J.M. Rivera-Arvelo
The following are questions raised to identify better the judgment held in the matter of In re: Jesús M. Rivera-Arvelo; CP 88-617; TS-4814
QUESTIONS:( )TRUE OR ( )FALSE
1- Is it true or not that the Superior Court Caguas Part sua sponte dismissed two times the case filed in the year 1977 for want of prosecution; one time in the year 1979 and the other in the year 1982?
( )True ( ) False
2- Is it true or not that the Superior Court Caguas Part entered judgment with prejudice on its second dismissal, Rule 39.2(b) L.P.R.A., Ap.III?
( )True ( ) False
3- Is it true or not that the parties never appealed in any way the judgment, with prejudice above mentioned?
( )True ( ) False
4- Is it true or not that the case at the Superior Court Caguas Part had to do with a mortgage foreclosure guaranteed with a promissory note notarized under affidavit 1798?
( )True ( ) False
5- Is it true or not that, the legal effects of the judgment [entered by the Superior Court Caguas Part] voids or automatically cancel the promissory note notarized under affidavit 1798?
( )True ( ) False
6- Is it true or not that the judgment itself,entered sua sponte,by Justice Julio O. Berríos from the Superior Court Caguas Part with prejudice on its second dismissal, was at all times in effect and valid?
( )True ( ) False
7- Is it true or not that as to what appears from the opinion, nobody exercised undue influence whatsoever, in regard to the judgment entered by Justice Julio O. Berríos of the Superior Court Caguas Part?
( )True ( ) False
8- Is it true or not that as to the judgment entered by Justice Julio O. Berríos from the Superior Court Caguas Part, there was not any legal grounds shown in the judgment to appeal from his decision.
( )True ( ) False
- 2 -
9- Is it true or not that the plaintiff never seek any judicial remedy from 1982 until 1986?
( )True ( ) False
10- Is it true or not that, in general, at this point the property could had been disposed of by its owner, the debtor or debtors who subscribed the mortgage and the promissory note notarized under affidavit 1798?
( )True ( ) False
11- Is it true or not that after the Judgment was entered, it was not until close to four (4) years after that the plaintiff instated a separate action in a different court locality,i. e., Superior Court Carolina Part?
( )True ( ) False
12- Is it true or not that the new and separate cause of action instated by the plaintiff in a different court locality,i.e. Superior Court Carolina Part contested the validity of the judgment held by the Superior Court Caguas Part, including allegations for "nullity of judgment, nullity of legal act, foreclosure of mortgage, and damages"?
( )True ( ) False
13- Is it true or not that the new and separate cause of action instated by the plaintiff in a different court locality,i.e. Superior Court Carolina Part contesting the validity of the judgment held by the Superior Court Caguas Part, including allegations for "nullity of judgment, nullity of legal act, foreclosure of mortgage, and damages", within the time frame available for close to 4 years,they could have instead either to appeal, applied for reconsideration or reopened same?
( )True ( ) False
14- Is it true or not that the new and separate cause of action instated by the plaintiff before Superior Court Carolina Part contesting the validity of the judgment held by the Superior Court Caguas Part,both courts have the same level of authority?
( )True ( ) False
15- Is it true or not that the new and separate cause of action instated by the plaintiff before the Superior Court of Carolina Part added for the first time a widow, and that she was omitted in the first case held at the Superior Court Caguas Part?
( )True ( ) False
16- Is it true or not that there is a Puerto Rico's jurisprudence deciding that a independent cause of action cannot be instated to review a judgment; Figueroa v. Banco de San Juan, 108 DPR 680 (1979); Rodríguez v. Tribunal Superior, 102 DPR 290 (1974); neither to substituted said resource; O.Parés, Inc. v. Galán, 98 DPR 772 (1970)?
( )True ( ) False
17- Is it true or not that by adding for the first time the widow was one of the grounds to instate the separate action before the Superior Court Carolina Part contesting the validity of the judgment held by the Superior Court Caguas Part?
( )True ( ) False
18- Is it true or not that the widow has always been available as plaintiff since the commencement, during and after the date the Superior Court Caguas Part entered judgment with prejudice on its second dismissal?
( )True ( ) False
19- Is it true or not that the widow was always available even while the proceedings were taking place and after the date the Superior Court of Caguas entered judgment with prejudice?
( )True ( ) False
20- Is it true or not that under the Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated on Title 31, Civil Code, Sec.3343 (3rd,parragraph) the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held on privity the cases of Araujo v. Arenas,60 D.P.R. 284(1942); González v. Méndez et als, 15 DPR 701 (1909)and Rodríguez v. Castaign 7 DPR 370 (1904), Arecibo Radio v. Commonwealth, 825 F.2d 589 (1987),as extensive to the doctrine of res judicata?
