lumigan tramadol tadalafil

WHY PRO SE FATHERS SHOULD NOT SUE JUDGES

2007-05-13
By

WHY PRO SE FATHERS SHOULD NOT SUE JUDGES
By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III
May 13, 2007

413-445-6789

A recent case, RIEMERS v. STATE, 2007 ND App 2, filed April 27, 2007 shows why it is advisable not to sue judges that have been unfair to fathers in family court. I say this because I often receive calls, due to my civil rights lawsuits, about suing judges that have been unfair to dads in court.

Roland C. Riemers appealed a district court decision to the North Dakota Court of Appeals pro se (without an attorney). He sued a district court judge and members of the state’s highest court. The court did not even listen to his claims ruling that judges have judicial immunity:

Here are some excepts from the case:

“[ 4] Riemers argues the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because his claims for damages are not barred by judicial immunity. He contends common law judicial immunity no longer exists, judicial immunity is unconstitutional, and judicial immunity does not apply in this case because the judges’ actions were unlawful and outside the scope of their employment.”

To this the court replied:

“[ 5] Judicial immunity is a long-standing common law doctrine that protects judges from civil liability for their judicial decisions: The principle of judicial immunity recognizes that although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Thus, judges are not liable in civil actions for their judicial acts unless they have acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Moreover, a judge will not be deprived of immunity even if the action was in error, was done maliciously, was in excess of his authority, and even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”

Reimer’s also tried to argue that a newly created statute abolished judicial immunity. Since this has less universal appeal, I omit discussing this aspect of the case. But the excerpts rejecting the claim that judicial immunity causes constitutional problems is well worth repeating to fathers at large who may be contemplating suing a judge:

“Judicial immunity is a well-established, long-standing legal principle, and we reject Riemers’ claim it is unconstitutional.”

“[ 8] Riemers also claims judicial immunity does not apply in this case because the judges disregarded clear statutory and case law, and therefore their acts were illegal and were not judicial acts. We conclude his argument is not persuasive. Judicial immunity is defined by the governmental functions it protects, not the motives of the officer performing those functions. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 64 (2007) (“Judges are not deprived of immunity from a suit for money damages merely because of allegations that they committed grave procedural errors or acted maliciously, corruptly, or with evil motive, intent, personal interest, bad faith, or outright malevolence”). Even if the judges disregarded clear case or statutory law, their actions were judicial acts, and judicial immunity bars Riemers’ claims for money damages.”

The court also did not like the fact that Reimers was attempting to rehash issues already litigated and discussed legal concepts known as “res judicata” and “claim preclusion”:

“[ 9] Riemers’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are also barred. Res judicata and collateral estoppel are well-established doctrines that bar relitigation of claims and issues and promote the finality of judgments.”

“[ 10] Riemers’ current litigation attempts to challenge decisions Judge Herman and four Justices of the North Dakota Supreme Court made in proceedings stemming from his divorce action. If Riemers was unhappy with the courts’ decisions in his prior litigation, his remedy was to appeal the decision or petition for rehearing. Riemers failed to use the remedies available to redress any wrongs he may have suffered, and the well-established doctrine of collateral estoppel bars him from relitigating these issues in a second action. Riemers’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are barred.”

Other fathers who try to sue judges will be attacked for similar reasons—they already had their day in court, and their remedy was to appeal.

And here is what really hurt, the states claim for attorney fees:

“[ 13] The State requests attorney fees for this appeal. An award of costs, including reasonable attorney fees, is authorized under N.D.R.App.P. 38 for a frivolous appeal. An appeal is frivolous if it is “`flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad faith.’” Judicial immunity and collateral estoppel are well-established and long-standing legal doctrines. We conclude Riemers’ appeal is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, and demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which evidences bad faith. We therefore conclude Riemers’ appeal is frivolous, and the State is entitled to attorney fees for this appeal. The State did not submit any documentation of its attorney fees, and we remand to the district court for a determination of reasonable attorney fees for this appeal.”

Here is the moral of the story. If you have been treated unfairly, in a bigoted and outrageous manner in family court, do not sue. I know of no case where a judge was actually sued and damages were awarded. Definitely do not attempt to attack the constitutionality of judicial immunity with a lawsuit unless you are an attorney—these are very complex legal issues. There is the option of filing a complaint against a judge. Sadly, if you file a complaint against a judge, in most states it will not be taken seriously. I have heard of instances where judges have been removed—but these are extraordinary situations.

