federal lawsuit against steve rombom

8/2/2019 Federal Lawsuit Against Steve Rombom

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/federal-lawsuit-against-steve-rombom 1/9

COMPLAINT - 1

1

2

3

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

NEW YORK

Alan Jules Weberman, pro se318 3rd Avenue520NYC 10010917-374-7024

Jewish Defense OrganizationP.O. Box 646

New York, New York 10150Plaintiffs,

vs.

Steven Paul RombomP. O. Box 300155Midwood StationBrooklyn, New York 11230 USA

Gary Alan Kurtz20335 Ventura Blvd. Suite 200

Woodland Hills, California91364

Defendants

)))))))))) Case No.: [Case number]

COMPLAINT

Dated this [Date]______________________

COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR MONETARY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This action seeks monetary and injunctive relief from the

defendants for violation of the First Amendment Constitutional

guarantee of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the

press by Plaintiff’s use of a monetary judgment to suppress it.



COMPLAINT - 2

1

2

3

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

Regulations that impact speech but that are unrelated to the

content of that speech are subject, at minimum, to a judicial

level of scrutiny. See Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC , 512 U.S. 622,

642 (1994). See also Ctr. for Democracy and Tech. v. Pappert,

337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 652-53 (E.D. Pa. 2004). Domain names are

essential to the dissemination of online speech; therefore their

seizure by a judgment creditor is problematical. As set forth by

the Supreme Court in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367

(1968), scrutiny requires that a regulation is unrelated to the

suppression of free expression; and that the incidental

restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater

than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. This

overbroad seizure of Plaintiff’s URLs violated the First

Amendment rights of Internet users who wished to access material

on Plaintiff’s site. The First Amendment not only “embraces the

right to distribute literature,” it also “necessarily protects

the right to receive it.” Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S.

141, 143 (1943) (“the right to receive ideas is a necessary

predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own

rights of speech, press, and political freedom”) (emphasis in

original). This Constitutional right to receive information

applies specifically to information disseminated over the

Internet. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997)

(invalidating law that restricted adults’ right to accessinformation on the Internet). The impact on speech resulting

from domain-name seizure is far beyond what is necessary to

further the Judgment Creditor’s interest.



COMPLAINT - 3

1

2

3

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

The seizure of Plaintiff’s domain names also plainly

violated the First Amendment requirement that any prior

restraint of speech “take[] place under procedural safeguards

designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.” Se.

Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 559 (1975) (quoting

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965)). Indeed, there is

a “heavy presumption against [the] constitutional validity” of

any prior restraint of speech. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,

372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963) (emphasis added); see also Se.

Promotions, Ltd., 420 U.S. at 559-60 (“The presumption against

prior restraints is heavier — and the degree of protection

broader — than that against limits on expression imposed by

criminal penalties.”)

THE PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff’s are officers of the Jewish Defense

Organization, an incorporated political organization of persons

with residence with the United States that is located in New

York City.

2. Defendant Steven Paul Rombom is a Private Investigator with

offices in New York City. Defendant Gary Alan Kurtz is an

attorney located in Woodland Hills, California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has Jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because this action arises under the



COMPLAINT - 4

1

2

3

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

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Specifically, this suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 as

an action for injunctive and monetary relief for violations of

the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights under the Unites States

Constitution.

2. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit

occurred in the Eastern District of New York.

3. The Court has supplemental pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to

hear Plaintiff’s state law claims because those claims are

related to Plaintiff’s federal claims and are inextricably

entwined and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts.

Plaintiff’s state law claims are related to Plaintiff’s federal

law claims such that those claims form part of the same case of

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Steve Rombom was awarded a judgment of $850,000

after a libel trial involving aforementioned Plaintiff’s

websites. [see EXHIBIT A] Rather than trying to collect this

judgment Defendant Rombom and his attorney Gary Kurtz sought toprevent Plaintiff’s from posting new information on different

websites by claiming that Universal Resources Locators (URL)

leased by Plaintiff Weberman was an asset that could be seized

to satisfy the Judgment. Plaintiff Weberman was sued in the



COMPLAINT - 5

1

2

3

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

Superior Court in the State of California, Beverly Hills

Division Case Number: SC092414 H. Despite his having answered

the complaint against him a default judgment was issued and

several of the URLs that he leased were seized. Weberman

submitted a Motion To Set Aside the Default Judgment that was

granted. Here is the Tentative Ruling:

Case Number: SC092414 Hearing Date: August 21, 2007

Dept: X RAMBAM v. ENOM SC092414 Defendant Weberman's

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

is granted. CCP 473 is remedial in nature and must be

liberally applied. Default judgments are generally

disfavored, and whenever reasonably possible, cases

should be decided upon their merits. Finally, where a

defendant seeks timely relief from the judgment and

has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any should be

resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the

judgment. Also, it should be noted that entry of the

default was sought one day early. The amended

complaint was served on 2/10/07 (POS shows mailed copy

only) and the response was due by 3/22/07 (30

days plus 10 for service outside California; February

has only 28 days). Default was sought and entered on

March 21, 2007. Question: Does the report of the

receiver moot this motion? 8/21/2007This tentative ruling was followed by a hearing at which it

was to be suggested that the report of the receiver stated that

the intellectual property in question had been turned over to a

buyer in China mooted my Motion to Vacate A Default Judgment



COMPLAINT - 6

1

2

3

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

since the transaction was a fate accompli. When I told Judge

Cole that I was still in control of the URLs she suspended the

hearing and continued it over to September 11, 2007. By doing

this she kept the illegal Default Judgment in place and gave

Kurtz more time to seize my property.

The day before the September 11th Hearing Mr. Rombom was

given the key code to the URL jdo.org, the website of the Jewish

Defense Organization. But the other websites were still in my

control but were going fast. Mr. Kurtz made a motion to dismiss

the charges against me. Judge Cole granted Kurtz's motion to

dismiss the charges against me with prejudice then ruled that

this made the motion to vacate the default judgment moot. This

gave Mr. Kurtz more time to seize the other URLs. My leases had

been taken without due process of law based on a non-existent

default judgment.

On August 22, 2010 a complaint was filed with US Attorney

Office, Central District of California, and Prof Laurence Tribe

- Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice

Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD,

RE: SC087400- Complaint against Judge Lisa Hart-Cole for public

corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions,

and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court.After I posted information I received about Gary Kurtz in a

letter I received from Erika Brotman I was sued for libel by Mr.

Kurtz. This is the text of the letter:



COMPLAINT - 7

1

2

3

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

Meadowbook Manor 3951 East Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca. 90066

Psychiatric Skilled Nursing Facility

Erika Brotman is housed there as of 2007. One of the

reasons she is there is because, knowing full well

that she was mentally disturbed, Gary Kurtz had sex

with her while she was his client. Steve Rombom helped

him cover it up. Baruch Cohen is an ordained rabbi and

attorney. He was formerly Gary Kurtz's office mate. He

will confirm that Gary Kurtz admitted to fucking Erika

Brotman. Baruch Cohen can be reached at 323-937-

4501.Also why didn't the FBI get California Bureau of

Security and Investigative Services to prosecute

Rombom for illegally using a badge if they couldn't

get him on federal charges. California private eyes

aren't allowed to use badges. It is a crime.

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No. LC084486 was assigned to Judge Michael Harwin. On

September 25, 2009 Judge Michael Harwin, after a discussion

about service, stated in open court, “Mr. Weberman you should

know that I am also admitted as an attorney in New York State so

if need be we will try it there.” Judge Harwin was serious in

his tone and when Defendant asked if he was a judge in both NewYork State and California simultaneously he told his clerk to

hang up the phone. The law regarding personal jurisdiction in

California indicates that a defendant can file an answer,

demurrer, or motion to strike without waiving the right to



COMPLAINT - 8

1

2

3

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

contest personal jurisdiction. The law does not allow the

defendant to ask the judge to recues himself and subsequently

contest personal jurisdiction. See CA Code of Civ. Proc. Section

418.10. (e) A defendant or cross-defendant may make a motion

under this section and simultaneously answer, demur, or move to

strike the complaint or cross-complaint.

Judge Harwin was aware that Defendant was a pro se

Defendant was not familiar with the California Civil Code so he

deliberately made this remark knowing that Defendant would ask

him to recues himself and therefore lose any jurisdictional

motions I might file. The case was turned over to Judge James

Kaddo of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles. On July

19, 2010 Judge Kaddo awarded attorney Gary Kurtz a default

judgment of one and a half million dollars because this

defendant had failed to set a hearing date on one of my motions.

A one and a half million dollar judgment because of a technical

error by a pro se defendant arguing the case from New York City

seems excessive. On August 17, 2011 Gary Kurtz filed LC-094563

in Superior Court in Los Angeles asking that the URLs Judgment

Debtor Weberman was utilizing to publish his electronic

newspaper were subject to seizure as assets. Mr. Kurtz relied on

a Declaration by Steven Rombom for his claim that the individual

who leased these URLs could not be located and thus could not beserved, so the URLs should be seized from these John Does

without due process of law.



COMPLAINT - 9

1

2

3

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

FIRST CLAIM

Defendants, with malice, used the legal process to

accomplish a purpose for which it was not designated i.e. to

abridge Defendant’s First Amendment Rights.

SECOND CLAIM

Defendants systematically deprived defendants of leases to

URLs without due process of law.

THIRD CLAIM

Defendants also abnegated the First Amendment rights of

those who were no longer able to visit the websites associated

with the illegally seized URLs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Alan Jules Weberman and the Jewish Defense

Organization pray for entry of judgment against the Defendants

that:

1) Compensatory damages in the amount of $850,000

2) Special damages (punitive)in the amount of $850,000

3) That all costs of suit herein be awarded under 42 U.S.C.

1998;

4) Such other and further relief as the court may deem just andproper.

Respectfully submitted

This_______day of _________

{names]

federal lawsuit against steve rombom

Documents