( )True ( ) False
21- Is it true or not that the above statements are doctrines and they still are in effect in Puerto Rico?
( )True ( ) False
22- Is it true or not that privity means a relationship between parties out of which there arises some mutuality of interest. 274 NYS 875; also 443 P.2d 39,43?
( )True ( ) False
23- Is it true or not that in the law of judgments, the doctrine of res judicata is said to apply not only to one who was a party to the litigation, but also to those " in privity" with him, since their mutual or subsequently acquired interests can be considered so related to the interest of the actual party litigant that it is proper to hold them bound by the judgment as well. 200 N.W. 2d 45,47?
( )True ( ) False
24- Is it true or not that privity in this concept is said to exist, and to invoke res judicata, especially where a party has, subsequent to the rendition of the judgment, acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by judgment, 289 N.E. 2d 788, 793?
( )True ( ) False
25- Is it true or not that privity in this concept applies also to a widow as well even if she was not a named party to an action [who]controls it?
( )True ( ) False
26- Is it true or not that privity of estate denotes mutual or successive relation to the same right in property. A privy in estate is one who derives from another title to property, by
contract (grant, will, or other voluntary transfer of possession), or law, like descent and judgment, 60 S.E. 404, 405?
( )True ( ) False
27- Is it true or not that these raised defenses of res judicata and privity, usury was ignored and never considered by any court of justice in Puerto Rico?
( )True ( ) False
28- Isn't true that "summary judgment preverdic" is a device designed to effect a prompt disposition of controversies on their merits without resort to a lengthy trial, if in essence there is no real dispute as to salient facts or if only a question of law is involved, 172 S.E.2d 816, 817 (See Federal Rule and Civil Procedures 56, also Rule 36 Law of Puerto Rico Annotated)?
( )True ( ) False
29- Is it true or not that it was defendants[Rivera-Arvelo] who moved the court with a motion of summary judgment, under the doctrine of res judicata?
( )True ( ) False
30- Is it true or not that according to the Supreme Court's opinion, expert witnesses testified, testimonies reflected matters like fraud, simulated signatures, calligraphy forensic expert reports, forensic laboratory analysis, including Justice Julio O. Berríos' testimony and the deposition taken to the debtor and owner of the property at stake?
( )True ( ) False
31- Is it true or not that when any of the parties move the court with a motion of summary judgment the opponent party should serve a cross motion, and that the civil rules do not provide a device to bring another separate motion for summary judgment instead (See Federal Rule and Civil Procedures 56, also Rule 36.3, Law of Puerto Rico Annotated and Rules 3212 and §3213 CPLR); Manning v. Turtel (1987, 2d Dept.)135 App. Div. 2d 511, 522 NYS2d 13)?
( )True ( ) False
32- Is it true or not that the court cannot adjudge in a motion for summary judgment, issues of facts like fraud, and its authority is limited to determine if there are issues of facts that should go to trial, Sucn. Meléndez v. DACO,1982, 112 DPR 86?
( )True ( ) False
33- Is it true or not that the separate motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff included a sworn statement made by the notary public, Atty. Medina Aymat,on April 29, 1986 same did not constitute a mortis causa declaration
(In anticipation of approaching death and did not comply with any other legal provision at all)?
( )True ( ) False
34- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court's judgment added in its opinion that "Finally, his conduct in that court [referring to the Superior Court Carolina Part] was characterized by his repeated breach of the court orders and for his failure to notify the adverse party of several of the briefs he had filed", a statement which was not part of the charges pressed therein and couldn't cross examine and offer any evidence at all in rebuttal thereof, In re: John Ruffalo, Jr., 390 U.S. 544, April 8,1968?
( )True ( ) False
35- Is it true or not that the new and separate cause of action instated by the plaintiff before Superior Court of Carolina contesting the validity of the judgment held by the Superior Court of Caguas, alleged among other things matters like i.e., "nullity of ,legal act, foreclosure of mortgage and - 6 -
damages",against the defendant party?
( )True ( ) False
36- Is it true or not that the case file from the Superior Court Caguas Part was joint(accumulated)to the Superior Court Carolina Part, the Supreme Court took judicial notice of same in its opinion and that the defendants had raised, among other defenses res judicata and usury, yet the opinion held did not entertain anything of the above?
( )True ( ) False
37- Is it true or not that these defenses of res judicata and usury were never considered and entertained by any court of justice in Puerto Rico?
