MEET AND CONFER: JAMES BEGINS PHYSICAL THERAPY, PETERSEN DEAN INCREASES THREATS

Copies of this document have been sent via email, FAX and US Postal Service to GEORGE MILIONIS of PETERSEN DEAN INC, ROY GUTHRIE of HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA and PAT FRAMKE of CAP SPECIALTY INSURANCE. A copy will be filed in Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown LOS ANGELES in case BC661819.

Attorney SAM KARIMZADEH has claimed for months that he wants to settle the PETERSEN DEAN case BC661819 privately, out of court, without a trial by jury. 

SAM KARIMZADEH has yet to make a single good faith settlement offer to that effect. 

In this public MEET AND CONFER, since I refuse any more "secret torture sessions", I invite MR. SAM KARIMZADEH to make his very FIRST good faith settlement offer. I hope that offer will not be an insult to the ongoing suffering PETERSEN DEAN'S actions have caused JAMES MARSHALL for years that may result in the loss of all his teeth and possibly his feet and legs. 

Furthermore, I pray that this first settlement offer from PETERSEN DEAN does not consist of: 

"We will remove our two invalid Mechanics Liens if you cancel the trial by jury and promise not to counter sue us, HERO FINANCING and CAP SPECIALTY."

 I can tell you right now that it is not legal to barter with invalid liens. The trial by jury will make this crystal clear.

 The two Mechanics Liens filed by George Milionis do not meet the requirements for filing and therefore are invalid. I have therefore asked the STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA to review this improper use of Mechanics Liens and to consider revoking George Milionis's license to practice law because he willfully filed Mechanic Liens he knew were invalid and for years tried to enforce Mechanics Liens he knew were invalid. I will take the matter to the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COUNT if need be. 

I will not traffic in invalid liens. I will not stoop to pretend recognize invalid liens as valid just to stop a bully from hurting me.

 I will not consider any settlement offer that attempts to force me to pretend these two liens are valid.

PETERSEN DEAN has a legal obligation to remove both liens and to pay all legal fees concerned with the removal of these invalid liens. 

There is nothing to negotiate in regards to these two invalid Mechanics Liens. There is plenty to answer for in regards to the ongoing damage to JAMES MARSHALL that these invalid liens caused him. I trust a jury will sort this out fairly. I do not trust PETERSEN DEAN to police themselves and do the honorable thing.

MR. KARIMZADEH, if you have a settlement offer, please submit it or stop constantly referring to your desire to settle out of court when you actually have nothing in mind. 

MR. KARIMZADEH, 

please submit your settlement offer that takes into account what JAMES MARSHALL, an autistic person, has been put through as a result of the HERO/PETERSEN DEAN property tax financing scam that H&R Block helped expose and the invalid use of Mechanics Liens that the CSLB requirements show clearly have not legally met the requirements for filing.

JAMES MARSHALL has recovered enough to begin physical therapy in August 2018. Since November 2016 when PETERSEN DEAN first threatened to make the stress on JAMES "unimaginable" if I didn't sign a document I was never allowed to see, JAMES could not understand why life suddenly became so frightening and all his routines were disrupted. 

JAMES has severe autism and responded by pounding his own thighs with his fists every time we were forced to search for attorneys and do mountains of paper work instead of his normal daily routine. Every time we were threatened financially by PETERSEN DEAN, they knew they were pushing an autistic person beyond his ability to cope. JAMES lost mobility of his legs and could not walk on several occasions since PETERSEN DEAN began saturating our lives with nonstop stress.

In August 2018, after nearly a year of being in diapers, also due to stress caused by PETERSEN DEAN, JAMES recovered enough to be able to begin physical therapy to attempt to regain the ability to bend his legs and increase his range of motion.

Stress caused James to pound his own legs with his fists every time PETERSEN DEAN forced me, his mom, to fight for our lives instead of seeing James through his normal daily routines. Blood pooled inside JAMES'S thigh muscles and calcified, forming bone like striations in his muscles which severely limited his range of motion and ability to bend his legs. The X-rays of JAMES'S legs will make you cry when you see them.

* UPDATE: Below are the X-rays of JAMES MARSHALL'S legs, damaged due to stress beyond an autistic person's ability to cope with. 