To reiterate some basic points:

1. Judicial immunity is a species of sovereign immunity—it is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. I do not believe judicial immunity exists in any state constitutions—but I have not researched this.

2. Many cases, such as this, hold that there is virtually no cap on the amount of bias, unfair dealing, malevolence, and disregard of clearly written law for which a lawsuit against a judge can stand.  Other cases are not so sweeping. Some cases suggest when a judge acts in malice in clear defiance of clearly established law, or acts well outside of the normal scope of acting a judge (such as taking a bribe), there is no judicial immunity.

3. A pro se litigant should avoid suing a judge—the issues are far too complex; the law is far too slanted in favor of judicial immunity, and the pro se litigant will often add to heartbreak and misery by having to pay attorney fees to the very state from whom he sought compensation.

For a website with a different viewpoint go to THIS LINK HERE

* Some cases, such as

RANKIN v. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), posted at the website does indicate that judicial immunity is not infinite.  For instance, there it was ruled that a judge could be held liable if he acted in clearly without juridiction.

219 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Artfldgr

    Well then if they are to be free and unfettered, the matter shouldnt be handled by pro se, or paid attorney… it should be handled the way the feminists did… have a “court watch” (NOW) and politically oust the judges and associated people of office. then also do as NOW does, help put judges up who wish to change law from the bench outside their powers.

    basically if a judge is a judge in family court, they are automatically not very good at law and even more so constitutional law, which points out that the state has no right to delegate powers (in practice, not in the constitution).

    In allowing CS people to have more power than the constitution (right to enter without a warrant, right to take kids without due process, basically delegation of powers) gives officers, only a litigator who doesnt care will continue to practice and have such in their courtroom, listen to such, etc…

    the immunity of judges is a correct thing… so i will not contest that point. but to allow one side manipulation, through such political means, and to allow delegation of powers, as well as other items, is a vast negative on our legal system. its made even more so when a judge sits there and does not question the constitutional veracity that allows such to have sway in the court.

    the real question here is really… should judges be allowed to judicate when they are in violation of their oaths of office as laid out in the constitution?

    and i quote:
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

    they are sworn to uphold the constitution, and the constitution does not allow them to play favorites, or make a secret court, and other items. the very fact that the numbers work out the way they do show that there is blatent favoritism in violation of constitutional law..

    however, since it has to go thrugh judges to get anywhere… where do you think such would end up?

  • mruffolo

    I filed two complaints against my family judge for not following procedures and violation of civil rights.

    Fill out a form and submit with evidence. Nothing happened, however, a formal record was made against them.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jud-qual/filing.html

    http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/129422.html

    While filling out paper work does not pay for injustice, violence against another is not an option. Do not even get mad at this person, better to spend the energy, calmly explaining and presenting the facts.

    Justice will come but not through any of us.

  • Virtue

    We cannot allow any group of people to be above the law……and right now according to their own words Judges are above the law……This must be changed.

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd selberg

    Ush is correct in his above assessment of the situation. Missouri while having one of the most progressive and father friendly family code also has one of the most corrupt self serving bars in the nation. Ethics are all but nonexistent. I have observed pro se litigants simply ignored without even being given the opportunity to be heard. Propery filed motions are summirly denied w/o hearing with opposing cousnel writes the rulling.

    It’s a free for all for attorneys. Imagine a couple of early forty year single male judges in Independence appointing a 30 something miniskirted, bimbo with a bar card as guardian ad litem in more than a hundred cases a year with an average award to the GAL of $3000 per case. She was particularly offended when I filed a complaint alleging her long black dress with a slit up to her ass was inappropriate court attire as well as doing home studies in jeans and a hooter’s t-shirt.

    It should be clear who is getting screwed. I can’t understand how she took the following quote the wrong way.

    “Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, “Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I’ll do anything for $250 an hour.” – Fred Reed

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Plead the Antipeonage Act. It declares all of these support orders null and void and that any imposition and enforcement of such is a felony.

    And be loud about it.

    For as long as we treat it like classified information, the federal grand juries won’t “run away” and enforce the Peonage Law.