( )True ( ) False
38- Is it true or not that Judgment entered at the Superior Court Caguas Part doesn't mention anything about fraud, simulation of signature and the annulation of a any deed?
( )True ( ) False
39- Is it true or not that the Superior Court Carolina Part never scheduled in any moment a hearing of any kind and/or for any purpose at all whatsoever?
( )True ( ) False
40- Is it true or not that generally speaking the owner and debtor in this case may dispose of his property at any time and at any moment, regardless if the property is still a part of any judicial proccedings and that in any event, the only effect this may have for the buyer could be to pay the creditor?
( )True ( ) False
41- Is it true or not that, according to the record, the debtor and owner of the rural property Pedro Santoni Román owed fees approximately $60,000 to his attorney, Rivera-Arvelo, where the said debtor and his wife convey, as dation in payment of the debt, their property right one the rural property as a partial payment to cover his debts?
( )True ( ) False
42- Is it true or not that the sworn statement taken to the notary public, Atty. Medina Aymat was not in contemplation of his death(which may happened long time thereafter),that the
defendants were not "invited" to this act; neither a
deposition was even considered therein, like for instance the provisions under Rule 23.1(b), L.P.R.A. Ap.III as a more effective method pursuant to the rules of discovery?
( )True ( ) False
43- Is it true or not that generally speaking a sworn statement may be consider a "hearsay" evidence and in some other situations may apply as "self-serving" document?
( )True ( ) False
44- Is it true or not that a notary public in Puerto Rico may amend mistakes made in a mortgage deed by executing a new deed named "Acta Aclaratoria" (Exculpatory Clause or Explanatory Document) Rule 39, Notary Law or any other legal remedy to amend the deed among the signed parties or correct the mistake with a different deed?
( )True ( ) False
45- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court in its opinion averts that it was unnecessary the use of experts-examiners, however it devotes special attention in its Findings of Facts, quote: "Although with regard to the weighing of the expert evidence we are in the same position as the Special Master, we agree with his opinion that such weighing is not necessary for the solution of the case under our consideration"?
( )True ( ) False
46- Is it true or not that in reference to #44,the Supreme Court opinion admitted the fact that in order to arrived at these Findings of Facts, the the Special Master had the benefit of the testimony of the forensic examiners brought both by the Solicitor General and by attorney Rivera-Arvelo?
( )True ( ) False
47- Is it true or not that the (rural) property was surrendered to the plaintiffs,as a consequence of the Supreme Court' denial to review the appeal ?
( )True ( ) False
48- Is it true or not that it was Jesus M. Rivera-Arvelo, as defendant, who filed the petition to review before the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, reason why this court learned about his case for the very first time?
( )True ( ) False
49- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, did not review his case, instead ordered the Solicitor General to investigate the professional conduct of Jesus M. Rivera-Arvelo?
( )True ( ) False
50- Is it true or not that the transcripts reveals the Solicitor's General examiner changed his opinion on his report after hearing Rivera-Arvelo's expert opinion in reference to the notary public, Atty. Medina Aymat's alleged forged and/or simulated signature?
( )True ( ) False
51- Is it true or not that the opinion by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico only shows that the examiners submitted contradictory reports with regard to the authenticity of the signature of notary public, Atty. Medina Aymat?
( )True ( )False
52- Is it true or not that notwithstanding the above the Special Master and the Supreme Court's opinion as well still concluded that the Solicitor's General examiner prevailed?
( )True ( )False
53- Is it true or not that the opinion held by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, nothing says about Rivera-Arvelo's conduct in regard to the signatures' issue?
( )True ( )False
54- Is it true or not that the judgment by the Superior Court Caguas Part dismissing the case two times its effect applies to all the parties?
( )True ( ) False
55- Is it true or not that the Superior Court Caguas Part,its second judgment dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution ( Rule 39.2(b) L.P.R.A., Ap.III,) the annulation by the Superior Court Carolina Part, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, without Finding of Facts or analysis of any kind,in particular to this area of the law?
( )True ( ) False
56- Is it true or not that the Superior Court of Caguas Part,its judgment dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution as a second dismissal ( Rule 39.2(b) L.P.R.A., Ap.III,), annulled by the Superior Court Carolina Part, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, reaffirmed the "Cross" Motion for Summary Judgment submitted by the plaintiff, without Finding of Facts?
