# I argued in front of the Court of Appeal today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 15, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510 "2010-05-15T04:05:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/221 "2010-05-21T22:41:18Z")
Stoid, I don’t have any particular expertise in this area of law. My feedback here was limited to general errors I felt you were making. But I’m perfectly prepared to let the Court of Appeal speak for itself, since, really, that’s the only feedback that matters. Your post reads like a victory speech, and while I salute you for the work you’ve done here, I think celebration of victory is a bit premature. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/222 "2010-05-21T23:03:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stoid, I don’t have any particular expertise in this area of law. My feedback here was limited to general errors I felt you were making. > > But I’m perfectly prepared to let the Court of Appeal speak for itself, since, really, that’s the only feedback that matters. > > Your post reads like a victory speech, and while I salute you for the work you’ve done here, I think celebration of victory is a bit premature. True enough. The court is the word, definitely. Although my words were more about the hassle I got in this thread than my case in the real world… people coming in and telling me I’m deluded but being completely unable to do so honestly, starting with an acknowledgement of the words of the judgment, have no credibility. And I’ll say this now so there’s no accusations if it happens: if the court skirts the judgment the way the folks in this thread did in order to affirm it, then I will not consider that legitimate. If they are honest, and deal directly with the judgment itself and don’t pretend it doesn’t say what it says and still find a way to affirm it, that will be different. But pretending it doesn’t exist or doesn’t count won’t fly. And courts absolutely do do that: > [@](#): > > Circuit judges, like McConnell, get away with this by issuing the Order and Judgment as a memorandum opinion, which: does not address the substantive appellate issues; is completely deferential (no de novo review even for conclusions-of-law); departs from binding precedent (a/k/a stare decisis); and is written by a law clerk, rather than the judge. > [@](#): > > Because a memorandum opinion is unpublished and, therefore, non-precedential, circuit judges quietly disavow stare decisis and the resulting order and judgment has no practical or persuasive effect on anyone (except the parties to that particular case). Said differently, circuit judges knowingly depart from well-established legal doctrines, principles and precedents to rule in any capricious or pragmatic manner that they choose —in effect— creating designer disposable law applicable only to the parties of a particular case. This practice is tantamount to spitting on the so-called Rule of Law: Except I don’t think California allows non-opinion results in appeals, vs. writ petitions. I’ve never heard of it. Unpublished, yes, but I’ve read lots of unpublished opinions, they were still full on opinions. I’ve been counting on that… I should look that up… ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/223 "2010-05-21T23:08:57Z")
Not to mention, I imagine the lawyers on the board who perhaps do specialize in that area are too busy arguing cases they are paid good money to work on. They don’t have time to do a line by line breakdown of an internet debate. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/224 "2010-05-21T23:22:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Although my words were more about the hassle I got in this thread than my case in the real world… people coming in and telling me I’m deluded but being completely unable to do so honestly, starting with an acknowledgement of the words of the judgment, have no credibility. That you read people’s posts in this thread as hassling you shows that you’re only seeing what you want to see. Which does seem kind of deluded, truth be told. I’ve seen a lot of people bending over backwards to wish you well and politely offer you some knowledgeable opinions, which you’ve mostly responded to aggressively and rudely. So I don’t know what you’re expecting, but I wouldn’t take the lack of response as a sign that you’re right and no one can refute your impervious logic. More like people at the bus stop realizing they aren’t going to convince the bearded guy that the CIA isn’t monitoring his thoughts so it’s best to just go back to reading the paper until the bus arrives. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/225 "2010-05-21T23:41:50Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And I’ll say this now so there’s no accusations if it happens: if the court skirts the judgment the way the folks in this thread did in order to affirm it, then I will not consider that legitimate. That’s cool. Just be aware that all of us here on the SDMB, as well as the citizens and businesses of the state of California, _will_ consider it legitimate and act accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/226 "2010-05-21T23:58:24Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Not to mention, I imagine the lawyers on the board who perhaps do specialize in that area are too busy arguing cases they are paid good money to work on. They don’t have time to do a line by line breakdown of an internet debate. This. I don’t specialize in this area; I don’t even practice in California. I haven’t read the bulk of your posts because they are so difficult to read that I see no reason to spend my recreational time trying. If I’m on your list of “lawyers who are out to get you despite being unable to tell you what’s wrong with your case,” well, I guess I’m unable to tell you what’s wrong with your case, since I haven’t seen a sufficiently cogent explanation to understand it, but I’m not out to get you. I do sincerely wish you well, although I feel no particular confidence that you will come out of this experience with a positive outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/227 "2010-05-22T00:41:55Z")