    The doctrine of judicial immunity does not apply to criminal liability.

    I don’t have any problem with saying that when the rest of the Constitution does not work, people can plead the Second Amendment. The Virginia state flag says it all!

    The problem for Judge Charles Weller is that the guy who did in fact shoot him is not the only one who wants to!

    An extremely good public policy reason for prohibiting armed robbery, extortion, and peonage is that those being extorted sometimes react badly.

    As do those who are abused by their own government. Inventing a new system of weights and measures is but one of the funny things they do!

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

    If you are a tyrant and you see an angry crowd marching down the street singing La Marsellaise in French, RUN!!!

    See? There are all sorts of politically correct, safe, and constitutionally protected ways to say it!

  • amfortas

    Clearly my list of possible responses was not exhaustive. One or two new ways appear.

    We have ‘Ignore’ – done. Bad.
    ‘Denial’ – done. Bad.
    ‘Tolerate’ – done. Useless.
    ‘Withdraw’ – done. Sad.

    Now add, ‘Contain’ as per wls1 and riemers. Sue the judge and spend a huge fortune and still lose. A bit like wrapping a stick of dynamite in string and finishing with a pretty bow. Suicide bombers at least get to miss out on the billable hours repayments.

    Also, ‘Expose’, ala Usher. Hmmm. Billboards. I like that. Add a dash of ridicule as well. Maybe an unprofessional paint-job on their houses, hurridly, at night, in purple. Maybe that should come under a new heading – - ‘Punish’. Yep, I like Punish.

    Set up a Commission? For legal ethics.? Oxymoronic. I nearly laughed there. Hmmm. Design a flying pig instead. Invent a cure for death and taxes. Try entering the Last Comic Standing competition with a poetry recitation. There’s more likelihood of fun at least. None stands a hope of a polythene dog in hell. New heading? – ‘run around with your head up your arse’. Hey, we are considering everything here and its an option,

    Then its back to the end with the full metal jacket which as Mr Usher points out has a successful history and ” This courthouse shooting was not an abberation” but I, it seems, have to be careful with my words. Maybe the non-abberation will become mainstream.

  • David R. Usher

    Suing judges makes no sense. Why would any higher court disturb the heirarchy permitting mass discrimination against fathers? The legal system is the only trade granted sole right to discipline itself, which it does not do. I have seen hundreds of cases where courts grossly stepped outside statute in ways that simply have no rational basis.

    In fact, I see little use in guys bothering to fight. I have seen very few contested cases in which fathers achieved anything. But I have seen millions spent for nothing — divorces have a way of lasting as long as family assets do.

    When judges simulate legal process in courts of law to cover for corruption, and citizens notice it, there is a major problem that must be dealt with properly.

    There are two things that must be done.

    1. Citizens must return law to the people. Attorneys must be disciplined by an independent state commission consisting of citizens of high educational and moral standards. Good attorneys (who are sick and tired of corruption) will love this. The legal profession is a trade — the only trade not subject to independent discipline. The Bar, by definition, is in conflict of interest where it is permitted to be the sole disciplinary authority over its own trade. If corrupt attorneys are penalized for corrupt practices, they won’t ever get to be judges. And, when citizen panels discipline attorneys, judges will naturally return to hearing cases. They will no longer serve in conflict of interest, covering for corruption, so as to maintain the image of the court at the pleasure of the Bar. See my article “How To Reform The Corrupt Legal System”, http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david12.htm

    2. Put up a large billboard naming your county or state’s most anti-family judges. We did it here — two judges ended up resigning the bench because nobody would let them hear their cases. These were two very well established and dangerous judges. One judge was so bad it brought on a courthouse shooting in retribution (the judge was going to give the husband’s house away, despite the fact that Missouri law stated very clearly that in the specific circumstances, it was HIS house. This courthouse shooting was not an abberation — another guy nearly drove his truck through the front door of the courthouse twice. A third commissioner was repeatedly turned down for a full judgeship because of the exposure.

  • riemers

    Although I agree with the comments about the federal courts not being used as an appealete court of state courts, it has been a while since I have frankly looked it over. But shooting from the hip, it is only an appeal or res judicata if you may, it there has been an actual ruling on the substance of the law suit. Which of course there wasn´t in this instance. So, it is possible in Federal court, except regardless of the doctrine, the real one is, keep out of my Federal Court as I already have too much work to do without coming up with ideas about your consititutional right violations.