( )True ( ) False
57- Is it true or not that the judgment held by the Superior court Caguas Part,dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution for the second time,( Rule 39.2(b) L.P.R.A.,Ap.III,) annulled by the Superior Court Carolina-Part, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, ignored in its opinion to comment or to analyzed the res judicata doctrine's applicability raised by the defendant, without Findings of Facts?
( )True ( ) False
58- Is it true or not that the judgment held by the Superior Court Caguas Part,dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution for the second time,( Rule39.2 (b) L.P. R. A. Ap. III,) by Justice Julio 0. Berrios, would have granted all the rights to the debtor and owner Pedro L. Santoni-Román to dispose of his property at any time, even to J.M. Rivera-Arvelo for about 4 years and that he wouldn't violate Canon 23 or § 3773 of 31 L.P.R.A., Section 742, because he is not a lawyer?
( )True ( ) False
59- Is it true or not that if the above statement is correct, the fact that J.M. Rivera-Arvelo acquired from his client, defendant Pedro L. Santoni-Román his [rural] property he just violated Canon 23, which is the same effect as § 3773 of 31 L.P.R.A., sec 742, regarding the res litigiosoe?
( )True ( ) False
60- Is it true or not that if statements 1 through 8 and 55 are correct, needless is to say the fact that it was not necessary for J.M. Rivera-Arvelo to:
[A] "Use any illegal manner and form or any other means of fraudulent performance to acquire the property, subjectmatter of the litigations in which he represented the debtor, and
[B] To cancel a forged promissory note of any kind, in reference to his case."?
( )True ( ) False
61- Is it true or not that at all times J.M. Rivera-Arvelo denied that the promissory note was cancelled with fraudulent intent?
( )True ( ) False
62- Is it true or not that if statement #59 and #60 are correct, needless is to say the fact that it was not necessary for J.M. Rivera-Arvelo to:
[A] "Lie in reference to the validity of the mortgage note cancelled by Deed No. 25,
[B] Lie about the note that was not given to grantor Pedro
L. Santoni-Román before the deed was executed."
( )True ( ) False
63- Is it true or not that apart of the fact that the same defenses raised before the Superior Court Caguas Part J.M. Rivera-Arvelo at all times denied having incurred professional misconduct in Civil Case No. 86-259(E) before the Superior Court Carolina Part?
( )True ( ) False
64- Is it true or not that Carlos M. Ortiz-Velázquez "adduced that at no time had Rivera-Arvelo informed him about the origin of the promissory notes to be cancelled or about any litigation in which said promissory notes have been involved"?
( )True ( ) False
65- Is it true or not that if Carlos M. Ortiz-Velázquez had known of the above situation as for statement #64, through J.M. Rivera-Arvelo, on time, he should had solved the whole problem by executing a new deed named Explanatory or Exculpatory Act?
( )True ( ) False
66- Is it true or not that if Carlos M. Ortiz-Velázquez had known on time through J.M.Rivera-Arvelo of the above situation as shown on statement #65,his laziness, sloopiness, inactive, and indifferent, attitude by not spreading out all his professional capacity "may go against the code of ethics", In re Carlos M. Ortiz Velázquez, SCPR ("T.S.P.R.1l)-98-42; 98 DTS ("DSCII)042, April 15, 1998?
( )True ( )False
67- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held in a this case against Carlos M. Ortiz-Velázquez that he was carelessness and because of this the "Court cannot let him go unpunished"?
( )True ( ) False
68- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico decided about five(5) years after, in a different case against Carlos M. Ortiz-Velázquez published through SCPR(I'T.S.P.R.11)98-DTS
42; 98 DTS ("DSCII)042, April 15, 1998 that the had a lazy, slopy, inactive and indifferent attitude by not spreading out all his professional capacity and that this may go against the code of ethics, In re Carlos M. Ortiz Veldzquez?
( )True ( ) False
69- Is it true or not that if questions #65 through #68 are correct, when the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico decided in SCPR ("T.S.P.R.1l)-98-42; 98 DTS("DSCII)042,April 15,1998 to suspend again Carlos M. Ortiz-Veldzquez, did not emphasize the fact that he was previously punished in this case CP-88-617,like they did to Rivera-Arvelo previous admonitions?
( )True ( ) False
70- Is it true or not that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico never had a case, although not identical, but at least with similar characteristics or same issues like here, where:
A- The Superior Court dismissed two times a case for lack of prosecution that had to do with a mortgage foreclosure guaranteed with a notarized promissory note,
B- The Superior Court entered judgment with prejudice on its second dismissal, Rule 39.2(b) L.P.R.A., AP.III, and
C- That the parties never appealed from that judgment with prejudice?
