zaffina declaration

8/2/2019 Zaffina Declaration

1/12

CASE NO: 2:12-CV-01899 RGK[Assigned to the Honorable Judge R.Gary Klausner in Department 850]DECLARATION OF DINO M .ZAFFINA IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT DINO M. ZAFFINA'SMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONOF THE COUR T'S GRANTINGPLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONDATE: June 4, 2012TIME: 9:00 A.M.DEPT: 850COMPLAINT FILED:3/06/12SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTSASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,VS.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTSASSOCIATION, INC., et al.Defendants.Dino M. Zaffina5942 Edinger Avenue, Suite 232Huntington Beach, California 92649Telephone: (213) 200-8226E-mail: [email protected], Pro Se UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

1

Reconsideration of the C ourt's Granting P laintiff's Preliminary Injunction

123456789

1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 02122232 42 52 62 728

Case 2:12-cv-01899-RGK-JCG Document 42-1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#:867


2/12

DECLAR ATION OF DINO M. ZAFFINAI, Dino M. Zaffina ("Zaffina"), hereby declare as follows:

1 . I am the President and CEO of Defendant, Southern California DartsAssociation, Inc. ("Corporation") pursuant to the laws of the United States of America,State of California, and County of Los Angeles. I am completely familiar with the facts,pleadings, and records in this action, and if called upon to testify, I could and wouldcompetently do so.

2 . I set forth this declaration in support of my Motion for Reconsideration("Zaffina Motion") of the Court's Granting Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction("Injunction") on April 23, 2012.

3 . Since the filing of Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiff, SouthernCalifornia Darts Association's ("Illegal Business") injunction, I have discovered newevidence.

4 . The new evidence consists of (1) "certified copies" of governmentdocuments from government agencies establishing that the Illegal Business has beenoperating for a much longer period of time than asserted in the Illegal Business' motion.In addition to (2) other "written party admissions" that will prove unequivocally thatthe Illegal Business duped this Court into believing its lies in order to obtain theinjunction.

5 . The Illegal Business' lawyer, James K. Kawahito ("Kawahito") and theIllegal Business' cohort, L. David Irete ("Irete") blatantly lied to this Court regardingthe status of a bogus unincorporated association that allegedly operated simultaneouslywith a California corporation by the same name. [See Motion for PreliminaryInjunction ("Motion for PI") p. 4, ins. 13-18]. This new evidence will substantiate therewas in fact only one business by the name of Southern California Darts Association,Inc. since October 19, 1966. Moreover, this new evidence will support Corporation'sand my defense of "unclean hands" which was ignored by this Court. [See Court'sOrder p. 7, I T c ]

2Declaration of D ino M. Zaffina in Supp ort of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Motion for

Reconsideration of the C ourt's Granting Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction



3/12

6 . This Court was never provided one scintilla of evidence that there weretwo separate entities with the same name. Yet, this Court erroneously acceptedKawahito's and Irete's false statements to be used in determining whether theinjunction should be granted.7 . To the contrary, Corporation provided this Court with a voluminousamount of direct evidence that proved the Illegal Business' unlawful status in the eyesof federal, state, and local government agencies and the laws promulgated thereby.Nevertheless, this Court arbitrarily and capriciously ignored all palpable facts andevidence and numerous laws and instead resurrected this Illegal Business to thedetriment of Corporation (the ONLY legal entity) and myself.

8 . I understand and concede to this Court's discretion to grant an injunction,however, not when the discretion is abused or the decision is based on an erroneouslegal standards or clearly erroneous findings of fact. I would not dare make conclusorystatements in this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs 8, and 9 below, withoutsupporting them with facts, evidence, and law. [See below and in the Zaffina Motion]

9 . A preliminary injunction is a device for preserving the "status quo" andpreventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment. Clearly, this Court's grantingof the injunction disregarded the words "status quo" and with a stroke of a penirreparably harmed Corporation and myself without as much as a constitutionallyprotected evidentiary hearing. The injunction is a draconian ruling that places anunconstitutional prior restraint on Corporation's and my First Amendment right of freespeech and freedom of expression.