There is no way to calm JAMES when MR. SAM KARIMZADEH forces us to cancel physical therapy sessions  so we can do paperwork that amounts to time and money consuming, frivolous busy work and to spend a disabled man's grocery money we were going to buy chicken with to buy postage to serve papers when the matter has really been covered well enough already and MR. SAM KARIMZADEH is clearly just after our grocery money and refusing to let JAMES heal. 

PETERSEN DEAN began using my son JAMES as leverage to try to force me to sign documents and began threatening to stress JAMES in 2016, mentioning JAMES by name and acknowledging his autism, his emergency room visit  PETERSEN DEAN made good on the threat to keep JAMES stressed, indicating I could end it by complying with their wishes. 

It is as if MR. SAM KARIMZADEH thinks the court and the jury won't notice this.

PETERSEN DEAN sees this as a time to increase the stress upon JAMES, an autistic individual and has threatened me with sanctions that are not really necessary beyond their value as an attempt to frighten us into just letting PETERSEN DEAN get away with crime so they won't hurt us more. 

It is obvious that PETERSEN DEAN seeks to overwhelm me and disrupt the intake process we are in with THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER. 

It is obvious that PETERSEN DEAN seeks to destroy any hope of recovery for JAMES MARSHALL by constantly interrupting his physical therapy sessions, taking away his grocery money, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THE MECHANICS LIENS WERE INVALID ACCORDING TO THE LAW, and forcing his mom to do mountains of unnecessary, repetitive paperwork and to take away all of the precious free moments our family has left for calling attorneys and doctors to ask for help and instead spend every free moment doing paperwork that the court will ultimately see for what it is: avoidance and censorship of the facts of this case and pure harassment. 

Instead of taking responsibility, PETERSEN DEAN makes threats. See the ongoing, threat of sanctions below:

Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:08 PM From: Sam Karimzadeh <skarimzadeh.sklaw@gmail.com> To: Jennifer E Marshall Subject: Meet and Confer re: Discovery Responses: Form Interrogatories (Set One)