I dont’ think anyone is “out to get me”. Prove me wrong, definitely. Except… that’s not accurate either, because absolutely no one has made the feeblest attempt to prove anything at all. Do I think the collective legal naysayers are out to make me submit to the unfounded idea that, because they are (purportedly - who knows?) lawyers, their (uninformed, since they won’t spend the time) opinions of my case are, by default, correct? Yes. And failing that, they will be content to convince the Peanuts of that, and thereby push forward the idea that Stoid is crazy and pathetic, as are pretty much all the people who would dare to imagine that they could ever possibly represent themselves in a court of law. But if you don’t have time to take in the information, then why would your opinion be valuable, whether it’s cooking, gardening, or law? Isn’t this the Dope, where the official motto regarding fighting ignorance is underlined by the unofficial motto: “Cite?” Why wouldn’t that apply in a thread where so many people seem so completely determined to tell me I’m wrong? We completely depart from the time-tested Straight Dope ethos, the core origin of the Straight Dope itself, just for threads about me and my case? Or has the Dope undergone some fundamental shift that someone forgot to tell me about? I sure hope not. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/228 "2010-05-22T02:32:02Z")
Mr. Excellent’s thread is probably not getting the action this one has, so I want to post this here, too, because it’s my advice for the self-represented, and if any of the folks who think I’m a clueless fool can point to the place in here where I’m showing off my foolishness in how I approached my self-representation, I welcome the feedback. **Don’t go off half-cocked.** Don’t find one case or one law that looks like it is the answer to everything and leave it at that. The law is a very complicated thing, and sometimes what seems plain is far from being so. You have to find every law that even remotely touches on the law you are looking at, you have to look at other cases and see what happened there. You have to have the time, patience and ability to take in a LOT of information. Information you might ultimately not use, but you MUST review it and make certain you understand it. **Comprehension!** Do NOT skip things that you don’t understand, because they will almost certainly come back to be exactly the thing that undoes you. Research every term, every word, every law, and make sure you see how they relate to each other and to your situation. **Currency!** It is absolutely crucial that you make sure any case that seems to support you is still good law. That’s a killer - you find something from 10 years ago, go running into court and find that it was overturned last week. You MUST make sure of this. If you have Lexis access (you should through the law library in your town, or Westlaw, and if you don’t, you really can’t hope to be able to pull this off. Your research has to include up-to-the-minute law and decisions.) you “shepardize” - ask the librarian. (Doing that manually is nearly impossible for a lawyer, don’t you try!) **Face your fears!** In doing your research (Which is 90% of what you will be doing - if this is hard for you, you are facing a huge battle) do NOT give in to the temptation to avoid ANYTHING that looks like it might be bad for you!!! PLEASE! That is the worst possible thing you can do. In fact, here’s the best piece of advice I can give you overall: approach your case as though YOU are the other side, and you are looking for ways to defeat you. That is the way you will be prepared…or realize you need to give up, one or the other. \*\*Follow Procedure \*\*Don’t expect the judge and the other side to bend over backwards to accept any degree of screw up you present. You must do your best to follow all the rules, so your research must include the rules. You are not supposed to be given deferential treatment, but at the same time, your case is supposed to be considered on its merits. So don’t give anyone a flimsy excuse to blow you off by being lazy about the rules. \*\*Keep Cool \*\*Control your emotions and your anger at whatever injustices you’ve suffered. As my mother said: For god’s sake don’t whine. Especially about how mean the other side is. If you are going to be your own lawyer, you have to, as much as you can, pretend to be exactly that, and your lawyer wouldn’t spew personal reactions all over the place. He or she can convey the same information in a professional way; learn to do that. You aren’t you, you are your lawyer - keep them separate as much as you can. \*\*Get Help \*\*Keep trying to get as much professional assistance as you can possibly get, any way you can get it, even if it’s only to have someone review your papers. Ask, ask, ask. Some lawyers WILL help you, they will point you in the right direction, they will give you a little tidbit here and there, maybe more. But you must show them that you are not a crazy person, so don’t give in to the urge to tell them the whole sordid story. Respect whatever time they DO give to you. Also, of course, search for self-rep assistance. There’s a lot of it for family law, for instance, which is by far the category that finds the most self-represented people. **Look for limited representation possiblities.** It is becoming more common to be able to enter into limited representation agreements with lawyers. You may be able to find one that will appear before the court for you, write a paper, handle some particular aspect of your case. They are far more likely to do that if they can see that you are reasonable and capable. I have had 3 lawyers do this for me, one, who specializes in appeals, put his name on my writ of supersedeas. He warned me that he wasn’t likely to unless it was letter-perfect, so it made me work even harder. And it paid off. \*\*Have the Courage of Your Convictions. \*\*If you’ve done what I’ve said, and especially if you’ve gotten support and encouragement from legal professionals, don’t be afraid to stand up for yourself and your position. A judge or lawyer telling you something doesn’t make it so, believe me, especially if everything in the law fails to support what you’re being told. **Justice and Law are not the same thing.** Remember that while the law would like to be about justice, it frequently fails to be. That doesn’t mean you got screwed legally, it means that the system isn’t perfect. Flailing away at a legally sound but infuriatingly unjust ruling will just take years off your life. Move on. and if you have to deal with one of those incredibly rare and nearly unheard of instances where the lawyer you are dealing with just happens to actually be dishonest and unethical, here’s my advice on that: Figure out whether it matters. Did it change anything? Did the judge listen? Did it make a difference, or was it just infuriating? If it just bugged the shit out of you (and it will, especially if you are being completely forthright and honest yourself) let it go. Be better than that. However, if it did make a difference, if it changed something, then you should address it, if you can. And here’s the steps I recommend, after dealing with a lawyer that could not report the time of day truthfully ( for fun I went through one of his declarations. In 32 paragraphs, exactly one was entirely free of lies, distortions or misreprentations of any kind. One. I think it was the “I’m so and so and I’m a licensed attorney” paragraph.) 