    In regards to the judge law suit. There were two main issues in the district court. One, the judge refused to allowe me to have a child support hearing even after 5 years, and in fact not anytime in the future. Which was contrary to law and thus I sought injuctive relief (with money damages to make it more interesting). Second, the district court judge, acting under the direction of the State Supreme Court, made a su sponte order that I could not bring any future law suits before the courts that involved my ex-wife or her attorney, without the courts permission. This was done contrary to the establish standards for this type of order. So, again injunctive relief and money damages. The Supreme Court justices got named because the lower judge was just following their administrative directions, and standard common law on immunity is administrative acts are not judicial acts, and thus are not immune. As for money damages, North Dakota law provides for law suits against the state for up to $250,000 for actions by the state. So the money damages were against the state, not the judges, per clear state statute.

    As mentioned, these cases are currently on appeal from the Court of Appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court. If I fail there, I can of course appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where I may be one of the 80 or so out of 10,000 who gets to be heard each year. The process for a U.S. Supreme Court appeal is time consuming and very detailed. But, I have done it once before. So I do know the process (although I frankly would have to relearn a lot of the details).

    Interestingly, the North Dakota Court of Appeals is just an occasional court that the State Supreme Court uses on very rare occasions, and most appeals are directly to the State Supreme Court. But in my cases I have named 4 of the 5 sitting judges, so there was a conflict in their hearing a case against themselves. But, the course of events now is from the Court of Appeals to the State Supreme Court, which again makes 4 of the justices obligated torecluse themselvess. How they will handle that is a very interesting question.

    Lastly, why sue a judge if you can not win? Because you get to look some other judge in the eye and tell them his co heart is a jerk. Because that jerk now knows his dirty linen will be the topic in the clock room of the next judicial conference. So, win or loose, I still make a statement.

    Roland Riemers at riemers@wiktel.com

  • wls1

    The US has `fighting words,’ which do not fall under 1st Amendment protection. As the term is understood in the US `hate speech’ is a different category and usually, although not in every context, protected.

  • wls1

    The lesson should be that, if you irresistibly _have_ to sue a judge, do it seriously: to win your case. Don’t be a dumb-ass, in the tradition of Tax Protesters. Address every case law precedent in your way in detail, going through the logic and showing why it’s wrong and the precedent must be overturned; if a statute presents a problem: _prove_ it’s unconstitutional, or else have the relevant legislative body repeal it before you file your suit.

    However also consider whether suing judges addresses the root cause of family law’s pathology, and is a propitious approach to progress toward reform.

    The mentioned domestic relations abstention is the cutting-edge of making parental rights in family court a federal issue.

  • DrDamage

    Thuston861:
    “He has free speech Rights Rinaldo, he is in Austrailia”

    Australian freedom of speech

    In Australia, we don’t even have a first amendment to ignore. Two words: hate speech.

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd selberg

    I very much agree that pro se litigants should refrain from suing judges.

    Truly bad judges are well known to other judges and attorneys. They will have too many decisions reversed on appeal and the clerk of the appellant courts will be the only one motivated to remove a bad judge. Attorneys, just get the opportunity to make more money on appeal.

    Kansas is the only state I know where the clerk of the appellant courts is also the secretary of the commission on judicial qualifications and I have successfully filed a complaint that led to the removal of such a bad judge with the help of the appellant clerk.

    I know too many male judges that are sympathetic to father’s issues to believe that they all deserve to hanged. They may be subject to the voters’ desire for political correctness, but more likely are manipulated by unethical attorneys, especially by female attorneys.

    One thing a pro se litigant can do that almost no attorney that likes to eat will do, is file a complaint against the judge with the appropriate state commission detailing the violation of a specific ethical rule with support evidence. The national Bar has a code of judicial conduct that has been adopted by all states either verbatim or with very similar language usually found at the beginning of the state’s Supreme Court Rules.

    Judges too often let their attorney friends abuse pro se litigants. Notably it is unethical for a judge to observe an attorney’s unethical behavior and not report it. An attorney that knowingly makes material misrepresentation of fact to the court is acting unethically. Raising ethical issues of attorney misconduct before the court is an effective and necessary tactic and puts the judge in a position of knowing the unethical behavior.

