Pro se litigants, people who can’t afford attorney representation and file their case on their own, often get the sneaky suspicion that the court is teaming up with the opposing parties’ attorneys.

Are there brief cases full of cash exchanging hands? I haven’t seen any with my own eyes.

Are there lavish gifts or invites to shin-digs being given to the judges? Think Justice Clarence Thomas.

Is there a natural tendency to favor someone who belongs to the same club? Absolutely!

The document above is from a case that had judges and clerks allegedly colluding with six law firms and the defendants that included two more law firms against me.

But, you know me. As much as they cheated, I responded with logic, facts and law. My appellate brief was jam packed with valid reasons to overturn the vast majority of district court orders. If the Ninth Circuit refused justice, this was going to the Supremes.

Five years into the proceedings, the Ninth Circuit pointed out a Supreme Court case from 1990, authored by Justice Scalia and followed in every circuit, that says the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over my case. The proceedings are void. The orders must be vacated. It is a do-over.

This is very good for me! I basically won on appeal and get to start over in state court.

But what if I won the case against all odds? The defendants would all of a sudden remember the rule that destroyed jurisdiction and I would still need to start over.

The rule: One situation that allows federal court jurisdiction is when each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. The tricky part is that an LLC, partnership or other unincorporated association is a citizen of each state of which each member is a citizen. I sued a limited liability company organized in California with all its business in California, and said it was a citizen of California. I am a citizen of Arkansas. Looked to me like we had diversity. But no! The LLC was also a citizen of Arkansas.

I am thrilled that all merit-based orders in the case must be vacated. (The federal courts can still police the participants for bad behavior, like direct contempt.) I would be more thrilled if the court did not waste five years of a bunch of people’s energy and other resources playing stupid games.

The judges on my case were well aware of the caselaw that told them they lacked jurisdiction. I found a few relevant cases they presided over on Westlaw.

The Attorney Defendants argued that I should still have to pay the bullshit attorney fee order the corrupt judges made and upheld, based on an anti-SLAPP motion. Here is an outtake of an order written by Judge Todd W. Robinson, one of the judge gang.

“Although the California Supreme Court has recently advised that a court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendant pursuant to Section 425.16 where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not hold that an award of fees is mandatory. See Barry v. State Bar of Cal., 2 Cal. 5th 318, 320–21, 329, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788 (2017). Consequently, federal courts have denied—and continue to deny after Barry—as moot anti-SLAPP motions when the court has dismissed the underlying action on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Newport Inv. Grp., LLC v. Cliett, No. SACV 18-01597-JVS(DFMx), 2019 WL 2424109, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (declining to reach anti-SLAPP motion after concluding that dismissal was warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)); Williby v. Hearst Corp., No. 5:15-cv-02538-EJD, 2017 WL 1210036, at *1, *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) ( ); Sikhs for Justice, Inf. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1097 (2015) (denying as moot anti-SLAPP motion after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); Fortinos v. Sills, No. C 12-3828 MEJ, 2012 WL 5870681, at 5 & n.9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2012) (same); Ravet v. Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP, No. 07 CV 0031 JM, 2007 WL 2088381, at *7 S.D. Cal. July 17, 2007 (same).” Williams v. Kula, Case No.: 20-CV-1120, ECF No. 76, TWR (AHG)(Signed 12/29/2020)

“Despite having a meritorious personal jurisdiction defense, Defendants filed duplicative—and voluminous—anti-SLAPP motions. Having prevailed on their Rule 12(b)(2) motions, Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions have ‘not achieve[d] any practical benefit’ aside from burdening the Court (and Plaintiffs) and menacing Plaintiffs with the specter of attorneys’ fees.” (Williams)

Judge Robinson ignored the jurisdictional issue on my case and upheld the bad order on the anti-SLAPP. The order was wrong for other reasons than the lack of jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases?

Guess first. Ok?

The defendants that Robinson chewed out were pro se. The defendants on my case were attorneys represented by attorneys. Robinson said those defendants were spot on. The plaintiffs that Robinson favored were represented by attorneys. I was a pro se plaintiff and the judge showed no concern whatsoever for the unethical legal strategies used against me, even though more egregious than in the Williams case.