1. Determine if you can prove it. If it’s your word vs. his, hang it up, you’re toast. 2. If you can prove it, can you prove it conclusively? Or just kinda? Again, you have to be able to prove it like it’s a note from God. Cuz he’s the lawyer and you’re the crazy pro se with the persecution complex. So you need documentation that is pretty bulletproof. 3. If you can prove it conclusively, when you do it, do NOT use the term “liar” or “lie”. Even though it might make you gag, try to call it an error or mistake. If you are artful, you can make it clear that it was a lie without coming right out and calling it one. And if you have to call the spade what it is, try to use less brutal terms. Call it a falsehood or a misreprentation or simply call it untrue. All better than lie and always better than labeling the lawyer as a liar, which is really bad. An example is when I had to tell the second judge about my opposing counsel’s lies, which fortunately were all in the actual record (he lied about the judgment itself, for god’s sake.). I was rewarded by seeing him get admonished twice. But I had to do it, it would have been disastrous for me to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/229 "2010-05-22T02:51:11Z")
Better yet, just hire somebody that knows what they’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/230 "2010-05-22T03:26:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Better yet, just hire somebody that knows what they’re doing. Sigh… I’m really glad for all of you that you have the means to pay someone $225 - $400 per hour to work for you, but literally millions of us cannot. That fact should neither deprive us of our rights, nor should it serve as proof that we are incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, or in any other way fundamentally flawed to such a degree that representing ourselves deserves to be mocked, derided or dismissed as a pathetic and pointless quest. And the fact that so very many people utterly fail to understand this is both remarkable and sad. And incidentally, my ex was able to persuade his lawyer to keep plugging away, long after the possibility of money was long gone. His lawyers bill, last time I saw it, was nearly double the amount I offered him long before trial, which far exceeded his equity. His lawyer’s bill was about 6 times the amount of his equity as determined in trial. His lawyer advised him to take the course that he did. Anyone who genuinely believes that my ex made the smart move is not thinking straight. Even when they are honest and competent, the tendency of lawyers to maximize the adversarial nature of the situation often makes turning to them, especially before exhausting all other avenues, a very bad idea. And I actually told my ex that. But, as I noted here before, if I told my ex that setting himself on fire was a bad idea, he’d immediately set out to find gasoline and a match. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/231 "2010-05-22T04:54:28Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > That you read people’s posts in this thread as hassling you shows that you’re only seeing what you want to see. Which does seem kind of deluded, truth be told. Except that what you’re describing is the point of view of the people talking to me, actually. There hasn’t been a _ **single** _ instance in the entire thread where someone pointed something out that I sidestepped. Not a one. But there are many where the CLN (collective legal naysayers) have seen just what they want to see. I’ve addressed every single point made in this thread, multiple times, and I have done so by offering up facts and information from the case, and the statutory and decisional law of California. I’ve been met with opinion, from people who not only have failed to acknowledge the judgment (you know, the actual thing I’ve appealed), but have in many cases offered that opinion while simultaneously admitting they haven’t actually bothered to really read the thread. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen a lot of people bending over backwards to wish you well and politely offer you some knowledgeable opinions, which you’ve mostly responded to aggressively and rudely. As noted, I take issue with the opinions being characterized as “knowledgeable”. About law in general, definitely. Their areas of specialty, sure. About this case and these laws? Not so much. Any lawyer worth their bar number will tell you that no lawyer, or judge, has a comprehensive knowledge of all areas of law, and that each case requires its own research. As for rude, that was certainly not my intention. But since Elysian characterized "oy and vey :rolleyes: " as “lashing out”, I take that with a grain of salt. But still, apologies to anyone offended if I responded rudely to them telling me I’m deluded. Shame on me. > [@](#): > > So I don’t know what you’re expecting, but I wouldn’t take the lack of response as a sign that you’re right and no one can refute your impervious logic. Nothing about me and my logic at all, Giraffe, did you misunderstand? I take the lack of response to multiple, repeated requests for anyone to even acknowledge the words of the judgment, much less try to explain and affirm them, as evidence that those words cannot be explained and affirmed. Particularly in light of the considerable efforts expended on telling me all about the ruling on the hearing; it’s not as though the CLN are lacking in opinions. It’s just obvious that they only like to share opinions when they think it will succeed in showing me to be what I’m accused of being. (I was going to say they lack opinions about the judgment, but I doubt that. I think they think the judgment is illogical and unaffirmable. They just can’t stand to say it after spending so much effort telling me I’m off base and I’m going to lose.) > [@](#): > > More like people at the bus stop realizing they aren’t going to convince the bearded guy that the CIA isn’t monitoring his thoughts so it’s best to just go back to reading the paper until the bus arrives. Ah yes, the dismissive smear that I’m insane. How exactly should I respond to that in a way you wouldn’t find rude, Giraffe? Perhaps I should I fetch a cup of tea, then simply sit by your feet and gaze rapturously up at you while you offer up more pearls of thoughtful wisdom for me to consume so that I might better myself? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/232 "2010-05-22T05:09:24Z")