    Violations of judicial ethics are criminal in nature and prosecution is the responsibility of the sate. Unfortunately, the commissions have limited means of investigqtion and prosecutions are generally before the state supreme court.

    Another approach is to bring a Federal complaint pursuant to: Official Misconduct (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242) – Intentional acts by law enforcement officials who misuse their positions to unlawfully deprive individuals of constitutional rights. Make a formal FBI complaint. Denial of constitutionally protected parental rights must become a common federal issue. The Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division must address this just as it now prosecutes race and female discrimination. It is simply a matter of making it politically correct.

  • amfortas

    Rinaldo chides me. His right, I guess, when it is due. It isn’t in this instance. He says, “Amfortas: I know you are not speaking literally, but you have to watch your language. Many people may think you are serious about doing violence towards judges.”

    Watch my language. Perhaps I should say something like ‘All Judges are rapists’. There is a precedent and no one has told Maralyn French to watch her language. Indeed, her book is a text in our Universities. Watch my language. Gordon Bennett. I was alluding to an action already taken. So, what, I am not to point to an event which has been reported on MND, discussed, commented on so many times? By mentioning it, is tacit support, Rinaldo?

    Please, don’t come the raw prawn.

    Frankly Rinaldo, If I had to give thought to what “.. Many people may think..” when it is clear that many people think whatever fantasy comes into their own minds, unbidden by me and despite my best wishes, then I would hardly open my friggin’ mouth.

    Lets look at what happens, typically, when injustice oppresses people. The options are limited. Even without immediate-to-hand evidence of typicality, logic can show what would happen. Even a lawyer could work it out given enough client-billed resources.

    There is withdrawl. This is already happening. Men are withdrawing from Family, women, children, marriage, society. It isn’t just teens that are dropping out. Adult, intelligent Men are. A growing swell of numbers are taking this option, consciously or not.

    There is ignoring it. Men are doing this too. They – many, many – are in denial. They remain ignorant of the crash right before their eyes. They turn a blind eye to all the suffering. This is the majority.

    There is ‘toleration’. My God, so many men accept Jesus’s exhortation to turn the other cheek. Their cheeks are bleeding from the blows. Notice that women, the majority churchgoers, don’t tolerate. They get ‘empowered. They ‘Take Back the Night’. They scream and shout at anyone in trousers. They push for laws that cripple men, physically and spiritually. Men tolerate the injustices all the way to breaking point, like ‘good, little boys’.

    At that breaking point, Rinaldo, when they have ‘watched what they say, lest someone think something’, for so friggin’ long, they either commit suicide or destroy. As yet these are a minority. So far.

    People take up arms when there is no other viable option. People have. Your country and mine and many others have histories of taking up arms to overthrow oppression. It is a manly thing to do. It is a human thing to do. It is often The Right Thing to do.

    Watch what I say, indeed. If I mentioned the Old Testamant God smiting his enemies, I should watch what I say, lest….? If I mention fighting the scourge of Nazism, I should watch what I say, lest….? If I mention events in your own backyard, a man shooting a Judge, I should watch what I say.

    I am friggin sick and tired of being told by weenies to ‘watch what I say’. You automatically chide me. You automatically assume that just because I mention something that is obvious to Blind Freddy, that I advocate it. Or someone else, some friggin’ weenie, will think that I advocate it. ME, the great Amfortas!!!!! I have been told to watch what I say all my damn life by weenies with power. Fuck the weenies.

    They can line up to be fitted for jackets too. I know a good tailor/blacksmith.

    When / if I get around to advocating such violence, Rinaldo, I will make it very clear.

  • rastus

    Thurston861, can you please post a citation or link to that article?

  • thurston861

    Immunity is a fabrication to avoid accountability to the public. Thus COngrerss never possessed the authority to enact statutes to protect Judges from unconstitutional and illegal behavior agains tht eRights of the people.

    There is a nice law review article on the fallacy of immunity and shows it is a recent fabrication of government to usurp power from the People.

  • wls1

    Judicial immunity is in statute: its constitutionality derives from constitutional provisions for legislatures to constitute the courts, both federal and state.

    It’s `absolute’ immunity, devolving entirely on jurisdiction, and not limited even by malice. However under the doctrine of the Burger court’s PULLIAM V ALLEN opinion, a judge may be named the defendant in a suit for injunctive relief, and perhaps for attorney’s fees, although more recent federal legislation has somewhat blunted its original force.

    Don’t forget that judges can be punished by oversight boards, and judicial error is the whole point of appeals. A judge with a personal interest who doesn’t lawfully recuse himself, for example, should be censured, sanctioned, or removed from the bench if it’s clear-cut enough, and his ruling thrown out on appeal.

    Rooker-Feldman is the notion that a federal case cannot be in effect an appeal of an adverse state ruling: if you are smart about formulating your case you can avoid it. If alimony, child custody, or divorce is central, the `domestic relations abstention’ is more problematic, but something that people should be working on overturning.

  • thurston861

    He has free speech Rights Rinaldo, he is in Austrailia.

  • http://BerkshireFatherhoodCoalition.com Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

    Amfortas:

    I know you are not speaking literally, but you have to watch your language. Many people may think you are serious about doing violence towards judges.

    Rinaldo

  • amfortas

    The lengths Juges and lawyers go to protect themselves from their own misdeeds is legendary. Quote from above – “(“Judges are not deprived of immunity from a suit for money damages merely because of allegations that they committed grave procedural errors or acted maliciously, corruptly, or with evil motive, intent, personal interest, bad faith, or outright malevolence”). ”

    If justice cannot be found in a wig and gown, it can be in a full metal jacket, as has happened before. Find a Court overlooked by a car park.

  • http://BerkshireFatherhoodCoalition.com Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

    Sunday, May 13, 2007

    It is a small world! I did not expect the pro se litigant to catch my blog and post a comment.

    Could you post just what the judges did do that was wrong—that wasn’t addressed in the actual opinion.

    Also, some of the statements about judicial immunity does not completely reconcile with other cases from other states. For instance, I am not sure all courts would agree that a judicial act prompted by malice and completely in defiance of clearly established law would be subject to judicial immunity. But the bottom line is still this. IT HAS TO BE WAY OUT THERE, beyond the pale of illegality, beyond anything any normal judge would do (such as taking a bribe), before a litigant should even think about suing a judge.

  • bombbombbombbomb

    “going into federal court instead.” Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

  • riemers

    I enjoyed reading your comments and it was nice to see an intelligent review of some of these issues instead of the normal blank stare you get from the news media. Yes, the court has definitely put me on notice that they will hit me with attorney fees whenever and however they can. It does not matter the fact or the law. In fact, the Attorney General´s office uses the same generic request for attorney fees no matter what the case is. In the case you wrote about it is on its next step of the appeal process. Although I expect not to win on the judical immunity because of the politics of the question, the res judicata is something else. There is a legal standard for determining that, and the Court of Appeals did not even begin to address the issue. In any case, win or loose, I am hoping the attorney fees are knocked off. Interestingly, the state was at the same time awarded attorney fees in a case where I claimed denial of free speech when I was standing on a public sidewalk collecting initiative signatures.

    As for future litigation, the only way around these attorney fee punishment is probably going into federal court instead. The problem with that is the costs are higher, and my experience with federal courts is you file the case and then just foreget it, as it will be years before you ever get a hearing. Still, I have knocked around in state court enough, I probably need to move up to the federal system anyway and start learning the ropes better there.
    Roland Riemers at riemers@wiktel.com

  • mruffolo

    I few father were pushed to their limits.

    One guy’s wife had two divorce attorneys, his children had attorneys, and his attorney was lying to him. He said that he could not win before the family judge even with evidence of wrong doing.

    To end the nonsense the father said that he directed his attention toward the attorneys. He reasoned that the police and courts care little about divorce attorneys because they are essentially small business owners who profit from the misery of others.

    The father said that he played expensive pranks on the businesses. This caused the business owners to spend extra time cleaning up and things straightening out and such.

    Lawyers want to make easy money, so he said the lawyers quickly drop out of the case.

    The pranks were clever and many. One was sending hookers to his place of business during business hours. Another was registering his business number at a sex-orientated dating service. Ordering emergency plumbing services.

    I considered that these actions were immature, yet he claimed his results were achieved.

    I expect that, like mothers, judges are a protected class of people.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise