Attorneys Misuse “Interlocutory” and “Unrelentless” in Unrelenting Bid to Convince the Court Their $450 per Hour Fees Are Reasonable
Attorneys with Klinedinst and Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith misused “Interlocutory” and “Unrelentless” in response to a motion to stay a district court proceeding while the Ninth Circuit decides the fate of an earlier order granting the attorneys up to $450 per hour for proceeding on a void complaint.
The complaint had a claim that is indisputably derivative. It was written by someone who is not authorized to practice law. Courts uniformly forbid derivative actions to be advocated by someone who is not an attorney. All pleadings and everything arising from the pleading is void. It is null. It is of no effect.
After the complaint was withdrawn, which was ceremonial, since the complaint was void, the sneaky attorneys claimed that withdrawing the complaint supported the presumption that their clients were the prevailing party, and a fee shifting statute applied.
Judge Janis L. Sammartino agreed. Judge Todd W. Robinson agree. Judge Linda Lopez agreed.
The order to pay tens of thousands in attorney fees to the represented party, who are themselves attorneys who were being sued for malpractice, is on appeal.
There was a second order issued about further attorney fees on the same exact issue. That order denied attorney fees for one of the reasons the first batch of fees should have been denied. Then the judge, Linda Lopez, sua sponte gave the $450 per hour attorneys representing attorneys against a pro se litigant leave to file an amended motion that fixed their mistake.
That order is under appeal now, also.
The attorneys, who charge 10 times as much as a good carpenter, but only half as much as a decent prostitute, opposed the motion for stay and to consolidate the appeals. They called the woman who was defending herself from a judgment that will be in excess of $100,000 “unrelentless”. They referred to the post-judgment motion for attorney fees as “interlocutory”.
You’ve probably guessed the pro se lady is me. Here is the reply I filed yesterday. I’ve been falling behind on the FREE Doc of the Day, so I’m doubling up to catch up.
75-Year-Old Files Pro Se Petition in SCOTUS
FREE Doc of the Day
Mr. Windsor gets an “A” for effort. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, his petition was denied.
William Windsor is a friend of the People. He fights for equal protection and due process for the other 98% who can’t afford to pay an attorney.
(Mr. Windsor filmed a movie about corruption in family law in 2012. I drove to Los Angeles from San Diego and paid $25 for parking to participate in the event. My experience with Mr. Windsor was negative. He did not keep his word and he allowed a participant to make slanderous comments about a man we were both related to by marriage. I knew the comments were false. Mr. Windsor did not give me an opportunity to interview the slanderous woman, as he promised. Despite his shortcomings, William Windsor is giving court corruption attention.)
One excellent point that the self-represented litigant makes is that the courts use a spouse’s separate assets and income factored into its decision whether or not to grant In Forma Pauperis status, even if the sole spouse filing lives in a common law state. This is an issue that I may challenge during my lifetime also.
BTW, if you do not know that “common law” is used to describe states that treat a spouses separate income differently than in “community property” states – and does not only refer to people who live together for a long time without getting married by the state being deemed married- you are not alone. I explained to Judge Susan Weaver of Arkansas that my former partner and I agreed to treat our property as if we were married in a community property state, instead of getting married and following the Arkansas rule. Judge Weaver insisted that Arkansas does not have “common law marriage”. The incompetent judge appeared to be less aware of the state codes on domestic relations than William Windsor.
“On September 26, 2023, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sat around a table in DC and decided if they will grant Windsor’s Pro-Se Petition.
“The Opinion will issue by October 2, Windsor’s 75th birthday.” -as self-reported by an email from William Windsor
Prayers out.
A Higher Law 