[QUOTE= Stoid] True enough. The court is the word, definitely. Although my words were more about the hassle I got in this thread than my case in the real world… people coming in and telling me I’m deluded but being completely unable to do so honestly, starting with an acknowledgement of the words of the judgment, have no credibility. [/QUOTE] No one is hassling you. Besides, telling you about the judgment, how it applies to your situation, and what you ought to do next… that’s legal advice. [QUOTE= Stoid] And I’ll say this now so there’s no accusations if it happens: if the court skirts the judgment the way the folks in this thread did in order to affirm it, then I will not consider that legitimate. If they are honest, and deal directly with the judgment itself and don’t pretend it doesn’t say what it says and still find a way to affirm it, that will be different. But pretending it doesn’t exist or doesn’t count won’t fly. [/QUOTE] If the court affirms the judgment, it will have had good reason. I am an attorney. I practice in California. And I wouldn’t touch the deluded mess that is your clienthood if I was getting double-hours credit for the time spent. [QUOTE= Stoid] I’m really glad for all of you that you have the means to pay someone $225 - $400 per hour to work for you, but literally millions of us cannot. That fact should neither deprive us of our rights, nor should it serve as proof that we are incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, or in any other way fundamentally flawed to such a degree that representing ourselves deserves to be mocked, derided or dismissed as a pathetic and pointless quest. [/QUOTE] You should not be deprived of your rights. You have been just as free to babble on in the courts as I am. That freedom is not proof that you’re incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, or in any other way fundamentally flawed. This thread is the proof that you’re incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, and in many other ways fundamentally flawed. [QUOTE= Stoid] Ah yes, the dismissive smear that I’m insane. How exactly should I respond to that in a way you wouldn’t find rude, Giraffe? Perhaps I should I fetch a cup of tea, then simply sit by your feet and gaze rapturously up at you while you offer up more pearls of thoughtful wisdom for me to consume so that I might better myself? [/QUOTE] It is similar to _Precipitation v. Date of Nuptials_. Similar to the holding in _Gratuitous Transportation v. Previous Remuneration_. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/233 "2010-05-22T05:39:07Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > Besides, telling you about the judgment, how it applies to your situation,and what you ought to do next… that’s legal advice. Telling me what I ought to do next would definitely be legal advice. Kind of strange, though, since at this point it’s pretty much over (with the possible exception of a rehearing). And I don’t think anyone’s done that, have they? One thing I know for sure is that I haven’t _asked_ anyone to. Ever. In three years of these threads. Not a single time. Not even close. And no one’s told me about the judgment, either. As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone has even acknowledged what it is. Not because they don’t want to offer their opinions, though, given how thick with lawyer’s opinions this thread is. > [@](#): > > If the court affirms the judgment, it will have had good reason. I certainly pray so. It would suck beyond the telling if they affirmed it without one. > [@](#): > > I am an attorney. I practice in California. > > And I wouldn’t touch the deluded mess that is your clienthood if I was getting double-hours credit for the time spent. Thank you so much for sharing. My life has been infinitely uplifted, enlightened and improved by the knowledge. You are too kind, truly. > [@](#): > > You should not be deprived of your rights. You have been just as free to babble on in the courts as I am. I can’t imagine that I thoughtlessly suggested that my freedom had been taken away from me, I certainly never believed that it had so it would be very strange if I’d said so. > [@](#): > > That freedom is not proof that you’re incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, or in any other way fundamentally flawed. This thread is the proof that you’re incompetent, foolish, crazy, hysterical, stupid, obstinate, dishonest, angry, unreasonable, and in many other ways fundamentally flawed. Sharing your opinion in this way is incredibly generous of you. You do me the kindness of _showing_ me, rather than simply telling me, exactly how valuable such an opinion is, coming as it does from someone who is such a shining example of how to behave. I always appreciate it when people make things simple and unambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/234 "2010-05-22T15:49:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Except that what you’re describing is the point of view of the people talking to me, actually. There hasn’t been a _ **single** _ instance in the entire thread where someone pointed something out that I sidestepped. Not a one. But there are many where the CLN (collective legal naysayers) have seen just what they want to see. I disagree – I think you’re so close to the case that you can’t see the forest for the trees. You’ve absorbed every detail of this case to the point that you’re parsing the nuances of language in this and related decisions. That doesn’t mean anything, though, unless you can communicate it in a clear, convincing way. I think it’s the latter that has been the source of most of the dubiousness you’ve been getting. Even those who have attempted to engage you in discussions of the specifics of the case have seem daunted by the lack of clarity and brevity with which you’ve responded (see [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12463973&postcount=97), for example). Being right (if you are) isn’t nearly enough – you have to be able to make a clear, convincing argument within the rules and framework of the court system. I think that’s what the naysayers are (nay) saying. I don’t think they’re trying to be negative for the joy of hurting your feelings, I think they’re offering an impartial assessment of what you’re presenting here balanced against their experience with the court system. [QUOTE=Stoid] Ah yes, the dismissive smear that I’m insane. How exactly should I respond to that in a way you wouldn’t find rude, Giraffe? Perhaps I should I fetch a cup of tea, then simply sit by your feet and gaze rapturously up at you while you offer up more pearls of thoughtful wisdom for me to consume so that I might better myself? [/QUOTE] I apologize for this – I was trying to make a humorous analogy to show that silence isn’t always victorious, but it came across ruder than I intended. I’m sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/235 "2010-05-22T17:22:28Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I disagree – I think you’re so close to the case that you can’t see the forest for the trees. You’ve absorbed every detail of this case to the point that