 3 November 5 4 Respondent arrived at work to learn there was a change of plans due to Rob and Gary stating it wasn’t safe for the 5 respondent to be in Helendale due to the dispute between TXI 6 Riverside Cement and the respondent 7 8 HR Leah Burno of Competrol- November 5, 9 10 8:35 a.m. Leah Burno H.R / Phone...P 11 “Yeah that’s going to be a hell of a wake up call haha...He’s 12 not even headed in that direction...Did he ask you the right 13 question.” Hangs up 14 8:42a.m. Respondent MDD / Leah Burno 15 “Do you know what happen with Rob, Friday he called on my way 16 up to Silver Lakes Market”. (helendale)# 17 Leah / Respondent MDD 18 “he had family problems, it had nothing to do with you”. 19 Respondent MDD / Leah Burno “when he called me he sounded like he was in fear, crying and 20 said he had to turn around something happen at home and he ask 21 22 me to contact his clients that he is ill and to tell gary he 23 was’t able to make it. On Monday I asked Rob what happen and 24 he replied OH DON’T EVEN GO THERE, I asked Rob it didn’t have 25 any thing to do with me did it cause I told him why I didn’t 26 want to do this job site” 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  3. 3. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 2 8:44a.m. Leah Burno / Respondent MDD 3 “It’s funny that he would call you not Gary or I” (Mike reveals some evidence to her as she comments “how did you get that”) 4 5 8:52a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 6 “He has bigger problems to deal with”... 7 8 8:53a.m Leah Burno / Phone... 9 “Hey as long as the check cashes right haha”... 10 8:55a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 11 “He won’t be back for a while”. 12 13 8:56a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 14 “Well you know if any thing is ever brought up, we can always 15 just say that he quit here”... 16 17 8:58a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 18 “There is so much drama here I cant even tell ya”... 19 20 9:08a.m Leah Burno / Phone... 21 Dialed...“Hi, he’s gone for good (Laughs) bye”. (hangs up) 22 23 9:20a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 24 “he’s not even 100% for Obama... you know he realizes this is 25 all a political machine...he would’t go work for him he would 26 like campaign for him...If Michael was that passionate about 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  4. 4. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 some thing he would be out there doing something about it...So 2 what does he do just deal with it...Were Done, Were Done, Were 3 Done...haha”... 4 5 9:29a.m Leah Burno / Phone... 6 “here are people who said that...I.m not making excuses for 7 him...It’s not that black and white”... 8 9 9:__a.m. Leah Burno / Phone... 10 Well I’ll probably be dead anyways I want to stay around as 11 long as I can”...So you consider your friends inheriting 12 evil ...Wow I’m glad I’m not you...Why am I taking the cop out 13 Rich. 14 ___a.m. Leah Burno / Visitor 15 16 17 Other Cases 18 Case No: VVCV 042021 TXI v. Danielson 19 Case No: FVI024979 20 TXI v. Danielson 21 Case No: MVI049835 D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0029718- Ramos, TXI v. Danielson 22 Case No: FVA027339 23 TXI v. Danielson 24 Case No: MVI049833 25 D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0040766 – Ramos, TXI v. Danielson 26 Case No: 08-O-14773 Danielson v. Miller 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  5. 5. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 Case No: RIC 530059 Danielson v. Riverside Cement 2 3 Case No: ED-CV-09-1442 Danielson v. Riverside cement 4 5 Case No: 13067-VNRCI 6 Case No: 09-2680-OIP 7 Danielson vs. TXI Operations LP 8 9 San Bernardino County Assessor//Recorders Office 10 San Bernardino District Attorney Michael A Ramos Offic 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 15. Attorney Fees: 23 DANIELSON, MIKEL 24 BILLING SUMMARY 25 DATE DESCRIPTION RATE HOURS TOTAL 4/12/2007 INTAKE FILE SB 250 1.8 450 26 4/20/2007 OSC:VISITATION, SPOUSAL SUPPORT SB 250 4.4 1100 27 ATTY FEES 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  6. 6. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 5/30/2007 REVIEW RESPONSIVE DEC SB 250 0.3 75 2 FILED BY OC 7/25/2007 HEARING RE:OC JD 250 2.5 625 3 9/20/2007 APPEARANCE DM 300 0.2 60 2/4/2008 STIP TO 4 CONTINUE MSC SB 250 0.2 50 5 VARIOUS TC TO OC SB 250 2.2 550 6 VARIOUS TC TO FROM CLIENT SB 250 1.9 475 7 FILING 45 FEES 8 RUNNER, 160 DELIVERY 9 TOTAL 4735 10 3/29/2007 PAYMENT -900 11 4/30/2007 PAYMENT -600 5/07/2007 PAYMENT -300 12 9/14/2007 PAYMENT -1000 9/17/2007 PAYMENT -500 13 BALANCE DUE: 1435 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4. Other Parties Income: 22 See Exhibit A Pages DOCUMENTS MLS ON FILE- Note: NO QUICKCLAIM MLS 23 24 See Exhibit B ___ Pages DOCUMENTS HANDED TO RESPONDENT 25 CLOSING STATEMENTS-HUD 1 TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP-### 26 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  7. 7. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I MIKEL DEE DANIELSON DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER 22 THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 23 24 DATED: NOVEMBER 17 2009 25 26 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  8. 8. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 2 ________________________ 3 MIKEL DEE DANIELSON 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  9. 9. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXHIBIT A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION
  10. 10. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EXHIBIT B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________ ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

×