1 0 . Although Corporation and I have a fundamental right to appeal theinjunction to protect Corporation and myself from the obvious irreparable consequencesdue to the erroneously issued injunction, I am first exhausting all my remedies throughthe Zaffina Motion because (a) it is the appropriate procedure, (b) it gives this Courtand opportunity to review new evidence, (c) it provides this Court with anotheropportunity to examine its rationale and (d) reexamine the irreparable harm (previously

3Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court's Granting Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction



4/12

ignored) that the injunction is causing Corporation and Zaffina, as opposed to theZERO irreparable harm that is caused to the Illegal Business without it..

1 1 . In all my years prior to law school and in over a decade of legal experiencethereafter, I have never known of a Court to have "BITCHSLAPPED!" anyone.Apparently, this Court's injunction has given Irete the idea that the injunction is abitchslapping. [See Exhibit 1 (E-mail dated April 24, 2012, from Irete's pseudonym(George Spelvin), incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.].

1 2 . Irete commenced sending his hateful and vitriolic e-mails using thispseudonym, since he is obviously a coward and never uses his own name. He seems tothink that this Court's Order is a suppository, since he stated, "Take that petard andshove it up your ass!"

1 3 . I cannot help but ponder the thought of how proud this Court must be thatit stripped a fully legal corporation of all its powers, rights, and privileges, to"temporarily" give a reprive to a criminal (Irete) and approximately 20 of his criminalcohorts who admittedly operate the Illegal Business.

1 4 . Irete does not stop with one e-mail. Once again, this Court's Order seemsto have given Irete the false sense that he has somehow wiped the slate clean of all thecriminal activity of the past 35-years that he and the Illegal Business has beenoperating in violation of numerous federal, state, and local laws.

1 5 . Irete, through his pseudonym (George Spelvin) sent another e-mailboasting about the injunction. [See Exhibit 2 (E-mail dated April 25, 2012)incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.]. Ironically, this is the sameperson that this Court believed was a legitimate businessman. Irete stated in pertinentpart, "... You have a petard sticking out of your ass and everyone can see it. ... Go thefuck away, Dino. You are a piece of shit. We wipe our collective asses with you.double dog dare you to post this most thought provoking missive)." Irete's statementmust make this Court so proud.

1 6 . On or about April 9, 2012, Corporation received certified copies from the4

Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M. Zaffina's Motion forReconsideration of the Court's Granting Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction

123

456789

101 1121314151617181920212223

2425262728



5/12

City of Culver City for public records information (that were previously requested)establishing that the Illegal Business was continuing to operate as a de facto corporationas late as December 31, 1992. [See Exhibits 3 and 4 (Registration Control Record andSummary Screen) incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.].1 7 . Both documents establish that this entity (Southern California DartsAssociation, Inc.) is a corporation ("de facto," since it was suspended in 1977) and bothreference the same Number of 18-616702. Last record update was April 7, 2003.These documents prove that Kawahito and the Illegal Business lied to this Courtregarding the suspension of the Illegal Business in 1977 and the continuation of theoperation of the alleged unincorporated business.

1 8 . Clearly, during this time individuals such as Irete could easily lie to CulverCity and the public that they were in fact a legal entity, when they were not, because itwas much harder then, than it is now, to discover accurate records.

1 9 . On or about April 9, 2012, Corporation received certified copies from theCalifornia's State Board of Equalization ("BOE) for public records information (thatwere previously requested) establishing that the Illegal Business was continuing tooperate as a de facto corporation as late as December 31, 1991, maintaining a "SellerPermit" under the corporate name. [See Exhibit 5 (Computer Printout) incorporated byreference as though fully set forth herein.].

2 0 . This document from the BOE establishes that the Illegal Business used thesame Account Number 18-616702 as they did with Culver City and that they heldthemselves out as a corporation even though they had been defunct for approximately1 4 1 /2 years, since they were suspended. This document proves that Kawahito and theIllegal Business lied to this Court regarding the suspension of the Illegal Business in1977 and the continuation of the operation of the alleged unincorporated business.

