Is it Real or is it Parody? I Couldn’t Make This Shit Up.
The following post is a press release from a fantastic outfit called Institute for Justice. They take up legal issues involving judicial corruption and legislation that denies our constitutional rights.
I wish I had more time to look for gems on their site, but I’m on a five-day countdown to filing my own appellate brief about what I believe was an illegal taking of my real property.
So here is a link for you. https://ij.org/about-us/
And here is a story about government officials trying to shut down a fun Facebook page that parodied police.
A handful of people called the police station to ask if the stories were true.
Just so you know, my own stories posted on this blog are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. But then, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky would point out that a “belief is not a fact”. Uh, Judge R., did you take third grade math? Sets and numbers. All sports are not baseball, but baseball is a sport. All boys are not Bobby, but Bobby is a boy. All my jokes are funny, but not all funny jokes are mine.
Okay, it was a long day. Enjoy the read.
*****************
The Babylon Bee, a right-leaning satirical news site, joined The Onion in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Novak v. Parma and clearly protect the right of parody under the First Amendment. Anthony Novak was arrested and prosecuted for a felony after he made an obviously fake Facebook page mocking his local Parma Police Department. Anthony’s lawsuit for the violation of his civil rights was thrown out after the officers were granted qualified immunity.
“Parody is fundamental to free speech and the broad support for Anthony demonstrates why the Supreme Court needs to take up his case and affirm his First Amendment rights,” said IJ Senior Attorney Patrick Jaicomo. “No one should be arrested for making jokes online and no one feels that more than people who do it for a living. We thank both The Babylon Bee and The Onion for stepping up to defend free speech.”
At the same time the Babylon Bee filed their brief with the Court, it also released its own parody brief on its website claiming: “We Have Filed an Amicus Brief Arguing That Parody Is Dangerous.” The humorous brief, formatted just like a real brief, purports to support the Parma Police Department and city of Parma while the actual brief filed with the Court clearly supports Anthony Novak’s suit against the two.
As with The Onion’s brief, The Babylon Bee argues strongly against the notion that the police should receive qualified immunity from Anthony’s suit because he did not include a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying it was parody. Both sites point to numerous examples of their “fake news” being taken seriously by some individuals.
In addition to the amicus briefs from the two parody sites, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Rutherford Institute offered their support for the Court taking up the case.
The Cato brief asks the Court to clarify that the First Amendment protects social media. Additionally, the brief points out that Anthony’s parody was speech, not conduct. Anthony was prosecuted for “impeding police operations” even though his parody only resulted in a handful of people calling the police non-emergency line and was only online for 12 hours.
The FIRE brief points out the absurdity of qualified immunity’s requirement that plaintiffs point to another case with similar facts before their own lawsuit can move forward. This led the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to initially deny qualified immunity in the suit and then later grant it when more facts had been established in the case, but still the case went before a jury.
The Rutherford Institute brief focuses on how the 6th Circuit distorted the standard for probable cause in order to grant qualified immunity. The brief also maintains that all of the acts that prompted the arrest are clearly established protected speech.
“These amicus briefs show that people across the political spectrum agree that what happened to Anthony was wrong, and that the Supreme Court should take his case to ensure that the officers who arrested him will be held accountable for their unconstitutional actions.” said IJ Attorney Caroline Grace Brothers.
Institute For Justice Takes on Tyranical Judges like………………Susan Kaye Weaver of Arkansas
Great news! The Institute for Justice (IJ) teamed up with a West Virginia man whose rights were violated by a Raleigh County family court judge. IJ and Matthew Gibson are urging the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court’s ruling that Judge Louise Goldston was not entitled to judicial immunity after she abruptly halted a court hearing, ordered everyone present to go to Matthew’s house, searched through his belongings without a warrant, and threatened to arrest him when he began recording the encounter.
Judicial immunity is a judge-made doctrine that shields judges from being held civilly liable when they violate someone’s rights while acting in their judicial capacity.
“Judicial immunity should only apply when judges are actually acting as judges. Leading a search party is not acting like a judge,” said IJ Attorney Tori Clark. “The lower court was completely correct when it denied Judge Goldston’s claim that she was entitled to judicial immunity, and we urge the Appeals Court to uphold that ruling.”
The incident occurred in March 2020 during a divorce proceeding between Matthew and his ex-wife, at which Matthew had no legal representation. Judge Goldston abruptly ended the hearing, asked Matthew for his address, and ordered Matthew, his ex-wife, her attorney, and several law enforcement officers to go to Matthew’s home. When they arrived at the home, Judge Goldston led a search party through Matthew’s home, including his basement and gun safe. Matthew told the judge she could not enter his home without a warrant, to which she responded, “Oh yeah, I will.”
As the search party progressed, Matthew’s ex-wife claimed several items in the home belonged to her. Each time she did so, Judge Goldston ordered her to take them, even though some of them actually belonged to Matthew or his kids.
While Matthew’s ex-wife grabbed the possessions, Judge Goldston made herself at home, walking barefoot through the house and lounging in Matthew’s rocking chair. Matthew and his girlfriend attempted to record the encounter, but Judge Goldston threatened him with arrest and ordered one of the bailiffs to seize his phone.
“It was incredibly frustrating to have my rights and my privacy violated that day,” Matthew said. “This lawsuit is about standing up for my rights and ensuring other people have a way to get justice when their rights are violated.”
Judge Goldston’s actions were so far out of bounds that they received widespread condemnation. She was charged with multiple ethics violations, censured, and fined. The West Virginia High Court even condemned her actions as unbecoming of a judge.
“When a judge acts like a police officer and leads a search party, that threatens the neutrality of the judicial process and chips away at a bedrock American principle: the separation of powers,” said IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell. “Judges don’t get to act like police simply because they think they can do a better job.”
When Matthew sued Judge Goldston for violating his constitutional rights, she asserted that she was entitled to judicial immunity and that Matthew’s claims should thus be thrown out. However, the federal district court rejected her claim because her actions were clearly not judicial. Judge Goldston appealed the trial court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit, claiming that she should be entitled to immunity and that Matthew’s case should be thrown out. Now, Matthew has teamed up with IJ to ensure the lower court’s decision remains in place and that Judge Goldston isn’t above the law simply because she wears a robe.
As part of its Project on Immunity and Accountability, IJ has been standing up against various forms of immunities that prevent Americans from receiving justice when their rights are violated by government officials. Those cases include one where police officers claimed qualified immunity after arresting an Ohio man for making a parody Facebook page, another where a road-raging police officer claimed qualified immunity after he blocked a man in his driveway and held him at gunpoint for passing the officer on the road, and yet another one where a mayor, a chief of police, and a special investigator engineered a scheme to throw a 72-year-old council woman in jail for speaking out against their ally, a city manager. These doctrines are inconsistent with America’s founding principle that where there is a right, there must be a remedy.
Check out the story and learn about IJ’s other projects by clicking here:
Is Federal Judge Linda Lopez for the Southern District of California Cognitively Impaired or Purposefully Abusive?
My time is full, so I’ll keep my comments brief. But writing to you, my friends, helps my thoughts gel for my appeal.
Judge Linda Lopez issued a few orders in a case in which I am plaintiff in pro se.
Here is an excerpt from one:
Plaintiff argues that the award of attorneys’ fees to the Attorney Defendants should
be vacated because the legal malpractice cause of action alleged, and later voluntarily
dismissed, was a derivative cause of action that Plaintiff could not properly assert as a party
appearing pro se and without license to practice law. ECF No. 177-2 at 2. In support of her
argument, Plaintiff cites to City of Downey v. Johnson, 263 Cal. App. 2d 775 (1968),
Russell v. Dopp, 36 Cal. App. 4th 765 (1995) and Davis Test Only Smog Testing v. Dep’t
of Consumer Affairs, 15 Cal. App. 5th 1009 (2017).