( )True ( ) False
71- Is it true or not that if statement #70 is correct the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has never decided in former opinions cases of this same kind and nature, to apply the effectiveness of the judgment prospectively, In re: Rivera Cruz 126 D.P.R. 768 (1990)In re: Juan R. Marchand Quintero 2000 OTS 134 (2000 TSPR 134) September 14, 2000?
( )True ( ) False
72- Is it true or not that on March 4, 1993 the Supreme Court punished J.M. Rivera-Arvelo for a indefinite suspension?
( )True ( ) False
73- Is it true or not that J.M. Rivera-Arvelo was indefinitely suspended and not:” disbarred and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law" or with a "permanent separation", or "precluded from restoration", pursuant to Sec. 12 9, Law of March 11,1909 4 L.P.R.A., Section 735 or other provision of any law, whatsoever?
( )True ( ) False
74- Is it true or not that assuming the mayority, if not all, of the above questions were "true", the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico opinion grossly violated the due process of law either under the U.S. XIV Amendment; Article I, New York §6,and/or Puerto Rico under Article II, Bill of Rights, §7 ?
( )True ( ) False
75- Is it true or not that if the above statement is correct the judgment, opinion and/or order should be vacated as a matter of law?
( )True ( ) False
76- Is it true or not that, if that was the case, the sanction or punishment decreed by Supreme Court of Puerto Rico without fixing a limited the time frame was extremely excessive.
( )True ( ) False
77- Is it true or not that due to the fact that Rivera-Arvelo acquired the property after Justice Julio Berios Jimenez signed the judgment, although same was not notified yet by the Clerk, didn't justify an indefinite suspension of this kind?
( )True ( ) False
78- Is it true or not that even New York state jurisdiction never had a case, though not identical, but with similar characteristics like this one?
( )True ( ) False
79- Is it true or not that "New York courts cannot escape their duty of constitutional review of statutes merely because federal courts also have the responsibility, Jones v. Banner Moving & Storage, Inc. (1974) 78 Misc 2d 762, 358 NYS2d 885, 15 UCCRS 1, affirmed in part and modified in part on other grounds(2d Dept) 48 AD2d 928, 369 NYS2d 804, 17 UCCRS 492?
( )True ( ) False
80- Is it true or not that if in a certain jurisprudence the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico decides to apply prospectively the case where the attorney charged happened to have strong ties (next of kin) with Josd Andreu, president of said court, upon matters previously decided in other cases, would violate not only the U.S. V and XIV Amendment, but also Article I, §6, of the New York Constitution, In re: Andreu Ramirez,Cesar-98 DTS 188; 99 TSPR 188?
( )True ( ) False
81- Is it true or not that if the mayority of the above statements are "true" the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico have an appearance of bias and prejudiced against Rivera-Arvelo's property rights affecting substantially his rights protected under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, V and XIV Amendment, also the Constitution of New York, under Article I, §6, New York, and/or Puerto Rico, under Article II, Bill of Rights,§7 ?
( )True ( ) False
82- Is it true or not that if the above #81 is "true", therefore the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in behalf of its Supreme Court did not provide the due process of law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, V and XIV Amendment; the Constitution of New York, under Article I, §6, New York, and/or Puerto Rico under Article II, Bill of Rights,§7 yet equal protection of the law was neither provided?
( )True ( ) False
83- Is it true or not that there is a doctrine which states that "under the full faith and credit provisions of United States Constitution Article 4 §1, and Judiciary Law §90(5) disbarment in another state does not automatically deny admission to the New York bar, nor is readmission to the bar in such state a prerequisite to admission in New York, the court retaining power to consider all factors bearing on character and fitness and to make an independent
determination thereof. Re Kimball (1973, 2d Dept.) 40 AD2d 252, 339 NYS2d 302, reversed on other grounds 33 NY2d 586, 347 NYS2d 453, 301 NE2d 436?
( )True ( ) False
84- Is it true or not that "issue of a prior. . . [suspension]. may not be relitigated in disciplinary proceeding, but competent evidence may be adduced to explain or mitigate the significance of [the suspension]. Re Hemlock (1976, lst Dept) 52 AD2d 248, 383 NYS2d 600?
( )True ( ) False
85- Is it true or not that it has been held that 11[w]here an attorney was disbarred following conviction of a felony in federal court, and upon a review of the facts it was clear that the evidence was entirely insufficient to prove his guilty, the order of disbarment is vacated and the petitioner is reinstated as an attorney at law." Re Kaufmann(1928) 223 AD 299, 228 NYS 349?
( )True ( ) False