you’re parsing the nuances of language in this and related decisions. That doesn’t mean anything, though, unless you can communicate it in a clear, convincing way. I think it’s the latter that has been the source of most of the dubiousness you’ve been getting. Even those who have attempted to engage you in discussions of the specifics of the case have seem daunted by the lack of clarity and brevity with which you’ve responded (see [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12463973&postcount=97), for example). Yes, I’m familiar with this complaint, and I know that, among other things, I am so intimately familiar with it that I forget that many things seem obvious to me simply because of that - I am definitely not always aware of gaps in the information. On the other hand, I don’t believe anyone has made an attempt to be at all specific about this (at least, in a manner I haven’t responded to by clarifying…I can’t recall offhand) and it does make a convenient excuse for dismissing me without having to be specific. When it continued after I posted the writ, I became more suspicious. The writ was professionally copy-edited (in that a good friend who is a professional copy editor helped me as I was writing it) and reviewed by four attorneys, none of whom seemed to have any problem at all following what I was saying, nor did they find my words “purple”, pointless, or overly emotional. In fact I got some very rewarding compliments. Together with so many people readily admitting that they aren’t really bothering to read closely, (not to mention the obvious agenda at work) and I just can’t give the complaint too much weight as a legitimate barrier to understanding. > [@](#): > > I don’t think they’re trying to be negative for the joy of hurting your feelings, I think they’re offering an impartial assessment of what you’re presenting here balanced against their experience with the court system. For the most part I don’t think that the agenda has as much to do with actively seeking to cause me emotional distress (although in a few instances I know it does for sure) as it does with simple ego. People like to be right. Lawyers especially like to be right. Lawyers also, frequently, expect to receive deference to their opinions based purely on the fact that they are lawyers. I’m buggin because I’m not buying into it, and I never have. In spite of the fact that lawyers themselves are perfectly aware that passing the bar is no guarantee you’re dealing with someone competent (someone in here called lousy lawyers “legion”). So just because someone says “I’m a lawyer”, that doesn’t automatically make their opinion valuable and accurate. They need to demonstrate that they are reliable, informed, and honest, just like everyone else does. And if the lawyers here were genuinely being impartial and sharing their wisdom, without any ego attachment involved, they, or even ONE, would have at least said: “Yes, the judgment says X and yes, that’s what you are actually appealing.” That’s not even explaining it or explaining how it could be affirmed, for god’s sake, that’s just admitting it exists! The resistance to doing even that much is pretty clearly unrelated to any desire to be impartially helpful, and I’d be much more attentive and respectful of the opinions being offered if they were coming from people who would honestly admit the facts. Again, this is the Dope, not just any random message board. We have Unca CeCe’s standards to uphold, don’t we? > [@](#): > > I apologize for this – I was trying to make a humorous analogy to show that silence isn’t always victorious, but it came across ruder than I intended. I’m sorry about that. Apology accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/236 "2010-05-22T17:46:19Z")
Here’s a question that I thought about making a separate post for, but I could see that derailing, so might as well put it here. Why would you (you decide if I’m talking to you or not) subject yourself to people you find annoying-obnoxious-irritating (pick your synonym) on a message board? Why would you subject yourself and participate? Why would you subject yourself, participate, and even take some shots? Do you stop to consider why you do it? What is the reward? The purpose? Do you take the time to be self-aware about choices like that, or do you just act without ever stopping to reflect on your purpose? Because in my own case, however negatively you may view me, it’s impossible to argue that I have intruded on your space, asked anything of you, or intended you ill - so on what basis do you feel justified in giving me a hard time? Maybe I really am crazy, stupid, pathetic… isn’t that then just my personal burden, pain, challenge? How does that earn me the status of target? If you are comfortable with your choice to seek people out who get on your nerves so you can poke them to one degree or another, shouldn’t you try to confine yourself to people who have shown that they themselves are somehow bad, hurtful, or damaging to others, not merely disliked by you? Which is a long way of saying: if I bug you, why do you bother? What did I ever do to you or anyone else? Why not just leave it alone? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/237 "2010-05-22T21:55:20Z")
Since my questions are now academic, I’m curious to see what the legal minds think of my very favorite work in this whole case, legally speaking. If they feel like sharing, of course. > [@](#): > > \*\*MOTION TO TRANSFER CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS > \*\* > > NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN … Stoid will move for an order transferring Case No. X, Ex v. Stoid, to the same court with Case No. X, Receiver v Stoid. > > This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §397 (a), (b), and (c), §170 et. seq., and §1048(a). > > The Motion will be made on the following grounds: > > 1. The actions are related. > > 2. The actions have already been consolidated, without objection. > > 3. Judge Redqueen lacked jurisdiction to sever the cases, due to being disqualified. > > 4. Judge Redqueen’s disqualification from Ex v. Stoid effectively disqualifies the judge from Receiver v. Stoid. > > 5. An impartial trial, per CCP 397, cannot be had in Judge Redqueen’s court. > The motion will be based on this notice, the memorandum, the declaration of Stoid, and on the records and evidence filed herewith. > MOTION TO TRANSFER CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS; > MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT > > Defendant Stoid requests an order for Case No. X, Ex v. Stoid, et al, to be transferred for reassignment with Receiver v. Stoid, for the following reasons: > > • The original judge assigned for all purposes in Ex v. Stoid determined that the cases were related and ordered transfer