Though the factual circumstances of each case differ from those in this case and
from each other, the three cases cited by Plaintiff generally stand for the proposition that a
judgment obtained by an unlicensed person representing another cannot be sustained. See
Johnson, 263 Cal. App. 2d at 783 (“[W]e have a lay person not a member in good standing
of any bar practicing law illegally, although perhaps unwittingly. We therefore feel
constrained to hold the judgment invalid[.]”); Russell, 36 Cal. App. 4th at 775 (“an
unlicensed person cannot appear . . . for another person, and . . . the resulting judgment is
a nullity”); Davis Test Only Smog Testing, 15 Cal. App. 5th at 1016 (quoting the language
in Russell). Because no judgment was rendered on Plaintiff’s now-dismissed claims against
the Attorney Defendants, none of the cases cited by Plaintiff support a finding of clear error
by this Court.
*********
So, if I understand Judge Lopez correctly, she proposes that legal proceedings advocated by a person unlicensed to practice law on behalf of a different “person” (natural or legal entity) are not void, unless a judgment is rendered. And she does not count an order of dismissal as a “judgment”.
So Judge Lopez’ soul sister, Judge Susan Weaver of Arkansas denied me the right to advocate for myself as trustee, settlor and sole beneficiary of a trust, because she said, “as far as the Living Trust, she’s not an attorney and can’t represent them”. But Linda Lopez says that complaints and motions based on those complaints are perfectly valid, as long as they are dismissed, and attorney fee awards paying her fellow attorneys almost $100,000 based on the unauthorized advocacy are perfectly valid.
Judge Linda Lopez is Not a People Person
Judge Linda Lopez was recently promoted from Magistrate Judge to Federal District Court Judge in the Southern District of California.
When I have more time, I will analyze her orders in depth.
Today, I will post a motion I filed this morning that you can download and a related motion I filed yesterday.
Briefly, attorney defendants represented by attorneys were granted an anti-SLAPP motion against me for causes of action that are not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, legal malpractice and conversion. They were granted fees, of course.
I tried to make an interlocutory appeal as provided for in California CCP sec. 425.16(i) and 904.1. The Ninth Circuit would not consider the matter until all claims against all parties were dismissed.
I tried to have the order vacated, in part because the Judge who granted it, Janis L. Sammartino, was biased against me and refused to recuse herself before making the order. Judge Linda Lopez was the first magistrate judge on the case and appears to have the same venomous bias.
The Attorney Defendants then filed two separate motions for attorney fees incurred after the initial award.
Judge Lopez has a good rule. She requires parties who are filing substantially similar motions asking for the same relief to file a consolidated motion.
I made an ex parte motion asking to combine my response to both sets of movants. I mentioned that they violated the rule about consolidation.
Judge Lopez ordered the Clerk to strike my motion because I failed to follow another rule that says parties must meet and confer before filing an ex parte motion.
My friends and even my enemies know I am ill. It is not critical. Y’all are stuck with me for a few more years anyhow, barring a catastrophic injury.
It is difficult to always act with the grace I wish for.
So, I decided that since Judge Linda Lopez was going to hold me to the rules, I am going to zealously pursue my own interests and have the redundant motions stricken. I anticipate Judge Lopez will find for the Attorney Defendants, but not because they are right.
UPDATE: Judge Linda Lopez denied my motion to strike. No surprise. She said that since I said both responses are substantially the same, with just the names changed, that I must file the two separate responses. Since there is an aggregate page count for all motions due on the same day, she halved the allowable length of my response.
What Jesus had to Say to Lawyers
45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
KJV public domain but with thanks to BibleGateway.com
Reverse Robin Hood: How Rich Legal System Insiders Rob from the Poor (and Middle Class)
What is your hourly wage? $15? $100?
Or are you an attorney who charges $250 to $550 per hour? And do you double bill your time shamelessly?
The attorney does have to pay his rent out of that astronomical fee. But he charges the client for his assistant and secretarial time on top of his hourly wage.
But, lawyers argue, regular folk are not required to hire an attorney. They can do the work themselves, if it is on their own behalf.
Except that so many judges have a bias against self-represented litigants. I have had judges base decisions against me on sentences the judges misquoted. (Judge Lee P. Rudofsky did this to me.) I have had a judge act with such an appearance of bias he received public discipline. (Former Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal, deceased.) I have had Judge Susan Weaver do mental contortions in order to transfer ownership of 40 acres with a beautiful cabin from me as trustee to a man who wrote his intentions to defraud me in an exhibit that I showed to the judge.
Judge Weaver relied on the interpretation of the law against the unauthorized practice of law to apply to trustees who try to represent the interests of all the persons involved in the trust relationship.
My contention is that since I am the sole beneficiary, grantor and trustee, and I removed all contingent beneficiaries, I am allowed to represent everyone in the trust relationship now. This is a question that may need to be decided by SCOTUS.
Most trusts would not want to remove contingent beneficiaries. One of the main reasons to create a trust is to avoid probate. Judge Weaver drained my trust of all assets and gave a judgment against the trust that would make it foolish to put any more assets into the trust. So, as is, the trust was useless for the terminated contingent beneficiaries.
Even without a corrupt judge on the case, lawyers are expensive. As an individual I have a case on appeal involving an LLC. The actual money damages in the case are capped at about $120,000. An award of emotional distress and punitive damages is highly speculative. The attorney fees on a similar case were about $1M. No attorney wants to take this case on contingency. It does not make cents for them. (Pardon my pun.)
If you don’t already have “extra money” laying around, like $1,000,000, your trust will not be able to afford attorney fees.
If anyone sues the trustee for trust assets, the poor and middle-class trusts will be forced to settle or maybe just lose everything. The trusts will be drained of assets whether by the trustee’s attorney or the opposing party.
This is a serious disincentive for anyone but the affluent to create a trust.
One attorney estimated probate costs to be four times as high as creating a trust that avoids probate. (4% of assets instead of 1%)
As with sales tax, the less money a person has, the more probate costs hurt. Their heirs, of course.
Attorney: $829,846 – Client: 37 cents
I kid you not.
Here is a copy of the settlement check to the client. Me.
There was a class action suit against stock brokerage Scottrade. It had something to do with Scottrade reporting qualified dividends as substitute payments. The two are treated differently for income tax purposes.
Scottrade settled.
A copy of the settlement agreement can be downloaded below.
Look at section 11. That is the attorney fees section. The attorneys can ask the court for up to $829,846. Past awards in similar cases shows a pattern of judges rubberstamping the motion for attorney fees.
The total of attorney fees and disbursements to the clients (all class members) is $2,325,000. There is a shitload of class members.
My disbursement came out to 37 cents.
If the administrator had to pay retail for postage, the postage cost more than I received.
There is something out-a-wack in our legal system.
The Process of Writing an Appellant’s Brief for Pro Se Litigants
This blog’s readership is growing but I am too busy to write these days. So, I will share a brief glimpse into the work I have accomplished this week.
I am not an attorney. I am a self-represented litigant.
I am working on two appeals and a third case may be headed to trial and then appeal.
If you are faced with an appeal as a pro se litigant, it may seem like a daunting job. It overwhelmed me.
Here are some tips I used that helped me to feel the fear and do it anyways:
- Turn the job into bite size pieces.
- Read the Rules!
- Make a “skeleton”.
What I mean by a “skeleton” is that you find the rules of appellate procedure. The Supreme Court Clerk and Library in Arkansas were both helpful to me. Reach out to the Supreme Court Clerk in your jurisdiction for guidance to the rules if you can’t find them online.
Find a sample brief online that was granted. Again, the Clerk may be able to help you with this.
Make an outline that includes each mandatory section.
Then go through the Clerk’s Portion of the transcript in order, filling in the sections as you go. You should also use the Reporter’s Transcript, even if it is inaccurate, like the one Jana Perry falsified in my case. (The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied my petition for writ of mandate or certiorari to settle the record but did not say why.)
As an example, I am including a downloadable copy of my own work in progress on a case that concerns a corrupt judge, Susan Kaye Weaver. This is an interesting case with over 1,000 pages in the record. Hopefully yours is a normal case with one or a few honest errors.
My saving grace was documenting my objections all along. The opposing counsel whined about how many motions I filed. (He insisted on calling motions “pleadings”. Amateur!) But now I feel like I preserved most of my objections for appeal.
This is NOT legal advice. It is not even a complete or final document. I reserve the right to alter it in any way before filing.
UPDATE: November 23, 2022. The brief is complete! Or to be more accurate, the briefs are complete.
My case involves a trust of which I am trustee, settlor and sole beneficiary. Still, the judge wanted to keep me from advocating for “the trust”. Plaintiff should have named me as trustee, not the trust, but that is getting buried in the minutia.
I had a novel argument that I am not advocating for anyone but myself, so it is my Constitutional right to represent myself.
I am adding the two separate briefs below, one for me as an individual and one as trustee.
I’ll share some hints on how to organize your own papers after the Thanksgiving weekend.
Our God is an awesome God! Be blessed.
The (Lack of) Integrity in the Courts
“That is why there is an investigation sir. Any time there is an allegation that the integrity of this judicial process has been compromised, especially with a juror I take it incredibly seriously, which is why I’ve turned it over to the Sheriff’s Department.” – Judge Jennifer Darow, presiding over the Darrell Brooks Christmas Parade Murder Trial.
Arkansas Court of Appeals District 2 Judges Mike Murphy and Bart Viden do not seem to have the same sensibility as Judge Darow.
I made the credible claim that at least two transcripts from proceedings that I was present for were purposefully falsified by the court reporter to benefit the opposition. It is important to note that after seven months of forcing me to litigate, I was dismissed with prejudice. But my rights were still seized from me and property that should have gone to my children after I passed was given to the man who maliciously prosecuted me.
I filed a motion to “settle the record” in the COA, and it was denied without reason given. The opposing party had not filed a response.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has now denied my petition for writ of mandate to play the recording of the hearings and correct the transcripts before my appellate brief on the case is due. (See the order below. I originally wrote this post before reading my emails and incorrectly said the Ark. Sup. Ct. did not rule as of today.) The opposing party did not file a brief in opposition. The Supreme Court justices did not give any reason for the denial.
The prosecutors in the Darrell Brooks trial were allowed to play the video of the harrowing assault. We were not told that a transcript is “the official record” of what happened that tragic day, and that we should trust the version typed out by a court reporter.
Why are layers of court personnel and the Sheriff in Searcy County Arkansas allowed to bury the evidence of their own wrongdoing? Why did the trial court judge, Susan Weaver, the appellate court judges, Mike Murphy and Bart Viden, and the Arkansas supreme court justices refuse to allow the recordings to be heard by the public?
There is no integrity in the Courts. At least not in this neck of the woods.
A Higher Law 
Attorney Violates Judge’s Admonishment 43 Minutes After It Is Issued
Of course, Judge Susan Weaver of Searcy County Arkansas accepted the impermissible filing. She and Attorney William Zac White seem to enjoy a special relationship.
Judge Weaver filed the letter admonishing both parties to cease copying emails to the court at 4:25 PM on August 20, 2021. The letter was dated August 19, 2021. The childish duo apparently does not realize there is a time and date stamp on filings.
Attorney White filed a bizarre letter to the Court, attaching yet another interparty email immediately after. The clerk or judge needs to approve all filings before they are posted on the electronic system. Mr. White’s filing was approved and posted at 5:08 PM, 43 minutes after the judge’s letter was posted.
Notice that Mr. White’s letter was approved and posted after business hours. Now, that is service!
Here are the letters.
Judge Susan Weaver said not a word about her pet attorney’s missive.
Since Judge Weaver allows male attorneys to call 60-year-old female self-represented defendants “bitch” in open court, why would she be bothered by this unprofessional conduct? “Ms. Hammett is one of the most unpleasant opposing counsels or parties I have had the misfortune of dealing with in 14 years of practicing law.” That is appropriate to write in a letter and file in a court file. NOT.
Then there was the exhibit attached. Judge Weaver had just finished striking every exhibit filed by Ms. Hammett (me), including exhibits to a counterclaim and motions. But Weaver let the exhibit of Mr. White’s response email stand for eternity. She must find it appropriate for Mr. White to write: “I’ll be practicing law long after you have crawled back under the rock you came from.”
I am still hopeful that Zac White will lose his law license. I am hopeful that the voters will remove Judge Weaver from office in 2024. It is likely though that whoever it is that has had her back this far will pull strings, call in favors and do whatever it takes to have the election results overturned.
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. – George Orwell
Let's Get Loud