Dear Ms. Marshall: We are in receipt of your responses to Form Interrogatories Set One propounded by Petersen-Dean, Inc.  This correspondence shall serve as Petersen-Dean’s attempt to meet and confer with you over deficiencies in your responses described below.  If further responses revised by you in an attempt to address the deficiencies identified in this letter are not served within two weeks of the date of this letter, Petersen-Dean will be forced to take more formal steps to address the deficiencies including the filing of a motion to compel further responses and a request for an order of monetary sanctionsagainst you from the Court. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 AND WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS THERETO Your responses to Form Interrogatory Set One included responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1.1 and 50.1.  However, the box to Interrogatory No. 15.1 was also checked and required a response from you.  Also, because you did not timely respond to Interrogatory No. 15.1 initially, you have waived your right to assert any objections or the ability to produce writings in lieu of a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)   As such, please provide your response to 15.1 without objections. FAILURE TO OBJECT AND WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORY SERIES 50.0 While your Form Interrogatory Set One responses appear to assert general objections at the beginning of the responses, no specific objections were lodged by you to the 50.0 series of questions.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (c) provides in relevant part that, “Each answer, exercise of option, or objection in the response shall bear the same identifying number or letter and be in the same sequence as the corresponding interrogatory . . . .”  The general objections made in the beginning of your response were not repeated to coincide with your responses to the 50.0 series.   As such, your responses to the 50.0 series are effectively without objections. Thus, when providing further responses to the 50.0 series please provide the responses without objections. NON-RESPONSIVE MATTER AND INCOMPLETE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY SERIES 50.0 Interrogatories are a discovery tool designed to elicit specific information, not to elicit everything under the sun that you think Petersen-Dean and/or Hero Renovation did wrong to you.  The 50.0 series of interrogatories are designed to elicit your contentions surrounding the breach-of-contract cause of action that is the subject of this lawsuit.  The 50.1 series seeks information about what writings and verbal statements you contend to be a part of the agreement and any modification of the agreement alleged in Petersen-Dean’s complaint.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a) provides, “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76.)  Much of the matter you set forth in your responses to the 50.0 series and the specific sub-categories thereof is not straightforward, does not respond to the calls to the questions, and amounts to superfluity and/or unnecessary and irrelevant additional information volunteered by you.  The responses to the 50.0 series need to be pared down to provide matter that is only responsive to the questions asked.  Thus, for example, when responding to Interrogatory No. 50.1(a), you should limit your response only to the identification of the writings that you contend comprise the agreement at issue and the identities of individuals you contend have copies of those writings.  Including further information unrelated to the identified documents and persons with those documents amounts to a non-responsive response and is improper.  Only the matter that is responsive to the question should be included in your responses.  Similarly, while your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(b) identifies purported verbal communications between you and Dave Shanholtzer and you and Helena Shi that you contend were parts of the agreement not in writing, it goes on to state additional matter that has no bearing on the question.  For example, part of your response to the interrogatory goes on about a written mechanic’s lien: MECHANICS LIENS were filed upon my property the week the solar panels were supposed to be removed. I was not served copies of the MECHANICS LIENS. I found out about the existence of the MECHANICS LIENS from an attorney I consulted because both PETERSEN DEAN and HERO had stopped communicating with me and I wanted to sue HERO as well as PETERSEN DEAN. I had to purchase copies of the liens. I also had to purchase copies of the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT because PETERSEN DEAN did not serve me and when they did provide an emailed copy the day my answer to the complaint was due, I found out from THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER that it was not really a copy of the complaint. I had to send PUBLIC LAW CENTER a copy of the copy I purchased from the court. The issue of a written mechanic’s lien on your property has no bearing on whether you contend that part of the agreement at issue was not in writing.  Adding this matter to your response is improper and a further response must be provided that removes all non-responsive material. Further, while your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(b) adds superfluous information it nonetheless still fails to state what parts of the agreement that you contend were not in writing or identify the dates that the parts not in writing were made part of the agreement.  Similar issues abound with your responses to the remaining subsections of the 50.1 interrogatory.  For example, your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(c) fails to identify with specificity any writings you contend support that a part of the agreement not in writing was ever made by you and any other person.  Your response fails to identify by specific date a specific document that supports this very specific contention.  Instead you state that Petersen-Dean has all emails from November 2016 through mid-January 2017.  That is not a straightforward and complete response to the question being asked.  Please provide a further response that gives more specific information responsive to the question. Interrogatory No. 50.1(d) solely asks you to identify any documents that you contend constituted a modification of the agreement and to identify all persons in possession of such documents – nothing else.  Your response goes on to state immaterial matter that fails to respond to a question seeking only very limited information: I was told that it could not be avoided, that there was additional wood that needed replacing and so I agreed to have it replaced. What is horrible about this is that the STATE CONTRACTOR’S LICENSING BOARD inspector found that in spite of my being charged extra, there was still rotten wood that had not been replaced. I had confronted PETERSEN DEAN about rotten wood that could be seen with the naked eye from the ground. I was told that this was not “rotten wood” that it was “thirsty wood”. Additionally, the incorrect sized pieces of wood that replaced SOME of the rotten wood caused the side of the roof to be C-shaped instead of a straight line. I sent pictures of this to HERO and PETERSEN DEAN. Nothing was going to be done about it otherwise. PETERSEN DEAN wanted me to tell my neighbors about them and at first I did but my neighbors could see the side of my roof was C-shaped instead of a straight line and they could see things going wrong over and over. My neighbors were appalled by the sight of me and my autistic son struggling alone trying to clean the stucco powder off our laundry, wearing masks as we tried to salvage electronic equipment and employees of the MARRIOTT where we stayed saw us both come down with serious lung infections over and over during that time period. THE MARRIOTT employees said for me not to fax documents to the CLSB from our house anymore since it was making us so sick that we had to go to the emergency room and they faxed hundreds of pages for us from their office instead. We were too sick to keep food down on Thanksgiving Day 2016 because of what PETERSEN DEAN did to us. My son and I both had occasions where we stopped breathing and fainted, James more times than me. This had never happened to me before. I was terrified that my son was going to be alone in a hotel room with a deceased mom. It is ironic that PETERSEN DEAN drew up a document about needing more money than originally agreed upon to replace rotten wood and then STILL left rotten wood that was discovered and documented by the CSLB roof inspector. They refused to draw up a document that was clear and understandable about the “free roof if you go solar” agreement. PETERSEN DEAN and HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA kept urging me to believe nothing was wrong, that I was getting that offer that wasn’t reflected anywhere in writing. DAVE SHANHOLTZER was in charge of getting me to sign to pay more for additional wood. I was also asked to sign for an inspection that never happened and I protested that my carbon monoxide detectors had not been inspected because I don’t have any and that some of my fire alarms had stopped working. The truth was not wanted. I was told it didn’t really matter. If it didn’t really matter, why was my signature needed? DAVE SHANHOLTZER also urged me on several different occasions, with a “wink-wink, nod-nod” attitude, to lie to the IRS, to lump the solar and the roof together as if it was all the solar expense and get a bigger tax credit. I was dumbfounded that he assumed that it was alright to tell me this. The series of events presented a pattern which I can only describe as a criminal mindset. PETERSEN DEAN AND HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA behaved like criminals and seemed so steeped in crime that they had the warped idea that everyone was as into crime as they were. I was astounded and deeply upset by the dishonesty. DAVE SHANHOLTZER’S phone number is (714)309-0837 dshanholtzer@petersendean.com. A jury will be presented with all the documents and asked the question, “What homeowner in their right mind would wake up one day and knowingly decide they wanted to pay three times more for electricity than they currently did?” PETERSEN DEAN and HERO FINANING both knew I was not in the tax bracket to be a candidate for property tax financing. The material above identifies neither a document of a modification of the agreement or a person in possession of such a document.  The example above is indicative of the improper manner by which you have inserted non-responsive matter into most of your interrogatory responses.  Here you offer non-responsive matter such as neighbors’ views of you and your son with stucco on your laundry, faxing issues from your home, Marriott employees witnessing you and your son purportedly contracting lung illnesses, and Petersen-Dean’s purported “criminal” behavior.  This is a breach-of-contract case and none of the foregoing allegations are germane to the subject matter of this legal action.  Responding to an interrogatory in this manner is improper.  To the extent your response fails to identify documents supporting a purported wood replacement modification to the agreement, you should not offer it or insert it at all anywhere in your response to Interrogatory No. 50.1(d). While you may ultimately get your chance to state your case with supporting “facts” for issues unrelated to Interrogatory No. 50.1(d), muddying your interrogatory response with unrelated and unsupported allegations is not a proper method of responding to discovery requests. Your responses to the remaining subsections of the 50.1 and the other interrogatories (Nos. 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6) should be limited to matter that solely responds to the question.  If you continue to insert non-responsive matter into the responses Petersen-Dean will be forced to take further steps to compel you not to do so. Interrogatory 50.2 asks if you contend that there was a breach of any agreement and if so, to “give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement.”  Your response to 50.2 fails to give dates of any of the events surrounding any purported breaches.  Please provide further responses to 50.2 to provide the dates of all the events you describe therein. Interrogatory 50.3 asks you if performance by a party to the agreement was excused.  You responded “No,” but then go on to state additional matter not called for unless your response was a “Yes”: Absolutely not. No performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings was excused. The CSLB Citation that will remain on PETERSEN DEAN’S bond/license for five years does not grant any excuse for unfinished work, damages and financial fraud. The CSLB fine paid by PETERSEN DEAN also does not absolve PETERSEN DEAN from having to make repairs, restitution, remediation such as removal of rotten wood. The CSLB did not put in writing that because of the FIVE-YEAR CITATION attached to PETERSEN DEAN’S bond, PETERSEN DEAN was hereby absolved from having to remove the rotten wood mentioned in the citation. PETERSEN DEAN lied about making the arrangements to remove the solar panels and filed two MECHANICS LIENS that week instead. None of the agreed upon repairs were made. I was left with the task of having to pay for all the repairs and I could not afford to. The solar panels were never turned on because they were to be removed according to agreement. PETERSEN DEAN abandoned the job and all the agreements. Again, this conduct is improper, and your further response must eliminate this immaterial and non-responsive matter.  The same exact issue presents in your response to Interrogatory No. 50.4 which asks only if an agreement was terminated by a mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation.  You insert non-responsive and immaterial matter such as your son’s need for a dental surgery and circumstances surrounding a purported solar permit refund.  None of this matter relates to a release, novation, accord and satisfaction, etc.  Since you responded “No” to both Nos. 50.3 and 50.4, please provide further responses that delete all matter appearing after the word “No” to those two questions. Interrogatory No. 50.5 asks you if any part of the agreement between you and Petersen-Dean was unenforceable.  Your response goes on to discuss a mechanic’s lien that is separate from the agreement in the pleadings and your relationship with Hero Renovation which is not a party to this action.  Similarly, you reference informal communication attempts to settle this case and your mentioning of your intention to file a cross-complaint against other potential parties have no bearing on the call to the question.  Your further response to this interrogatory needs to eliminate references to matter unrelated to terms of the agreement at issue that you contend are unenforceable. Finally, Interrogatory No. 50.6 states verbatim: “Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous.”  Your response to this interrogatory was “Yes,” followed by additional language as follows: All verbal agreements with PETERSEN DEAN were extremely ambiguous and often changed without warning or explanation or disappeared completely without explanation as if they had never been made. The sheer number of ambiguous verbal agreements with references to equally ambiguous, mysterious, never materializing written agreements, verbally suggested to me by PETERSEN DEAN from November 2016 to January 2017 quickly became a veritable rat’s nest of ambiguities that would exhaust anyone. . . . Your response claims several ambiguous agreements but never identifies those agreements or the context surrounding the purported ambiguities.  Other than reference to a “computer-generated contract,” there does not appear to be reference to any specific agreement or a specific ambiguity therein.  The response also goes on to insert non-responsive immaterial matter such as your visits to the police and your unsupported allegations of purported threats made to you and your son by unidentified Petersen-Dean personnel.  Please provide further responses that identify the ambiguous agreements and the context (e.g. substance, content, dates, witnesses, etc.) surrounding those ambiguities and remove the matter that does not respond to the question. CONCLUSION As stated earlier in this letter, we will expect that you will serve further responses without objections and in compliance with the terms and conditions of this letter within the next two weeks.  If we do not receive proof of service of those responses within that time frame, I will assume that you do not wish to resolve this issue informally and will take steps to more formally protect my client via a motion to compel and a request for an order of sanctions against you from the Court. Sincerely, Sam Karimzadeh, Esq.