and consolidation of Receiver with Ex. CCP 1048 governs consolidation and reads in part: > > > [@](#): > > > > (a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. > > •Judicial economy would be better served by the cases remaining consolidated. Currently the trial for accounting is scheduled for September 12, but the judgment in the case, which is pending an appeal, ordered accounting to follow the sale of all the assets. The house has not been sold, therefore the order for accounting is a modification of the judgment and intrudes on the appeals court’s jurisdiction in the case. The accounting must await the reviewing court’s decisions, which could have an enormous impact on the accounting. It would be wasteful to conduct the accounting now. It would be more efficient to transfer the case to a court where it will be left alone for to the appellate justices to decide, thereby conserving judicial resources. > > • Judge Redqueen was disqualified via peremptory challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §170.6, on grounds that she is biased against Defendant Stoid. Therefore she no longer has the jurisdiction or the discretion to sever the consolidated cases and should have transferred them together. > > • Due to the curious confluence of factors in this case, Judge Redqueen’s disqualification from Receiver v. Stoid has also effectively disqualified her from Ex v. Stoid. The judge should have recused herself from both cases and transferred them together. > > • The rule of concurrent exclusive jurisdiction applies: there is a possibility of conflicting judgments related to the same issue. One action is for unlawful detainer and the other would be ostensibly for contempt, but both relate to the same fact: Stoid remaining in the home that she still owns, pending the appeal. It would be manifestly unjust to successfully defend the eviction, as she fully expects to do, only to turn around and find herself punished for “contempt” for remaining in her home. > > **Background** > > Case No. X, Ex v. Stoid, filed September 5, 2006, is a complaint for partition of a single family residence that Defendant Stoid owns in joint tenancy with Plaintiff Mr. Ex, as well as for dissolution of a Limited Liability Company, and accounting. The case was assigned for all purposes to Honorable Judge Redqueen in the North Central District (Burbank). > > The trial was bifurcated and all causes of action, except accounting, were tried in January of this year. The Interlocutory judgment ordered the house sold and the business dissolved, and was entered March 25. The judge appointed (Plaintiff) Mr. Receiver as referee/ receiver in that action on March 26, with orders to oversee the sale of all the assets. > > Defendant Stoid has owned and lived in the residence that was the subject of the partition action since 2003. Mr. Receiver’s first act as receiver was to serve Stoid with a 60-Day Notice to Quit. > > Stoid filed an appeal from all parts of the judgment May 21, 2008. Since an appeal stays enforcement of the judgment in partition actions, she did not move out of her home at the end of the 60 days. > > Plaintiff Receiver filed the Unlawful Detainer action against Stoid June 6. His attorney, Receiver’s Attorney, filed the required Notice of Related Cases with Judge Redqueen on June 12. On June 20, the judge determined that the cases were related and consolidated Receiver v. Stoid with Ex v. Stoid, et al. > > No party to either action objected to the consolidation itself. On July 3, Stoid filed a peremptory challenge, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 170.6, on (very genuine, not pro forma) grounds of Judge Redqueen’s bias against her, resulting in Judge Redqueen’s immediate disqualification. > > Judge Redqueen then severed the cases that she had just consolidated, transferring only Receiver v. Stoid for reassignment. > > The first time Stoid appeared before Judge Redqueen after filing the 170.6 was a status conference on July 18, during which the judge ordered the trial for the accounting to take place September 12. Both Defendant Stoid and counsel for Plaintiff Ex protested to the judge that her judgment specifically stated that the accounting was to take place following the sale of all the assets, and since the house wasn’t sold it should not proceed. (See exhibits) > > During that same proceeding, Judge Redqueen stated that if Stoid does not move out of her home by the time of the accounting, the judge would order a contempt proceeding. > > Another status conference was held August 18, during which the judge indicated that she was not going to do that, that there were “other means”. (Stoid submits that since the judge did not indicate anything that would preclude her from doing so, she could and very well may change her mind back again.) > > \*\*I. Judge Redqueen Lacked Jurisdiction to Sever the Consolidated Cases \*\* > > The powers of a disqualified judge are limited to purely default matters, as specified in CCP §170.4 “a disqualified judge has no power to act in any proceedings after his or her disqualification.” Mr.tie v. City of El Centro (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 767, 776 > Therefore, Judge Redqueen did not have jurisdiction to sever Receiver v. Stoid from Ex v. Stoid, transferring only one and retaining the other: > > > [@](#): > > > > …we conclude that when a motion for peremptory challenge pursuant to 170.6 is made by a party, including a cross- defendant, section 170.6 and Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4 do not permit the judge granting such challenge to sever the pleadings of that party for reassignment and to retain the remainder of the action. Sunkyong Trading (H.K.) v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 282, 290 (emphasis added) > > This rule applies no matter what the situation, or how much difficulty may be imposed. In Geldermann, Inc. v. Bruner, (1992),(229 Cal. App. 3d 662 ) the judge had prepared a detailed tentative statement of decision. He disqualified himself from further matters, then entered the tentative as final statement and judgment. The appeals court overturned, albeit very reluctantly: > > > [@](#): > > > > The case had taken several years to get to trial and had been tried for 16 days. Judge Schwartz was attempting to help the parties reach a conclusion to the litigation without the heavy expense of another trial. For these reasons, he sought to finalize the substantive issues, all of which he had heard and carefully considered. However admirable his intent, Judge Schwartz was precluded by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4 from issuing a statement of decision and the judgment once he disqualified himself, or from taking any actions other than those permitted by that statute.