Thank you SO much, Bricker! Very very kind of you to read it, absorb it, and give me the props! YAY!
Cool.
Oh, and massive props to you too for doing such a great job of summing it up! I sure as hell couldn’t have done that!
Read it again. As shown by Bricker’s comprehension… it’s all there.
Okay, I have read it again, but I’m still confused. At one point you say that “Judge Redqueen’s disqualification from Ex v. Stoid effectively disqualifies the judge from Receiver v. Stoid.” Then later you say “Judge Redqueen’s disqualification from Receiver v. Stoid has also effectively disqualified her from Ex v. Stoid.”
Did you make separate 170.6 motions in each case? If so, when did you make these motions?
I don’t think you read that right. That would have been a typo if I did write it.
It’s all very carefully laid out in the motion, and I wrote that better than I could write an off-the-cuff explanation of it, since it is itself an explanation of my whole legal theory. But I’ll give it a shot:
My argument is, in part, that 170.6, which functioned as advertised, established the judge’s bias. Once established, she lost jurisdiction over ME, no matter what the case or when it started. Basically, it was a weird circumstance that allowed a peremptory challenge to function as a kind of “proof” under the part of the statute that permits a direct challenge for bias irrespective of where you are in the case. (Read teh Supreme court section)
Another part of my argument is that the sequence of events left her without jurisdiction to sever the cases at all: consolidation was followed by disqualification in the receiver case that was now part of the Ex case, therefore she lost jurisdiction altogether over both, since they were then all one case.
And of course, the motion gives all the case law and reviewing court reasoning over all the different parts of these things, I just brought them all together, and while I’ll never know one way or another (unless the appellate court weighs in, it does come up in the brief), I believe my reasoning is correct. not just convenient. If you review the decisions everything I’m asserting is individually correct, it’s just the way the parts come together that isn’t absolutely certain.
But I’m 99% sure such a thing has never happened quite that way before, so it would be a new ruling on the subject.
Oh, and in case you were going to ask: it came up in the brief on the subject of the accounting trial, which I argue was void for lack of jurisdiction because:
- Appeal was taken
- It modified the judgment itself
- She was disqualified.
So, since the motion is in the record and talk about it, there is a tiny chance they will address it in the opinion, but I doubt it.
Actually, here’s what i think will happen overall: I think they will reverse the LLC ruling altogether and void everything that came after in relation to it. They will grant dissolution under a different part of the statute (protection of interst, vs. deadlock) and decline to issue any opinion about the details beyond that, apart from a few other things to complete the judgment, but no dissection. Which will be fine in the big important picture, but disappointing in the little picture of curiosity. But they don’t want to have to come up with any more opinion than absolutely necessary to get the thing done, so I don’t expect everything to be addressed.
(I say grant diss because I specifically asked the court to use its power to enter judgment, which they normally don’t do, they just opine and send it back to the trial court with instructions. I want them to enter judgment and finish it.)
Buena suerte, amiga Stoid!
I cut and pasted both those quotes from your post, so I did read it right.
Sorry, still confused! The consolidation made it “all one case,” but after consolidation you moved for disqualification in just one of the two cases? 
Thanks!
And I had to look that up… LA all my life, and I have never heard or read that before.
Yeah, that is definitely a head scratcher in the parsing. Does the new case become part of the old case, precluding me from 170.6, or the new case absorb the old case, permitting the 170.6? Evidently in this instance the latter. She didn’t even blink, just bam… sent it back.
So that part was settled, however one might look at it afterwards. Once done…
Buena suerte, and adios!
De nada! Personally, I like your style and gumption. I sincerely hope you win!
Very much appreciated, very much.
Weren’t we supposed to go have coffee once?
I really should plan a celebration if I win (a wake if I don’t? Nah, no need to dwell…). I’ll invite supporters and detractors alike and we can all dance and get drunk.
Sounds good to me!
I have to say as a businessman with some moderate experience (not in US and not as a lawyer) in corporate disolution, it’s painfully clear that the OP is right buggered, but this is a hilarious read.
Can’t say I wish the OP well, rather have the impression fate is well-deserved, but on this
Pretty bloody obvious that is not that case. What the OP really wants is hugs and affirmations. Anything the least bit critical, however well-intended, is snapped at. That is bloody clear.
Pity this might end, it’s amusing to watch.
As I said when I posted it, I did get feedback on the motion from my appellate “consultant”, for want of a more accurate term.
I never used his terminology because I wasn’t sufficiently comfortable with it. I studied the rules of evidence in numbing depth for the accounting trial, and the whole presumption thing kinda gave me a headache. I understood it, but only up to a point. And the way he used res judicata was new to me, I’d only read and understood it in context of a judgment or ruling from a judge.
The whole peremptory challenge for bias seems rather strange to begin with…how often are you going to find yourself in front of a judge you have a real reason to believe is biased against you? I’m told that it’s actually used by lawyers as a means of escaping judges they don’t think are good for their case.
Shame we can’t give reps for posts here. This would be getting a tripple A + thumbs up 
Edit: Not likely to end any time soon. As I understand it this isn’t all of OP’s litigation.
Edit2: Although I agree the fate is well deserved, I still feel sorry for the OP. Were this not in MPSIMS I would offer my theories as to what is actually going on…
I have limited exposure to the law, but have run across a lot that suggests that your experience is not unique.
I talked once to an attorney who came from the big city to represent some people. He mentioned that judges can be nasty or petty - for example, he said, the judge was more likely to be careful with him because he only appeared before the court locally once or twice a year. If the judge screwed him over, he could appeal. Local lawyers who appealed the judge’s ruling would find the judge taking revenge on every subsequent client, and so the local lawyers were suitably humble and deferential.
he also mentioned that personality and friendship played a big role in how jdges determined many cases. Also, in the appeals he made, he said - the court would overturn a judgement to send a message to the lower judge “smarten up, you went too far”. That’s why judges don’t like too many appeals and especially reversals.
This same judge had been arrested occasionally by the RCMP when DUI was not a big deal. Fortunately, unlike the small local police forces, the judge had minimal leverage against a bigger, more powerful organization…
There were a rash of ride-and-dash cases where I lived, where some people were running away from taxi fares. The decision was to prosecute every one of them to reinforce the learning experience. I saw a case where one fellow had been put in the cab by his friends, barely conscious; when he got home, he was passed out and had no money in his pocket, so he was charged. The proecutor suggested this should be an exception, since there was no intent, and besides, next week was Christmas… The judge suddenly got ornery and said “I don’t give anyone a break ‘because it’s Christmas.’ 7 days. Maybe he’ll get a decent meal while he’s in there…”
Another time, some fellow broke into a local organization’s offices and trashed the offices and the daycare and set a fire. He had his case trasnferred to a town 200 miles away, hoping the witnesses would not bother to show up. The guy that did said they called the fellow’s name, he wasn’t there. They went on to the next case, so the guy asked a lawyer friend what was happening… The warrant for failure to appear would only happen if the guy did not show by the time court finished at noon, so his lawyer had told him to wait until ten to noon, hoping everyone would leave and the case would be dismissed because of no witnesses. This judge was retired and back on contract by the hour because of overloaded courts, so if the witnesses did not leave and it went into an afternoon session he would pocket quite a bit more money, so he was happy to continue the charade.
The only judge I knew personally - she could be quite a @itch and I would hate to end up facing her in court unless I had an ironclad case. She was the type I’m sure would use whatever discretion she could to screw over whomever she did not like… and she was on the appeals court.
Is that a direct quote?
Yes, via email.