HERO FINANCING BLOCKS CUSTOMERS WHEN HERO CONTRACTORS GET CAUGHT CHEATING

Date: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:40 PM From: Jennifer E Marshall  To: doris.velasquez@cslb.ca.gov, CSLB Lidia Moitoso-Champion <lidia.moitoso-champion@cslb.ca.gov>, piu@doj.ca.gov, CA Dept Of Insurance <thomas.goetzinger@insurance.ca.gov>, mmonnig@petersendean.com, CapSpecialty Pat Framke Claim 00180540-06 # 0041327141 <bondclaims@capspecialty.com>, CapSpecialty Pat Framke Claim 00180540-06 # 0041327141 <pframke@CapSpecialty.com> Subject: Re: CSLB SF 2016 9935 Petersen Dean Case / Court Case BC661819

Update: HERO has continued to block receipt of ANY information from customer Jennifer Marshall. HERO publicly advertises they protect customers, with special protection for seniors when in fact they BLOCK all communications, refusing emails and phone calls from customers who are being victimized by their contractors. HERO FINANCING and PETERSEN DEAN conspired to remove HERO FINANCING from the records to allow theIr contractor PETERSEN DEAN to seize our home instead of completing the job, including the removal of rotten wood and other necessary, agreed upon repairs. HERO blocked it’s own approved financing of the project to clear the path for PETERSEN DEAN to file two Mechanics Liens instead of making repaires they insisted to Jennifer Marshall were too costly to make. In case number BC661819 PETERSEN DEAN then began asking the courts to allow foreclosure and sale of the home, deliberately concealing the financing and the unfinished work from the judge and in a bold act of perjury lied about attempting to properly serve court documents to the home owner, insisting the home owner was hiding in the house at the time Emergency Housing was documented and PETERSEN DEAN was fully aware of as was their insurance CAPSPECIALTY, having been sent that information via formal written complaint. The financial harm to Jennifer Marshall and her autistic son James far exceeds the cost of the home repairs HERO financed and their contractor PETERSEN DEAN agreed to complete but did not complete. The financial fraud resulted in derailment of other work being done to the house and stopped refinancing of the home to get out of any future harm from OCWEN. After the CFPB cleared the way for us to refinance and escape harm from OCWEN, HERO and PETERSEN DEAN then conspired and blocked the refinancing via misuse of Mechanics Liens. This in turn blocked 3 dental surgeries that my autistic son James was scheduled to have in 2016 to save his teeth damaged by medication, surgeries not covered by his insurance that were to be financed by the refinancing of the home, which HERO and PETERSEN DEAN blocked for so long that prosthodontics Dr Palani has determined as of October 2017 James Marshall’s teeth can no longer be capped, that it is too late to save his teeth and he is not able to wear false teeth due to his severe autism. The financial harm to our family continues to compound and is terrifying. Much of our loss is permanent. Our lungs will never be as healthy as they were. The termites have had over a year in the rotten wood PETERSEN DEAN refused to remove yet asked a judge to allow PETERSEN DEAN sell our home to be paid for this work they did not do and the damage is much worse and ongoing as PETERSEN DEAN still attempt to foreclosure on our house in-spite of not doing the agreed upon work. The sneak attack plan of HERO and PETERSEN DEAN was to steam roll and sell the house before any discovery could even begin. We pray that the discovery process will now begin in spite of PETERSEN DEAN and HERO FINANCING ‘s documented attempt to obstruct justice to get away with the tax credit scam confirmed by H&R Block’s review of the financial documents. Respectfully, Jennifer Marshall Previously sent: Emails from HERO denying they refused to communicate with me. Then HERO refused to communicate with me. Never before have I experienced financing that refused to communicate. > On Dec 16, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Jennifer E Marshall wrote: > > Attn: Doris Velasquez CSLB SF 2016 9935 Petersen Dean Case > > Attn: Attorney General / California Department of Justice > > Does home owner need to file a second CSLB case against Petersen Dean specifically for the financial fraud element? > > Please review ongoing court documents and evidence stored at: > PetersenDean.blogspot.com > > Dear DOJ and CSLB, > > Physical damage: To be clear, there is ongoing evidence that rotten termite infested wood was covered with new shingles by Petersen Dean. The creaking on the roof is louder with time and sounds like a heavy person is walking on the roof. Termite activity on the roof is verified by visible sight of tiny holes inside the house on the master bedroom ceiling that termite shavings are falling from. The loud creaking is coming from the same portion of the roof that shows termite activity on rotten wood that was not removed. Petersen Dean laughed off the wood trim that could not hold primer and paint as “thirsty wood”. There is obviously a lot of “thirsty wood” underneath the new shingles, with heavy solar panels on top of the fragile rotten wood that creaks like it is going to snap soon. I fully expect the solar panels to crash into the master bedroom or into my neighbors side yard, possibly causing death, severe injuries as well as property damage. My HOA might sue me because of Petersen Dean’s sloppy works. I contacted the SCLB to save me and my autistic son from being held accountable for what HERO and their contractor Petersen Dean have done to our property. > > A verifiable down payment for termite treatment by Pacific Coast Termite to be done after Petersen Dean removed all the rotten wood was paid in 2016. The rotten wood was never removed by Petersen Dean and the termites have continued eating for a whole year and counting because Petersen Dean chose not to remove the rotten wood and instead to put Mechanics Liens on our house to attempt to avoid having to remove the new shingles to remove the rotten wood they buried underneath those new shingles. Their plan was obviously to foreclosure and sell the termite infested roof as “new” to some unsuspecting buyer. This is financial fraud against me and my disabled son that HERO and Petersen Dean are trying to perpetuate more fraud against even more unsuspecting home buyers if they succeed in stealing our house. > > The TAX CREDIT SCAM portion of the complaint: > > FINANCIAL FRAUD DAMAGES in addition to physical damages: To be clear, the electrical inspection that was slated to be done by the CSLB was not scheduled and not completed. No Electrician from CSLB documented the sledgehammer electrical damage done by Petersen Dean to the electrical wiring in the garage. > > An electrical inspection by the CSLB of the solar panels that HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA and PETERSEN DEAN promised to remove after H&R Block reviewed the documents and stated it was a TAX CREDIT SCAM, was never completed by the CSLB, probably because everyone except Building & Safety believed Petersen Dean would keep their word and remove the solar panels. Petersen Dean and HERO financing did not keep their word. HERO and Petersen Dean deliberately used the time that lying about removing the solar panels provided them, to attempt to conceal the original HERO financing documentation, destroy records and file Mechanics Liens instead of completing the job. After Petersen Dean abandoned the unfinished job, Petersen Dean’s Attorney called me and told me, “HERO had nothing to do with this.” I informed Mr. George Milionis that I still had my emails proving my HERO project was approved and I may select one of their contractors. I selected Petersen Dean. I still have these records and have made copies to a blog so they do not “disappear”. HERO and Mr Milionis may have destroyed their copies of the HERO Financing application and acceptance emails but I saved all my copies and emails. > > BUILDING & SAFETY was the first to point out that in fact it appeared PETERSEN DEAN and HERO had no intention of removing the solar panels because PETERSEN DEAN balked at requesting the SOLAR PERMIT REFUND. PETERSEN DEAN not only neglected to apply for a SOLAR PERMIT REFUND, Petersen Dean and HERO both cut off communication with me when I told them H&RBlock’s findings and that BUILDING & SAFETY verified the SOLAR PERMIT REFUND had not been applied for. At that time PETERSEN DEAN and HERO both assured me they were preparing to remove the solar panels. > > I called Helena Shi, my solar contact at Petersen Dean to tell her Building & Safety told me no effort had been made by Petersen Dean to prepare for removing the panels. At that time Building & Safety also informed me that Petersen Dean did un-permitted work on my water heater, that Petersen Dean did not get a permit to alter my water heater. This is illegal. > > Helena Shi responded to my informing her that Building & Safety told me Petersen Dean was not really applying for the solar permit refund and had not drawn a permit to alter the water heater either with, “I’m not allowed to talk to you anymore.” My financing for the project, HERO, also informed me that they were not going to talk with me anymore. I later discovered, by going to the Courthouse and asking, that during this time period that HERO and PETERSEN DEAN said they were preparing to remove the panels, in fact they were removing documentation and attempting to conceal there had ever been Hero Financing and placing two MECHANICS LIENS on our house. > > Please advise me if I need to file a second CSLB complaint to deal solely with the financial fraud aspect of this matter or verify that the financial crimes are included in the same complaint as the physical property damages are. Thank you. > > Respectfully, > > Jennifer Marshall > > Photo of Inside of the house view where exterior rotten “thirsty wood” is located. Termite shavings are now falling into the house as the termites continue to eat the rotten wood HERO/PETERSEN DEAN left on our roof:

