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.