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:
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 Unpublished, yes, but I’ve read lots of unpublished opinions, they were still full on opinions.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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Determine if you can prove it. If it’s your word vs. his, hang it up, you’re toast.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
It is similar to Precipitation v. Date of Nuptials. Similar to the holding in Gratuitous Transportation v. Previous Remuneration.
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.
I certainly pray so. It would suck beyond the telling if they affirmed it without one.
Thank you so much for sharing. My life has been infinitely uplifted, enlightened and improved by the knowledge. You are too kind, truly.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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?
Apology accepted.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”