(emphasis added) Gelderman, supra pg. 666 > > > [@](#): > > > > “The statutes do not permit “limited, partial or conditional recusal” Gelderman, supra pg. 665 > > In light of these rulings, Judge Redqueen’s order to transfer only Receiver, effectively severing it from Ex, is void. The two cases are still consolidated and must be in the same court. > > > [@](#): > > > > “The California Supreme Court and some Courts of Appeal have held that the orders of disqualified judges are void and must be vacated.” Mr.tie, supra, pg 779 > > **II. The Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction Requires the Actions to Remain Consolidated to Avoid Absurd and Unjust Results.** > > Judge Redqueen was considering “eviction by contempt”. If she changes her mind again and decides to pursue the contempt, this could lead to favorable judgment for Stoid on the unlawful detainer, followed by punishment for failing to move out of her home! (The contempt proceeding would be ostensibly based on failing to follow the Judge’s order, but Stoid can only obey the judge’s order by moving out of her house, making the order a kind of “backdoor” eviction.) The need to avoid exactly such a situation underlies the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction: > > > [@](#): > > > > That the parties in the two actions “are not entirely identical” and “that the remedies sought by the two actions are not precisely the same” is not controlling. (Myers v. Superior Court, supra, 75 Cal. App. 2d at p. 931.). Or, as Witkin puts it, “Although their claimed rights and therefore their alleged causes of action are distinct, the issues [in the two proceedings] are substantially the same, and individual suits might result in conflicting judgments.” (2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Jurisdiction, § 420, p. 1031.) Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1175 > > **III. Judge Redqueen is Effectively Disqualified From Both Cases, Application of CCP § 397** > > There are no cases which match the fact pattern in this case exactly, but years of interpretation and statutory amendment, as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, march the mind inexorably to a single conclusion: Judge Redqueen should have realized the implications of the 170.6 challenge in this case and recused herself, pursuant to § 170.1.(a) (6): > > > [@](#): > > > > (A) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: For any reason: > > (i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice. > > (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial. > > (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. > > (B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. > > The Legislature has an unbroken pattern of steadfast support for the rights of parties to be protected from judicial bias, and the courts have backed it up. In fact, California goes further than most other jurisdictions by protecting parties (and the public’s confidence in the judiciary) from even the appearance of such bias. (See (iii) above). > > Another proof of the Legislature’s commitment to protecting a person from judicial bias is CCP 170.6 itself: it is a statutory recognition that bias can exist, but be difficult to prove to the satisfaction of others: > > > [@](#): > > > > “It is well recognized that in enacting Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 the Legislature guaranteed to litigants an extraordinary right to disqualify a judge. The right is ‘automatic’ in the sense that a good faith belief in prejudice is alone sufficient, proof of facts showing actual prejudice not being required." (McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1974) supra, 12 Cal.3d 512, 531.) The affidavit is thus simply a formal means of expressing such belief; and in order to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the courts, the belief alone will justify disqualification. Solberg v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 182, 193 > > The courts have also repeatedly found that the 170.6 statute should be liberally construed: > > > [@](#): > > > > As we have noted, section 170.6 is a remedial statute in that it provides a procedure by which a litigant may peremptorily disqualify a judge whom the litigant believes to be biased against him. Remedial statutes are to be liberally construed and "the modern trend of decisions [is] in favor of granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute [citations]”. Woodman v. Superior Court 196 Cal. App. 3d 407 > > > [@](#): > > > > In construing a remedial statute…“reason must have its just proportion” and "'the courts will not blindly follow the letter of a law, when its purpose is apparent.” Estate of Wilcox (1945) 68 Cal. App. 2d 780 (citations omitted) > > The purpose of §170.6 is protect a party from a biased judge: > > > [@](#): > > > > [The Senate Judiciary Committee Report] explains that Senate Bill No. 829 [adding §170.6] provides a remedy when a “judge is prejudiced against any such party or attorney or his interest so that the party or attorney cannot or believes he cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge.” Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 142, > > > [@](#): > > > > In People v. Hull, (1 Cal. 4th 266), the Supreme Court of California said: > > We begin our analysis by noting "the fundamental purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the law… > > A statute must be construed ‘in the context of the entire statutory system of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.’ “ Both kinds of disqualification determinations, for cause and peremptory, are included within chapter 3. Indeed, the entire chapter is entitled "Disqualifications of Judges”. > > …the Legislature’s intent can most readily and accurately be discerned by reading together all the provisions contained in chapter 3. Section 170.6, subdivision (7), specifically states that “nothing in [section 170.6] shall affect or limit the provisions of Section 170 … and this section shall be construed as cumulative thereto.” Accordingly, sections 170.6 and 170 were intended to be read together. > > Sections 170 and 170.6, when read together, establish that a judge who is successfully challenged under section 170.6 is in fact “disqualified,” within the meaning of section 170. … If “disqualified” has a given meaning when used in one of the statutes, it presumably shares that meaning in the other. Consequently, … section 170’s interpretation of the word “disqualified” is applicable to section 170.6 motions… (All internal citations omitted) > > Section 170.6 actually establishes the fact of bias or prejudice, and states that the disqualification thus established applies to any proceeding: > > > [@](#): > > > > No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior, municipal or justice