2 1 . On or about April 18, 2012, Corporation received certified copies from theCalifornia Secretary of State ("SOS") for public records information on the IllegalBusiness' defunct corporation. The Articles of Incorporation filed on October 19, 1966,

5Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Motion for

Reconsideration of the Cou rt's Granting Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction



6/12

notarized by (Daniel J. Cavanaugh), with an attached letter dated one day beforeincorporation (October 18, 1966), from Donald H. Reinnoldt, Assistant Counsel,California Franchise Tax Board ("FTB"). [See Exhibit 6 (Articles of Incorporationdated October 19, 1966) incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.].2 2 . The letter from Mr. Reinnodlt establishes that based on preliminaryinformation provided to the FTB by the Illegal Business, they were allowed to operateunder a "Exemption from franchise tax" (not exempt from Internal Revenue Servicetax and a 501(c)(3) filing), as long as the Illegal Business' gross income did not exceed$25,000 in any year.

2 3 . Since the Illegal Business was suspended for failing to file a tax return, itcan be inferred that the Illegal Business grossed more than $25,000 in the year 1976 ora preceding year, to be suspended by the FTB on March 1, 1977.

2 4 . The Secretary of State also sent a certified copy of the one-and-onlyStatement By Domestic Stock Corporation ("Statement") (currently referred to as aStatement of Information). [See Exhibit 7 (Statement dated May 8, 1975) incorporatedby reference as though fully set forth herein.]. This document was filed on May 8,1975, even though ALL California corporations were required to file in 19 7 2.

2 5 . These certified copies support the certified copy of the Certificate of Status("Certificate") of the Illegal Business previously provided to this Court. [See Exhibit 8(Certificate of Status dated September 13, 2011) incorporated by reference as 'thoughfully set forth herein.].

2 6 . This Certificate establishes that the Illegal Business lost its powers, rights,and privileges on March 1, 1977, and thus, upon that day became a defunctcorporation.2 7 . Since the legal definition of defunct is "dead"; "inactive"; such that thisbusiness does not exist from that point further for which to establish any future rights(e.g., "good will"). The law of suspensions' purpose would be useless if a corporationcan ignore the law and continue for years (or in this case 35-years) as a dead entity,

6Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M. Zaffina's Motion for




7/12

only to later attempt to assert rights. This is absurd on its face.2 8 . The Illegal Business remained dead for 35-years because it never published

to the public its existence. It cannot be overlooked by this Court that the IllegalBusiness (alleging to be an unincorporated association) did not even file so much as aFictitious Business Name Statement ("FBNS") with the County of Los Angeles whichis required. The County of Los Angeles' Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Officecertifies that the Illegal Business has not filed such a statement in the last 20-years andthere is no record of previous filings. [See Exhibit 9 (Certificate of FBNS dated March21, 2012) incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.].

2 9 . Even if all common sense and logic is suspended for a moment in time, soas to try and believe the ridiculous lie perpetrated on this Court, that somehow therewere two entities by the same name operating simultaneously for forty-five plus years,the only evidence presented to this Court was that there was only one business that wasincorporated and suspended in 1977, because any legitimate unincorporated entitywould have filed a FBNS in the county for where they were conducting business.Assuming for the moment that the Illegal Business was actually conducting business inthe County of Los Angeles. Where is their proper documentation that they actuallyexisted? No documentation was provided with the Illegal Business' motion.

3 0 . In or about April 2012, Corporation acquired more new evidence regardingthe Illegal Business.

3 1 . Approximately two weeks after the Illegal Business received my letterdated August 24, 2010 (which was ignored by this Court in its ruling) wherein theywere called on the carpet for running a defunct corporation, they immediately placed ontheir agenda the issue of tax status and the removal of the "Inc." suffix from theirrulebook which was on the cover and inside the first six editions. [See Exhibit 10(Illegal Business' e-mail dated September 11, 2010) incorporated by reference asthough fully set forth herein.].

3 2 . Once again, the Illegal Business fooled this Court into believing that its7

Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Supp ort of Defendant Dino M. Zaffina's Motion forReconsideration of the Court's Granting Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction



8/12

childlike amateurish dartboard was so special to them. "... Defendants used a logo thatis virtually identical to SCD A 's logo." [Se e Mo tion for PI p. 1 2, lns . 6 -7]

33. Kawahito and the Illegal Business were not candid with this Court which isKawahito's professional duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct and the IllegalBusiness' under the penalty of perjury.

34. New evidence reveals that approximately three weeks after the IllegalBusiness was called on the carpet for its defunct corporate status, it seems they startedto scamper about trying to reinvent themselves, starting with abandoning the logo of the6 0 s and 7 0 s corporation for a new logo.

35. Several e-mails were past about over a two day period, with a sample of apossible new logo. Paul Roush ("Roush"), a board member of the Illegal Businesswrote, "I had thoughts about a potential revamping of the SCDA logo." [See Exhibit 1 1(E-mail dated September 18, 2010) incorporated by reference as though fully set forthherein.]

36. Several board members of the Illegal Business responded to Roush's e-mail. Irete wrote about putting it up for a contest amongst the members, Milan F.Sabata a board member of the Illegal Business wrote, "[I] am presently working withmy computer promotion guy on [sic] re-design of SCDA logo as well." ' LevonGioganian a board member of the Illegal Business wrote, "Either a contest or a largenumber of rough ideas to select from, also maybe a design review committee, instead ofa general vote." Irete writes about "google logos." [See Exhibits 12, 13, and 14(Emails re the abandonment of the mark) incorporated by reference as though fully setforth herein.]

37. Besides abandoning the mark, the Illegal Business abandoned itsfraudulent corporation by removing the "Inc." suffix from its By-Laws and Rulebookcover and the name of the Illegal Business. [See Exhibit 15 (Page 3 of the IllegalBusiness' Revised Rulebook, Sixth Edition) incorporated by reference as though fullyset forth herein.].

8Declaration of Dino M . Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court's Granting Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction



9/12

38. The original Sixth Edition is what the Illegal Business presented to thisCourt with its Motion. [See Exhibit 16 (Exhibit A of Irete's Declaration to the Motion)incorporated by reference as thou gh fully set fo rth herein.].

39. Clearly, this Court overlooked the fact that the Illegal Business wasclaiming to be separate and apart from the defun ct corporation, yet somehow, the IllegalBusiness utilized the defunct corporation's name, By-Laws and Rulebook. It islaughable to believe that the Illegal Business can somehow prevail on the merits.

40. Additional new evidence proves that there is no irreparable harm to theIllegal Business, since they bring in approximately $1,000.00 per year. Their minutesof their so-called board meetings show that they have an approximate "treasurybalance" of $1,000.00. A far cry from the "national" and "international" dart promoterthat they fooled this Court into believing. [See Exhibits 17, 18, and 19 (Minutes forNovember 11, 2010, December 9, 2010, and January 20, 2011) incorporated byreference as thou gh fully set fo rth herein.]

41. This Court erred in ruling on "irreparable harm" favoring the IllegalBusiness because there is no harm to a DEAD business. Illegal businesses cannotsuffer any harm. To the contrary, legal corporations (such as Corporation) can sufferand do suffer irreparable harm when they are stifled because they conduct businessproperly which costs money.

42. Corporation expended a lot of money and time to establish the legalcorporation known as Southern California Darts Association, Inc., th e only legalentity by this name and the names of its subsidiaries, Southern California DartsAssociation, So Cal Darts Association, So Cal Darts, SCDA, an d SCDA Pioducts.[See Exhibits 20, 21, and 22 (SOS Business Entity Records as of April 29, 2012; FBNSfor the above-referenced subsidiaries) incorporated by reference as though fully setforth herein.]

43. Corporation is obligated to file an annual Statement of Information andwhen the business makes a change. The injunction stifles this activity. Corporation

9Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M. Zaffina's Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court's Granting Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction



10/12

opened a checking account which has to be maintained. The injunction stifles thisactivity.

4 4 . Corporation applied for and received a Seller's Permit from the BOE whichhas to be maintained. The injunction stifles this activity. Not to mention the goods thatCorporation was planning on selling before this unconstitutional Order. [See Exhibit23 (BOE Seller's Permit as of April 15, 2012) incorporated by reference as though fullyset forth herein.]. The injunction stifles this activity.

4 5 . Corporation applied for and received two different business tax registrationcertificates ("TRC") from the City of Los Angeles; one for services and the other forgoods. [See Exhibits 24 and 25 (TRCs as of April 22, 2012) incorporated by referenceas though fully set forth herein.]. The injunction stifles this activity.

4 6 . Corporation must maintain these TRCs, besides the "services" thatCorporation intended on providing (not even close to what this Court "assumed") and"goods" that Corporation was manufacturing which this Court clearly ignored. Theinjunction stifles this activity.

4 7 . Corporation filed federal and state income tax returns for 2011 (its firstyear in business) something that the Illegal Business HAS NOT EVEN done in at least36-years, yet this Court disgustingly overlooks these "unclean hands" andunconstitutionally abuses Corporation. [See Exhibits 26 and 27 (IRS and FTB IncomeTax Returns page one) incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.]

4 8 . Corporation is irreparably harmed because of all the business expendituresand all the contacts that Corporation has made to further its legal business activities.These individuals and businesses are entitled to an explanation. [See Exhibit 28(Corporation's website providing notice of the temporary abeyance) incorporated byreference as though fully set forth herein.]. The injunction stifles this constitutionallyprotected communication.

4 9 . Unlike the Illegal Business who lied to this Court by saying that they had tosuspend their league play. This assertion is false. The pubs only required that the

1 0Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M. Zaffina's Motion for




11/12

Illegal Business play under a different name and they could have continued to play. TheIllegal Business chose to harm their dead business.

5 0 . Even assuming the injunction stands, the Illegal Business will still not beable to play in the eight pubs because those pubs freely entered into a "valid andbinding" settlement agreement with Corporation. They are not going to breach thesettlement agreement and face a liquidated damages cost of $500.00 per violation. The$20.00 or so that the Illegal Business brings to the pub on a Monday night is not worththe breach.

5 1 . Notwithstanding, the unconstitutionality of the injunction, even ifCorporation and myself wanted to comply, it is impossible, to fully comply because ofall the business requirements imposed upon Corporation, as mentioned above, and allthe contacts that Corporation has made while conducting business.

5 2 . Documents under the "legal" names owned by Corporation need to befiled. Contracts need to be fulfilled. Business transactions already in the works need tobe performed. This Court took it upon itself to assume that Corporation was running abusiness exactly like the Illegal Business. Not even close. This Court does not evenhave an inkling of all the business that Corporation has already conducted and will beconducting once this foolishness is over. Corporation, for obvious reasons, did notdisclose all its business transactions and ideas because of proprietary reasons.

5 3 . Not to mentioned the unconstitutional prior restraint on my freedom ofspeech to protect my reputation that has been harmed by the false article published byLA Weekly and all the blogs that they are running, as well as, additional articles.

5 4 . Under the injunction, I am restrained from exercising my freedom ofspeech on my website truthaboutdinomzaffina.com and the upcoming on-camerainterview that will allow me to set the record straight.

5 5 . This is still a free country. People who follow the laws are rewarded notpunished. The Corporation and myself are being punished without due process of law.

5 6 . Maintaining the status quo is a very important element of any preliminary1 1

Declaration of Dino M. Zaffina in Support of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Mo tion forReconsideration of the Court's G ranting Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction



12/12

injunction and should not be taken lightly or overlooked altogether.5 7 . The status quo would have been for the Illegal Business to continue

operating (until it was shut down by one or more government agencies for its illegalactivity), and for Corporation to continue operating until due process is given andCorporation prevails.

5 8 . What this Court has done is unequivocally unconstitutional and theinjunction should be vacated forthwith to avoid causing any further harm.

5 9 . I bring this request to this Court first instead of going directly to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because I want to give this Court anopportunity to review the new evidence and to reexamine this Court's decision that wasbased on an erroneous legal standard and clearly erroneous findings of fact.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Americaand the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 2nd day of May, 2012 at Glendale, California.

By: /S/ Dino M . ZaffinaDino M. ZaffinaDefendant, Pro Se

12Declaration of Dino M. Z affina in Sup port of Defendant Dino M . Zaffina's Motion for
