1. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1 9. CHANGE OF INCOME
2 The respondents income has significantly decrease based
3 from the results of the opposing parties discovering the
4 respondents employment opportunities, personal relationships
in order to continue there objective in violation
5
6
18 U.S.C. § 1589: (Forced labor)
7
Obtaining labor or services by (1) threats of serious harm to, or
8
physical restraint against victim or another person; (2) scheme,
9 plan, etc. causing victim to believe she’d suffer serious harm or
10 physical restraint if labor/services not performed; (3) abuse or
11 threatened abuse of law or the legal process.
12
13 There is a reasonable indication, based on the
statements the respondent encountered on Oct 30 and November
14
5, the respondents former employer Competrol was subject to
15
engaged in the illegal activity due to the following
16
conversations and questions made at Competrol in reference to
17
the respondent.
18
19 October 31
20 Approx. 6:42a.m.
21 The respondent was on his way to a job site in Helendale next
22 to TXI Riverside Cement Oro Grande and receives a phone by his
boss Rob Iorio and was in a panic of fear state. Rob said
23
something happened at home and he was turning back around, I
24
asked him if everything was okay, Rob replied I don’t know
25
some thing happen to his wife or daughter, and I was to
26
contact his clients/appointments and reschedule them due to
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

2. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1 being ill, tell his partner Gary Alexander he wasn’t able to
2 make it, and his phone will be off.
3 November 5
4 Respondent arrived at work to learn there was a change of
plans due to Rob and Gary stating it wasn’t safe for the
5
respondent to be in Helendale due to the dispute between TXI
6
Riverside Cement and the respondent
7
8
HR Leah Burno of Competrol- November 5,
9
10 8:35 a.m. Leah Burno H.R / Phone...P
11 “Yeah that’s going to be a hell of a wake up call haha...He’s
12 not even headed in that direction...Did he ask you the right
13 question.” Hangs up
14
8:42a.m. Respondent MDD / Leah Burno
15
“Do you know what happen with Rob, Friday he called on my way
16
up to Silver Lakes Market”. (helendale)#
17
Leah / Respondent MDD
18 “he had family problems, it had nothing to do with you”.
19 Respondent MDD / Leah Burno
“when he called me he sounded like he was in fear, crying and
20
said he had to turn around something happen at home and he ask
21
22 me to contact his clients that he is ill and to tell gary he
23 was’t able to make it. On Monday I asked Rob what happen and
24 he replied OH DON’T EVEN GO THERE, I asked Rob it didn’t have
25 any thing to do with me did it cause I told him why I didn’t
26 want to do this job site”
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

3. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
2 8:44a.m. Leah Burno / Respondent MDD
3 “It’s funny that he would call you not Gary or I”
(Mike reveals some evidence to her as she comments “how did you get that”)
4
5
8:52a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
6
“He has bigger problems to deal with”...
7
8 8:53a.m Leah Burno / Phone...
9
“Hey as long as the check cashes right haha”...
10
8:55a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
11
“He won’t be back for a while”.
12
13
8:56a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
14
“Well you know if any thing is ever brought up, we can always
15
just say that he quit here”...
16
17
8:58a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
18
“There is so much drama here I cant even tell ya”...
19
20
9:08a.m Leah Burno / Phone...
21
Dialed...“Hi, he’s gone for good (Laughs) bye”. (hangs up)
22
23
9:20a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
24
“he’s not even 100% for Obama... you know he realizes this is
25
all a political machine...he would’t go work for him he would
26
like campaign for him...If Michael was that passionate about
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

4. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
some thing he would be out there doing something about it...So
2 what does he do just deal with it...Were Done, Were Done, Were
3 Done...haha”...
4
5 9:29a.m Leah Burno / Phone...
6 “here are people who said that...I.m not making excuses for
7 him...It’s not that black and white”...
8
9 9:__a.m. Leah Burno / Phone...
10 Well I’ll probably be dead anyways I want to stay around as
11 long as I can”...So you consider your friends inheriting
12 evil ...Wow I’m glad I’m not you...Why am I taking the cop out
13 Rich.
14 ___a.m. Leah Burno / Visitor
15
16
17
Other Cases
18 Case No: VVCV 042021
TXI v. Danielson
19
Case No: FVI024979
20 TXI v. Danielson
21 Case No: MVI049835
D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0029718- Ramos, TXI v. Danielson
22
Case No: FVA027339
23
TXI v. Danielson
24
Case No: MVI049833
25 D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0040766 – Ramos, TXI v. Danielson
26 Case No: 08-O-14773
Danielson v. Miller
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

5. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
Case No: RIC 530059
Danielson v. Riverside Cement
2
3 Case No: ED-CV-09-1442
Danielson v. Riverside cement
4
5 Case No: 13067-VNRCI
6 Case No: 09-2680-OIP
7
Danielson vs. TXI Operations LP
8
9 San Bernardino County Assessor//Recorders Office
10
San Bernardino District Attorney Michael A Ramos Offic
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
15. Attorney Fees:
23
DANIELSON, MIKEL
24 BILLING SUMMARY
25 DATE DESCRIPTION RATE HOURS TOTAL
4/12/2007 INTAKE FILE SB 250 1.8 450
26 4/20/2007 OSC:VISITATION,
SPOUSAL SUPPORT SB 250 4.4 1100
27 ATTY FEES
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

6. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1 5/30/2007 REVIEW
RESPONSIVE DEC SB 250 0.3 75
2 FILED BY OC
7/25/2007 HEARING RE:OC JD 250 2.5 625
3 9/20/2007 APPEARANCE DM 300 0.2 60
2/4/2008 STIP TO
4 CONTINUE MSC SB 250 0.2 50
5
VARIOUS TC TO OC SB 250 2.2 550
6 VARIOUS TC TO FROM
CLIENT SB 250 1.9 475
7 FILING 45
FEES
8 RUNNER, 160
DELIVERY
9
TOTAL 4735
10
3/29/2007 PAYMENT -900
11 4/30/2007 PAYMENT -600
5/07/2007 PAYMENT -300
12 9/14/2007 PAYMENT -1000
9/17/2007 PAYMENT -500
13
BALANCE DUE: 1435
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4. Other Parties Income:
22 See Exhibit A Pages DOCUMENTS MLS ON FILE- Note: NO QUICKCLAIM MLS
23
24 See Exhibit B ___ Pages DOCUMENTS HANDED TO RESPONDENT
25 CLOSING STATEMENTS-HUD 1 TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP-###
26
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

7. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 I MIKEL DEE DANIELSON DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER
22 THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND
CORRECT.
23
24
DATED: NOVEMBER 17 2009
25
26
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

8. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
2
________________________
3
MIKEL DEE DANIELSON
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

9. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
2
3
4
5
6
EXHIBIT A
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION

10. ROMMEL vs. DANIELSON Case No: HED 011658
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
EXHIBIT B
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 MD.NOV09 _____________________________________
ATTACHMENT FL - 150 INCOME EXPENSE DECLARATION