court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein which involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding. (emphasis added) > > The Legislature even anticipated the likelihood that a judge might be biased against a litigant (or appear to be biased) after appeal and so amended the statute to permit a second challenge following appeal and remand, > > > [@](#): > > > > Section 170.6 was amended in 1985 to permit a peremptory challenge to be made when the same trial judge is assigned for a new trial after reversal on appeal… The concern expressed by the proponents of the 1985 amendment was that a judge who had been reversed might prove to be biased against the party who successfully appealed the judge’s erroneous ruling at the original trial. > > Stegs Invs. v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 572, 575-576 > > The appeals courts themselves also make a special allowance for the likelihood that a challenged judge has the potential to be biased against the litigant who challenged them: they permit judicial bias to be raised for the first time on appeal, without it having ever been raised in the trial court, simply because doing so could offend the judge and result in bias. Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 237, 244 > > Of course, handing out a sort of “Get out of Court Free” card could result in chaos & abuse, so there are significant procedural hurdles designed to prevent forum-shopping. The California court system is so large it is unlikely that one person would face the same judge more than once. Therefore there has up to now been no need for the courts or the Legislature to spell out the purpose of the laws in the following unmistakable, unambiguous way: > > \*A judge disqualified for bias or prejudice against a party loses jurisdiction over that person and cannot preside over any proceeding to which such a person is a party. \* > > But in fact, the statutory and case law make it plain that this is the fundamental idea at the heart of the laws. > > To interpret the law and the application of the law to the novel facts of this case in any other way undermines and ignores all the decisions that have come before. It would gut the meaning and purpose of the statutes, reducing the “extraordinary right” guaranteed by the disqualification statutes to precisely what the obstacle course of rules are designed to prevent: nothing more than a tool for manipulation and gamesmanship, ripe for abuse. > > Stoid’s belief in Judge Redqueen’s bias against her is sincere and well-founded. It would not be a stretch to state that this case, and these facts, represent a rare opportunity for a challenge under 170.6 to function exactly as it was intended: as a safeguard. This is not an end run around a system designed to prevent a party from avoiding a biased judge, but an unusual opportunity to receive the benefit of a system designed to prevent injustice, or even the appearance of such injustice. Such was the Legislature’s intent. > > Finally, this isn’t only about the challenge under the 170 statutes, but this very motion, which is brought partly pursuant to CCP 397, which states: > > > [@](#): > > > > The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: > > (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court. > > (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein. > > (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. > > (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act. > > \*\*SUMMARY > \*\*It has been shown that: > • Judge Redqueen’s order to transfer only one of the consolidated cases was void for lack of jurisdiction following disqualification. > • The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to avoid a manifestly unjust double-prosecution of Stoid > • The facts and laws of the case require Judge Redqueen’s disqualification from both actions. > Defendant Stoid therefore requests that Case No. X, Ex v. Stoid be transferred forthwith for reassignment to the same court with Receiver v. Stoid. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/238 "2010-05-22T22:04:38Z")
I did get an assessment of that motion from my “ghost” appellate lawyer. I’ll share it after others weigh in (if they do…) And in anticipation of possible questions: I withdrew it and it was denied without prejudice for blank proof of service (which meant if I refiled with a proper proof of service it would have been heard, it wasn’t a decision on the merits) virtually simultaneously. I withdrew because I thought the accounting would be over before it was heard, and by the time it was clear that wasn’t going to be the case, it was moot because the UD had disappeared from the system (?) and a second had been filed which was not consolidated. While I could have just gone straight for a disqualification on grounds of bias under a different part of the statute, I had resigned myself to finishing it in her court and trying to fix it later in the appeal. I was also exhausted and overwhelmed by the accounting trial, which ended up being held over 5 half days over two months and was incredibly difficult. Although I did kick some ass here and there. And it was filed downtown, not in her court. There’s a department that hears all transfer motions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/239 "2010-05-23T00:23:48Z")
Knowing of course that this is notlegal advice, and that I am not licensed in California and that you should not rely on this as any sort of substantive application of facts to law… and that you are not my client in any way and should not be relying on anything I say as guidance or advice of any kind… That was a reasonably good motion. It laid out your specific complaint very clearly, and I had no trouble understanding it: California allows a litigant a one-shot deal to disqualify a judge for bias, even on appeal, and even without making a record in the trial court. After you exercised that right, the judge continued to exercise jurisdiction by severing two causes of action that had been previously consolidated, and reassigning only one cause. This ran contrary to the guarantees of the judge disqual statute. I think that’s a well-done pro se brief. ---
**Author:** ![Merejane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@Merejane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merejane)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510/240 "2010-05-23T00:37:52Z")
But how could the judge have been disqualified in Ex. v. Stoid? Stoid made her motion under section 170.6 after the trial, right? Section 170.6 clearly says: “In no event shall any judge . . . entertain the motion if it be made . . . after trial of the cause has . . . commenced.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-argued-in-front-of-the-court-of-appeal-today/539510.md?page=13)