THE DISCOVERY PROCESS PETERSEN DEAN AND HERO TRIED TO COVER UP

Print UPDATE CSLB / DOJ RE: FRAUD/PETERSEN DEAN SOLAR AND HERO FINANCING Date: Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:42 PM From: Jennifer E Marshall Subject: CSLB SF 2016 9935 Petersen Dean Case / Court Case BC661819 Attn: Doris Velasquez CSLB SF 2016 9935 Petersen Dean Case Attn: Attorney General / California Department of Justice Does home owner need to file a second CSLB case against Petersen Dean specifically for the financial fraud element? Please review ongoing court documents and evidence stored at: PetersenDean.blogspot.com Dear DOJ and CSLB, Physical damage: To be clear, there is ongoing evidence that rotten termite infested wood was covered with new shingles by Petersen Dean. The creaking on the roof is louder with time and sounds like a heavy person is walking on the roof. Termite activity on the roof is verified by visible sight of tiny holes inside the house on the master bedroom ceiling that termite shavings are falling from. The loud creaking is coming from the same portion of the roof that shows termite activity on rotten wood that was not removed. Petersen Dean laughed off the wood trim that could not hold primer and paint as “thirsty wood”. There is obviously a lot of “thirsty wood” underneath the new shingles, with heavy solar panels on top of the fragile rotten wood that creaks like it is going to snap soon. I fully expect the solar panels to crash into the master bedroom or into my neighbors side yard, possibly causing death, severe injuries as well as property damage. My HOA might sue me because of Petersen Dean’s sloppy works. I contacted the CSLB to save me and my autistic son from being held accountable for what HERO and their contractor Petersen Dean have done to our property. A verifiable down payment for termite treatment by Pacific Coast Termite to be done after Petersen Dean removed all the rotten wood was paid in 2016. The rotten wood was never removed by Petersen Dean and the termites have continued eating for a whole year and counting because Petersen Dean chose not to remove the rotten wood and instead to put Mechanics Liens on our house to attempt to avoid having to remove the new shingles to remove the rotten wood they buried underneath those new shingles. Their plan was obviously to foreclosure and sell the termite infested roof as “new” to some unsuspecting buyer. This is financial fraud against me and my disabled son that HERO and Petersen Dean are trying to perpetuate more fraud against even more unsuspecting home buyers if they succeed in stealing our house. The TAX CREDIT SCAM portion of the complaint: FINANCIAL FRAUD DAMAGES in addition to physical damages: To be clear, the electrical inspection that was slated to be done by the CSLB was not scheduled and not completed. No Electrician from CSLB documented the sledgehammer electrical damage done by Petersen Dean to the electrical wiring in the garage. An electrical inspection by the CSLB of the solar panels that HERO/RENOVATE AMERICA and PETERSEN DEAN promised to remove after H&R Block reviewed the documents and stated it was a TAX CREDIT SCAM, was never completed by the CSLB, probably because everyone except Building & Safety believed Petersen Dean would keep their word and remove the solar panels. Petersen Dean and HERO financing did not keep their word. HERO and Petersen Dean deliberately used the time that lying about removing the solar panels provided them, to attempt to conceal the original HERO financing documentation, destroy records and file Mechanics Liens instead of completing the job. After Petersen  Dean abandoned the unfinished job, Petersen Dean’s Attorney called me and told me, “HERO had nothing to do with this.” I informed Mr. George Milionis that I still had my emails proving my HERO project was approved and I may select one of their contractors. I selected Petersen Dean. I still have these records and have made copies to a blog so they do not “disappear”.  HERO and Mr Milionis may have destroyed their copies of the HERO Financing application and acceptance emails but I saved all my copies and emails. BUILDING & SAFETY was the first to point out that in fact it appeared PETERSEN DEAN and HERO had no intention of removing the solar panels because PETERSEN DEAN balked at requesting the SOLAR PERMIT REFUND. PETERSEN DEAN not only neglected to apply for a SOLAR PERMIT REFUND, Petersen Dean and HERO both cut off communication with me when I told them H&RBlock’s findings and that BUILDING & SAFETY verified the SOLAR PERMIT REFUND had not been applied for. At that time PETERSEN DEAN and HERO both assured me they were preparing to remove the solar panels. I called Helena Shi, my solar contact at Petersen Dean to tell her Building & Safety told me no effort had been made by Petersen Dean to prepare for removing the panels. At that time Building & Safety also informed me that Petersen Dean did un-permitted work on my water heater, that Petersen Dean did not get a permit to alter my water heater. This also is illegal. Helena Shi responded to my informing her that Building & Safety told me Petersen Dean was not really applying for the solar permit refund and had not drawn a permit to alter the water heater either with, “I’m not allowed to talk to you anymore.” My financing for the project, HERO, also informed me that they were not going to talk with me anymore. I later discovered, by going to the Courthouse and asking, that during this time period that HERO and PETERSEN DEAN said they were preparing to remove the panels, in fact they were removing documentation and attempting to conceal there had ever been Hero Financing and placing two MECHANICS LIENS on our house. Please advise me if I need to file a second CSLB complaint to deal solely with the financial fraud aspect of this matter or verify that the financial crimes are included in the same complaint as the physical property damages are. Thank you. Respectfully, Jennifer Marshall Photo of Inside of the house view where exterior rotten “thirsty wood” is located. Termite shavings are now falling into the house as the termites continue to eat the rotten wood HERO/PETERSEN DEAN left on our roof: