Court Filings & failed Attempts

Law Enforcement and KY Attorney General Unlawfully Block Information Requests

and Critical Body Cam Footage (June & July 2025)
 

This document contains formal multi-agency open records requests and criminal referral notifications sent by Dr. Feldman to the Kentucky Attorney General, U.S. Marshals, Jefferson County Sheriff, MetroSafe, and LMPD. It details urgent efforts to preserve body cam and 911 records, exposes technical and bureaucratic obstruction—including email blocking—and documents the direct referral of law enforcement and management for hate crime prosecution. The attached transcripts and emails demonstrate how repeated requests for evidence and oversight were ignored or blocked, putting vital records at risk of deletion before any investigation or court review.

Federal Lawsuit and Procedural History — Removal, Emergency Filings, and Court Orders (April–June 2025)

This filing documents extensive efforts by Dr. Feldman to remove a state court eviction and civil rights action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. He asserts federal jurisdiction under the ADA, Fourteenth Amendment, and federal civil rights statutes. The case highlights systematic barriers faced by unrepresented and disabled litigants, including exclusion from electronic filing, refusal to docket verified filings, and denial of ADA accommodations in both Kentucky state courts and at the federal level.

After paying a filing fee under duress, the plaintiff was subsequently told by the Kentucky Western District clerk that the fee had not been paid and that additional payments would be required, effectively demanding duplicate fees. The court further issued a written order barring the plaintiff from any electronic filing and requiring all submissions be made in person, despite the plaintiff's ongoing disability and verified lack of a home address. These actions directly contradicted the reasons cited by the D.C. Circuit for transferring jurisdiction to Kentucky.

Throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff was denied meaningful access to court, prevented from presenting evidence, and subjected to procedural exclusion by court staff and judges. The filings allege that this series of procedural barriers constitutes an intentional and discriminatory effort to block federal review and evade accountability for violations of due process, equal protection, and disability rights. The record includes a detailed table of contents of all filings, affidavits, and exhibits documenting these systemic failures and the plaintiff’s requests for emergency relief.

1. Timeline and Core Court Activity:

• This section begins with Dr. Feldman’s complaint for damages and jury trial demand in July 2021, asserting claims including wrongful eviction, retaliation, habitability violations, negligence, and defamation.
   
• Throughout late 2021 and 2022, the record reflects routine case management activity, service, and discovery by all parties, alongside regular court scheduling orders.
   
• The years 2022 and 2023 are marked by a series of continuances, attorney substitutions, and changes in representation, with Dr. Feldman eventually proceeding in pro per (self-represented) after his prior counsel withdrew.
   
• The court record documents multiple joint stipulations and orders continuing trial dates, with both parties citing ongoing discovery, health complications, the need for mediation, and the identification of new causes of action and defendants.
   

2. The November 2023 Motion for Summary Adjudication (Abern/Struck):

• In November 2023, defense attorneys Steven Abern and Jody Struck, representing the landlord, filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication.
   
• The core of their motion was an argument that Dr. Feldman’s primary claim under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance (retaliatory eviction) was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, based on the assertion that Dr. Feldman vacated the premises in December 2019.
   
• This assertion is verifiably contradicted by the court’s own record, which shows continued possession issues, active case management, discovery, and litigation activity well after 2019, including trial continuances and stipulations entered by both parties. The foundation for the motion is a matter of record and was demonstrably false.
   
• The timing of the motion for summary adjudication is especially significant: it was filed at the same time that Dr. Feldman’s name was removed from the case within the court’s electronic filing (e-filing) system.
   

3. Procedural Obstruction — Dr. Feldman Blocked From Opposing:

• Following the filing of the defense’s summary adjudication motion, Dr. Feldman was systemically removed from his own case in the e-filing system, which prevented him from filing any pleadings, oppositions, or responses for more than seven months.
   
• This removal and resulting technical barrier were acknowledged by court staff and the e-filing vendor, but were never remedied despite Dr. Feldman’s repeated attempts to alert the court and defense counsel.
   
• As a direct result, Dr. Feldman was unable to file an opposition to the defense’s summary adjudication motion or to participate in the litigation process, and the court received no responsive papers from the plaintiff during this period.
   

4. Frivolousness of the Motion and Resulting Prejudice:

• The summary adjudication motion submitted by Abern and Struck was not only legally unsound; it was frivolous, as it relied on a factual misrepresentation that is contradicted by the record and prior court filings.
   
• The defense took advantage of Dr. Feldman’s involuntary removal from the case and inability to respond, pressing their false statute of limitations narrative unopposed.
   
• The court accepted the defense’s representations without opposition or hearing from Dr. Feldman, effectively depriving him of his right to due process and to defend his claims.
   

In summary:

• The November 2023 summary adjudication motion filed by Abern and Struck was based on a knowingly false assertion about Dr. Feldman’s possession and the statute of limitations.
   
• At the same time, Dr. Feldman was effectively erased from his own case and prevented from filing or opposing the motion for more than seven months, due to a combination of e-filing technical errors and court inaction.
   
• These events resulted in a scenario where a frivolous and false motion was granted unopposed, not due to any failure by Dr. Feldman, but due to court-enabled obstruction and a breakdown in basic procedural fairness.

Part 2 of the record documents the pivotal stage in which Defendant’s attorneys (Abern, Struck, Armstrong, et al.) pressed their motion for summary adjudication, while Dr. Feldman was disabled from participating in the case due to procedural and technical obstructions.

Key Events and Obstruction:

• In November 2023, defense counsel filed a “Request for Judicial Notice” and a “Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication,” relying heavily on the claim that Dr. Feldman’s rent ordinance and retaliation claims were barred by the statute of limitations, based on a purported December 2019 possession surrender.
   
• This foundational assertion, made under penalty of perjury by defense, is directly contradicted by the case record and previous filings, which document ongoing litigation, trial continuances, and possession through late 2020.
   
• Procedural obstruction is highlighted by the simultaneous substitution of defense counsel and the court’s technical removal of Dr. Feldman’s party status in the e-filing system. As a result, Dr. Feldman was unable to file oppositions, ex parte applications, or even basic pleadings for over seven months at the precise moment when the most significant dispositive motion was pending.
   
• The defense then relied, in subsequent filings (including declarations by Jody Struck and formal replies), on the lack of any opposition as grounds for summary adjudication. The court was repeatedly told by defense that Dr. Feldman failed to oppose, even though he was systemically blocked from filing.
   
• Plaintiff’s ex parte applications and supporting declarations (all marked “UNFILED”) detail the efforts Dr. Feldman made to participate:
   
  • Describing serious injuries and disability,
     
  • Inability to secure counsel despite repeated attempts,
     
  • Explicit technical barriers with the court system,
     
  • And the devastating impact of defendant’s continued slander (including published zero-tolerance bans with medical providers).
     
• These unfiled declarations outline multiple layers of procedural injustice: failure of service by defense (no actual receipt of motion); inability to file responses due to e-filing removal; lack of meaningful accommodation for disability; lack of access to legal aid; and systemic indifference by both the court and the clerks.
   
• Dr. Feldman’s detailed declarations also document how prior counsel, legal aid services, and public officials failed to act or actively obstructed his access to justice, compounding the defense’s strategy of winning by default on technical and false grounds.
   
• Throughout, the record is clear: the defendant’s motion for summary adjudication was not only frivolous but succeeded, procedurally, because the plaintiff was disabled from participating at the most critical juncture by a combination of technical, clerical, and court inaction.
   

Conclusion:

Part 2 demonstrates a clear and systematic obstruction of justice: a knowingly false and frivolous dispositive motion, strategic procedural gamesmanship by defense, and the effective silencing of Dr. Feldman by institutional failures, leading to a one-sided outcome despite the presence of material facts and legitimate claims.

Procedural Overview:
Part 3 captures the aftermath of the summary adjudication phase, the communication over contested court orders, the ongoing trial delays, and the defense’s push for attorney’s fees—all set against Dr. Feldman’s ongoing claims of procedural obstruction, inability to oppose, and systemic disadvantage.

Key Events and Evidence of Obstruction:

• Summary Adjudication Orders and Plaintiff Objections:
  The section opens with the defense’s formal declaration (Jody Struck) requesting that the court enter the order granting, in part, summary adjudication in favor of the defendant. Embedded in the supporting exhibits and correspondence is Dr. Feldman’s documented objection: he repeatedly advised both the defense and court that he was unable to file, or was blocked by technical errors in the e-filing system, and that he did not receive proper notice or opportunity to respond to the dispositive motion. Emails show Dr. Feldman’s protests about his inability to file or argue orally, and his objections to the substance of the defense’s proposed order.
   
• Court Clerical Issues and E-Filing Barriers:
  Exhibit 4 (Clerk’s Notice of Rejection, Feb. 20, 2024) and emails from Dr. Feldman detail how even the defense’s attempts to submit a proposed order were rejected for technical deficiencies, and how Dr. Feldman was denied a chance to participate in the formal adoption or objection to the ruling. Dr. Feldman’s communications indicate a months-long period where he was either removed from his own case or barred from e-filing due to “system errors,” despite his efforts to alert the court and defense to the problem.
   
• Ongoing Medical Disability and Pro Se Prejudice:
  The stipulated ex parte applications to continue trial (with supporting declarations and exhibits) chronicle Dr. Feldman’s serious injuries, ongoing disability, inability to secure local counsel, and barriers to adequate healthcare—many of which he links directly to the defendant’s actions and continued slander, as well as to the litigation process itself. Dr. Feldman documents, in detail, his inability to access the court or counsel, asserting these as deliberate outcomes of defense and court conduct.
   
• Plaintiff’s Unfiled Motion for Reconsideration:
  Dr. Feldman’s (unfiled) motion for reconsideration and affidavit (March 28, 2024, pp. 104–105) specifically challenges the order granting summary adjudication as factually and legally flawed, made in bad faith, and asserts that defense misled the court regarding both the dates and legal standards. He also points out he was denied any real opportunity to oppose due to the prolonged period of technical exclusion.
   
• Defense Motions for Attorney’s Fees:
  The latter part of Part 3 (April 2024) includes multiple declarations and legal briefs by defense counsel (Abern, Armstrong, Struck) arguing for “reasonable” attorney’s fees in excess of $175,000, based on their success in obtaining partial summary adjudication. These filings detail the defense’s insurance arrangements and billing rates, and further illustrate the financial scale of the process for a pro se plaintiff with documented disabilities and no ability to respond or contest.
   

Emphasis on Obstruction and Unfairness:

• This entire section illustrates an ongoing pattern of systemic obstruction, in which Dr. Feldman is not merely disadvantaged by self-representation and disability, but actively prevented from exercising his legal rights due to technical and clerical failures, lack of accommodations, and the defense’s willingness to leverage these failures for tactical advantage.
   
• Defense communications and the procedural record repeatedly show Dr. Feldman attempting to participate, object, and seek reconsideration—while the court’s response is limited to technical rejections and the acceptance of defense narratives by default.
   
• The end result is a one-sided process: dispositive defense motions succeed despite being premised on misstatements and are unopposed due to barriers created not by plaintiff’s inaction, but by a combination of technology, court staff, and procedural inertia.

Part 4 captures the aftermath of the defense’s partial victory on summary adjudication and their subsequent aggressive push for attorney’s fees against Dr. Feldman. The section also documents a new wave of procedural obstruction, as well as continued struggles by Dr. Feldman to have his filings accepted by the court.

Key Events and Evidence of Obstruction:

• The defense, immediately after securing partial summary adjudication (on claims they knew to be factually false), moved for attorney’s fees under San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance, seeking tens of thousands of dollars for work largely related to their “statute of limitations” narrative.
   
• The Stock declaration (pages 6–8) admits defense was paid by multiple insurance companies, and reveals an outsized number of hours and costs spent “defending” against Dr. Feldman’s claims, while repeatedly framing the litigation as “extraordinarily complex” and “idiosyncratic”—ignoring the impact of defense-created delays and procedural obstruction.
   
• Dr. Feldman’s ex parte motion for continuance (pages 9–10, unfiled) and his detailed supporting declaration (pages 11–17) spell out the core procedural injustice: from mid-January to late May 2024, Dr. Feldman’s name was “stripped” from court and e-filing vendor systems, making him unable to file any opposition to defense motions—including summary adjudication, motions for reconsideration, and the fee request. Both the court and e-filing vendors blamed each other, leaving Dr. Feldman caught in a bureaucratic dead zone.
   
• Dr. Feldman’s declaration explains how he was not allowed to make oral argument, was muted in court, and was denied basic opportunities to contest defense misstatements—while defense counsel said nothing and took advantage of these procedural failures to win by default.
   
• Multiple proofs of service and declarations (pages 18, 46–48) illustrate that Dr. Feldman finally regained filing access in late July and early August 2024—months after critical deadlines had already passed, compounding the prejudice.
   
• Dr. Feldman’s response to the defense’s “998 Offer” (pages 19–25) and the declarations concerning settlement and insurance fraud outline a continuing pattern: he alleges ongoing fraud, slander, and perjury by the defendant, with defense counsel participating in the fraud and leveraging insurance company resources to obstruct his claims.
   
• Further, Dr. Feldman files for a temporary stay of a court-ordered neuropsychological or psychiatric evaluation (pages 31–45), raising well-supported objections to the defense’s attempt to obtain potentially prejudicial mental health evidence. He highlights that defense counsel “adamantly refused” to allow him input into evaluator selection and suggests this is another effort to unfairly discredit or retaliate against him.
   
• The final documents are multiple notices of remote appearance, underlining the fact that Dr. Feldman, still pro se and living across the country, remains in a fundamentally disadvantaged position—exacerbated by ongoing disability, lack of legal resources, and unresolved procedural injustices.
   

Obstruction Emphasis:

Throughout Part 4, Dr. Feldman is locked out of meaningful participation at every key moment—prevented from filing oppositions, denied oral argument, and forced to operate from a position of systemic procedural disadvantage. The record shows both court and defense exploiting these failures, further tilting the case toward the defense and away from a fair trial on the merits.

Part 5 provides a comprehensive narrative of Dr. Feldman’s claims, with supporting evidence and a detailed affidavit showing how the defense’s case was built on provable falsehoods and how Dr. Feldman was procedurally obstructed from obtaining a fair hearing or presenting evidence.

Key Elements:

• The Settlement Conference Statement (pages 1–13) outlines Dr. Feldman’s position, damages, and a step-by-step account of the severe harm he suffered, including slander, wrongful eviction, habitability violations, and obstruction of access to the courts and to medical care. Dr. Feldman details ongoing financial, health, and reputational damage and lays out his efforts to settle fairly, which have been continually undermined by the defense’s conduct and the court’s technical failures.
   
• The Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reconsider (pages 14–28) methodically refutes the defense’s summary adjudication arguments, demonstrating with court-filed exhibits (leases, notices, UD pleadings) that the key date used by the defense (December 26, 2019) to trigger the statute of limitations was false. Dr. Feldman lays out, with specific timeline and legal citations, that possession and the cause of action continued through October 15, 2020, and that all later filings by the defense asserting otherwise were both frivolous and knowingly false.
   
• Dr. Feldman’s affidavit documents the period in which he was removed from the e-filing system and was thus unable to oppose summary adjudication, move for reconsideration, or file responsive papers for several months—despite court staff and vendors acknowledging the technical problem. He also details the court’s refusal to allow oral argument, strict application of rules to block his filings, and rejection of proposed orders without following required local rules for service and response times.
   
• Exhibits (Lease, 3-Day Notice, UD Complaint) provide direct proof that the defense had knowledge of ongoing tenancy, supported by their own pleadings and agreements. These documents directly contradict the later claims made in the November 2023 summary adjudication motion.
   
• Bias and procedural obstruction are further documented by Dr. Feldman’s detailed attempts to obtain relief: repeated, unaddressed requests to court clerks, fee waiver limitations, and technical hurdles that prevented him from adequately participating in the litigation or protecting his interests.
   
• The section also contains confidential settlement terms, with Dr. Feldman offering significant reductions to settle, showing he acted in good faith throughout—yet was stonewalled by defense counsel who used procedural gamesmanship to avoid addressing the merits.
   

Emphasis:

Part 5 shows a clear through-line: the defense’s misrepresentations and tactical use of the court’s technical and procedural weaknesses led to the granting of dispositive motions on a fundamentally false basis, all while Dr. Feldman was systemically denied the ability to oppose, participate, or be heard. The court’s own failures in processing filings, granting oral argument, and enforcing local rules are all evidenced in this record.

Overview:
Part 6 collects core evidentiary exhibits and key pleadings that directly disprove the defense’s false timeline and show Dr. Feldman’s ongoing efforts to contest the case, while providing explicit documentary evidence of the procedural obstruction that allowed a frivolous defense motion to succeed.

Key Elements and Obstruction Evidence:

• Indicia of Possession (pp. 1–9): Dr. Feldman lays out point-by-point “indicia” proving he retained possession after December 2019, including exclusive occupancy, utility bills, payment of rent, keys, presence of belongings, use of address for mail, and ongoing maintenance. He includes direct texts to Ms. Holmes in late December 2019 and January 2020 showing continued occupancy and ongoing disputes over repairs, all of which completely contradict the defense’s summary adjudication narrative.
   
• Unlawful Detainer Filings (pp. 10–27): Defense’s own court filings (including a February 2020 Amended Complaint) admit that Dr. Feldman remained in possession well past December 2019, with possession not surrendered until months later—directly refuting the timeline used in the defense’s November 2023 summary adjudication motion.
   
• Stipulation for Future Judgment (pp. 28–38): Both parties entered into a court-approved stipulation in September 2020 that explicitly set Dr. Feldman’s legal possession through October 15, 2020, not December 2019 as claimed by defense. The stipulation is signed by all parties and reviewed by the judge.
   
• Defense Memorandum of Points and Authorities (pp. 39–45): Defense attorneys (Abern, Struck, Armstrong) argue for summary adjudication on a statute of limitations theory that they know to be false, asserting a December 2019 possession date. This memorandum serves as the foundation for the motion the court later granted, unopposed only because Dr. Feldman was removed from the case and unable to file.
   
• Communications Regarding Surrender (pp. 46–51): Emails from October 2020 between Dr. Feldman, defense counsel, and Ms. Holmes confirm Dr. Feldman’s move-out, settlement negotiations, the landlord’s agreement to accept keys and payment in October 2020, and defense attempts to reverse the $11,000 settlement check. These communications further demonstrate the defense’s actual knowledge of the true possession and surrender dates.
   
• Notice of Entry of Order & Rejected Order (pp. 52–58): Defense’s notice of entry of the March 2024 court order (granting in part and denying in part summary adjudication) is included, as well as a prior rejected court order (rejected for failure to comply with procedural rules), showing ongoing defense efforts to frame the narrative.
   
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (pp. 60–62): Dr. Feldman’s (unfiled) motion highlights the defense’s knowingly false timeline, details how he was prevented from opposing summary adjudication, and invokes Code of Civil Procedure §128.5, arguing that the motion was brought in bad faith, for the purpose of harassment, and without merit.
   
• Declaration ISO Attorney’s Fees (pp. 63–65): Defense attorney David Stock requests substantial attorney’s fees for work related to the summary adjudication, even as the declaration admits both Allstate and CSAA were paying defense fees and that the defense focused their work on the “Section 37.9 claim,” which was only won through procedural obstruction and falsehood.
   

Obstruction and Bias Emphasis:

• The court’s record, together with the defense’s own exhibits and emails, prove that the dispositive defense motion was based on a verifiable lie about the date of possession. At the same time, Dr. Feldman was procedurally locked out from filing opposition, reconsideration, or even alerting the court to the record evidence in his favor.
   
• Defense exploited these technical and procedural failures to obtain a favorable order and a basis for attorney’s fees, while the court ignored the clear contradiction in the record, refused to consider unfiled or late-filed oppositions, and enforced rules strictly against Dr. Feldman while showing leniency to defense.

Overview:

Part 7 documents the final phase of litigation, post-summary adjudication, including fee motions, settlement negotiations, and repeated efforts by Dr. Feldman to oppose further procedural obstruction and recover a fair trial date. The section provides direct proof of ongoing technical, clerical, and legal obstacles that undermined Dr. Feldman’s ability to participate—culminating in a last stand against ongoing bias and denial of due process.

Key Elements:

• Defense Motions for Attorney’s Fees:
  The section opens with a declaration by defense attorneys Abern and Armstrong, seeking attorney’s fees for work relating to the successful (but factually false) summary adjudication motion. These filings emphasize the “complexity” of the case and defend billings totaling over $100,000—most of which accrued while Dr. Feldman was systemically blocked from filing or responding.
   
• Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance and Declaration:
  Dr. Feldman’s May 2024 ex parte application and detailed declaration spell out the technical nightmare that prevented him from participating: e-filing system errors caused by clerical data corruption, with his name either removed or garbled, and both the court and vendors refusing to fix it. He details multiple unsuccessful attempts to resolve these issues, the inability to file a timely opposition to the summary adjudication and fee motions, and the severe prejudice this caused.
   
• Settlement Agreement & Ongoing Obstruction:
  In May 2024, a settlement agreement is drafted and executed in which Dr. Feldman agrees to a general release of all claims in exchange for a waiver of attorney’s fees and costs. However, this agreement is only reached after Dr. Feldman’s access is restored and months after critical rulings have already prejudiced the outcome. The record shows that this “settlement” occurs after all substantive issues were decided against him during a period of silence forced by the court’s e-filing and procedural failures.
   
• Medical & Technical Documentation:
  Supporting declarations, attached medical letters, and dozens of screenshots prove that Dr. Feldman’s name was mislisted in the court’s systems in multiple ways, causing up to a year of technical obstruction, rejected filings, and the inability to correct the record—even after court staff acknowledged the issue. Dr. Feldman’s medical evidence further supports the need for trial continuance due to disabling health conditions caused by the events at issue and exacerbated by ongoing stress and lack of access to care.
   
• Opposition to Defense Continuance and Claims of Bias:
  Dr. Feldman’s late 2024 and early 2025 filings (including declarations, objections, and formal written oppositions) directly attack defense motions for additional continuances. He documents how defense counsel and the court imposed strict requirements on him—requiring extensive medical documentation and denying all but the most minimal continuances for severe injury—while allowing the defense to obtain continuances without equivalent proof. Dr. Feldman details defense misrepresentations, fraud in funding (using insurance not intended to cover willful landlord misconduct), and slander continuing to affect his health and ability to obtain care.
   
• Written Objection and Denial of Due Process:
  The final section is Dr. Feldman’s written objection to the court’s handling of defense continuance motions. He describes being denied oral argument, blocked from correcting defense misstatements, and subjected to a double standard—whereby defense is excused from providing any documentation, while Dr. Feldman is held to an impossible procedural burden. He also details continued slander, loss of medical access, denial of discovery, and the court’s refusal to address well-documented procedural failures and bias. Dr. Feldman’s narrative culminates in a hunger strike protest and a final plea for a formal inquiry into judicial bias and procedural injustice.
   

• Procedural Injustice:
   
  • Court’s e-filing and clerical errors removed Dr. Feldman as a party for many months, locking him out of every major motion and blocking opposition, reconsideration, and key filings.
     
  • Defense exploited these failures, making false representations, pushing for fees and continuances, and obtaining court rulings by default.
     
• Court Bias and Double Standard:
   
  • Court imposed strict, technical requirements on Dr. Feldman but gave broad leniency to defense, even when defense made factually false or unsupported claims.
     
  • Multiple rulings were issued without Dr. Feldman being heard, either in writing or orally, and with court staff actively misinforming the judge about his eligibility to argue.
     
• Frivolous and Bad Faith Motions:
   
  • Defense’s core motions were built on proven misstatements about key facts (e.g., date of possession, statute of limitations), yet the court did not sanction defense counsel or revisit any ruling even when presented with documentary evidence to the contrary.
     
• Ongoing Harm:
   
  • The record closes with Dr. Feldman’s documentation of continued loss: inability to access healthcare, severe emotional and financial harm, and a direct call for external oversight and correction of a fundamentally unjust process.

Part 1

Summary:

Part 1 contains all early and mid-stage filings in the unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit brought by Linda Steinhoff Holmes against Daniel Feldman. These include the original complaint (filed December 12, 2019), amended complaint, notices, discovery motions, requests for admission, interrogatories, and correspondence between parties. This section documents:

• Persistent efforts by Feldman to obtain discovery and require the landlord to answer questions under oath;
   
• Repeated allegations by the landlord of nuisance, elder abuse, and lease violations—claims Feldman argues were perjurious and later disproven;
   
• Evidence filings by Feldman showing habitability complaints, retaliation, ADA accommodation requests, and responses to plaintiff’s claims;
   
• Multiple motions and court notices regarding hearing dates, requests for default, and case management orders.
   

Importantly, this portion of the record does not include the judgment, stipulation, or case conclusion; it documents the contested and highly litigated middle phase, highlighting perjury, slander, and procedural gamesmanship by the landlord and her attorneys.

 Part 2

Summary of Case & Importance:
This record covers all phases of the San Francisco unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit brought by Linda Steinhoff Holmes against Daniel Feldman. The filings include the initial complaint, discovery, evidence responses, settlement negotiations, and the confidential stipulated judgment and addendum.

Key facts established by this case:

• The case resolved with a settlement that effectively vindicated Feldman and confirmed the landlord’s claims of elder abuse were unfounded and unsupported by any actual evidence. 

• Throughout the proceedings, the landlord and her attorney relied on repeated allegations of violent elder abuse—claims later proven false. There were no police reports, dispatch records, restraining orders, medical documentation, or third-party witnesses outside of the landlord’s family or employees.  

• Recorded calls captured the landlord’s attorney suborning perjury from family and friends, yet these false claims were still submitted to the court and entered into Feldman’s medical record.  

• Despite prevailing and achieving a confidential settlement, the slander from this case was never retracted or corrected. Instead, these disproven allegations were used by the landlord to initiate a multi-year campaign of retaliation and eviction in Kentucky—where Feldman continued to face discrimination, eviction, and denial of medical care based on the same, already-disproven accusations.  

• The record highlights the systemic failure of courts to prevent or remedy slander, attorney misconduct, and insurance fraud, and documents how court clerk gatekeeping and legal gamesmanship made it impossible for Feldman to seek further damages or clear his record.  

Significance:

This lawsuit not only disproved serious slanderous accusations but also shows how such false claims—never formally retracted—can be weaponized across jurisdictions, causing lasting harm to housing, medical access, and civil rights long after a legal “victory.” The record provides crucial evidence for ongoing advocacy and for exposing patterns of legal abuse and court-enabled discrimination.