Category: Court Cases

The Soldier Accused of Leaking Military Cables to WikiLeaks Is in Court Right Now « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

19 Dec 2011 at 5:09 PM

The Soldier Accused of Leaking Military Cables to WikiLeaks Is in Court Right Now

By Christopher Danzig

The former military intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks has spent the last four days in a Maryland military court, undergoing a hearing to determine whether or not his case will proceed to court-martial.

For those new to the party, 24-year-old Bradley Manning is accused of committing the biggest security breach in American history. He has been in detainment for the last 19 months, and he faces a multitude of military charges.

The Article 32 hearings, which began on Friday, are something akin to grand jury proceedings in civilian court. At the end, Investigating Officer Colonel Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve officer and Justice Department prosecutor, will decide recommend whether Manning’s case will proceed to court-martial.

So far, the hearings have been interesting to say the least. Let’s see what’s going on….

Kim Zetter at Wired’s Threat Level is blogging extensively about the hearings (and tweeting some color commentary from court):

Manning, who turned 24 Saturday, is charged with 22 violations of military law and faces possible life imprisonment. Manning, who at the time was an Army intelligence analyst, is accused of abusing his access to classified computer systems to leak diplomatic cables, Iraq and Afghanistan action reports and the so-called Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks. In chat logs published by Wired, Manning allegedly told Lamo that he leaked the documents as an act of political protest against a corrupt system and the he snuck files out of a shared workroom using rewritable CDs labeled with pop stars names, such as Lady Gaga.

One of the bigger revelations from the hearings is that the government produced chat logs from Manning’s own computer, where the soldier allegedly discussed leaking the cables. The messages had previously been made public, but Julian Assange and other Manning supporters claimed the chat messages could have been fabricated. Because the government found the logs on Manning’s own computer, forgery seems less likely.

The hearings have been understandably tense. Manning has a lot of supporters in the technology community. Although he has spent the last year and a half in custody, many say he is a whistleblower, not a traitor.

Back in April, more than 250 legal scholars signed a letter protesting the way the Justice Department was treating Manning. In the letter, signatories including Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe protested Manning’s “degrading and inhumane conditions.” The letter called the military’s conduct illegal and unconstitutional.

On Friday, the hearing started with a bang when defense attorneys accused Investigating Officer Colonel Almanza (the equivalent of a judge in the case) of bias, because of his work as a Justice Department prosecutor. The defense unsuccessfully asked Almanza to recuse himself. (Hmm, I wonder where we’ve seen that before?)

Earlier today, retired lieutenant and prominent Don’t Ask Don’t Tell activist Dan Choi told Politico he was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed while trying to attend the hearing.

Zetter reported another dramatic moment on Sunday, which reads like something out of A Few Good Men:

Proceedings in the court this morning continued in a contentious manner between defense attorney Coombs and the proceeding’s equivalent of a judge, Investigating Officer Capt. Paul Almanza. At one point, when the IO tried to stop a line of questioning with a witness, questioning the relevancy. Coombs abruptly walked to the defense table and grabbed a book containing Article 32 procedural rules and brandished it to Almanza.

“I would caution the investigating officer as to case law,” he said, adding that the defense should be given wide latitude in questioning to obtain evidence.

“The IO should not arbitrarily limit cross-examination, ” he said. “I am not going off into the ozone layer about this. . . I should be allowed to ask questions about what this witness saw so I can have this testimony under oath as part of discovery.”

Zetter reports that the defense is trying to show that the Army should have responded better to behavioral problems Manning exhibited early in his enlistment. He should have never been deployed, or he should have lost his security clearance earlier, “both of which would have made it impossible for him to obtain the documents he allegedly leaked to WikiLeaks.”

So which is it? Traitor or courageous hero? Should the government put him in jail and throw away the key, or throw him a parade?

Army Arrested Manning Based on Unconfirmed Chat Logs [Threat Level / Wired]
DADT activist Dan Choi barred from Bradley Manning hearing [Politico]
Request for Recusal Denied in Case Against Manning [Associated Press]

Christopher Danzig is a writer in Oakland, California. He covers legal technology and the West Coast for Above the Law. Follow Chris on Twitter @chrisdanzig or email him at cdanziggmail.com. You can read more of his work at chrisdanzig.com.

The Soldier Accused of Leaking Military Cables to WikiLeaks Is in Court Right Now « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

Foreclosure Hell…

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, foreclosure, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

                                                                Important Evidence & Affidavit in Foreclosure Law Firm, Robo-Signing, & MBS Investigation          

From Nye Lavalle

Thu, Oct 20, 2011 1:18pm                                                                             
From Nye Lavalle

Dear Attorneys General:

Recently, the Office of Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency released reports about a special counsel investigation by Fannie Mae and that a shareholder had warned and provided Fannie Mae and others as far back as 2003 about robo-signing and foreclosure abuses. This story was picked up by the NY Times’ Gretchen Mogenson and a plethora of other news media. While Gretchen and the FHFA didn’t name me, I was nonetheless ousted since she and many others, including some of you, knew this shareholder was me.

I have been working hard behind the scenes to warn and stop the catastrophic events of the past few years which I first forecast in 1996! I have spent almost $1 million and spent over 40,000 hours since 1994 investigating, researching, and documenting these frauds. I have millions of pages of documents and a history like a bear in the woods who has left a trail all the way up to personally warning and communicating to the CEOs of virtually every bank, servicer, and Wall Street firm of these abuses. I took shares in each of these companies in the late 90s to warn them. Jaime Dimon, William Harrison, Kerry Killinger, Ace Greenberg, and James Cayne are just a few. However, the ratings agencies were warned as well as law firms and accounting firms, especially Deloitte!

As the shareholder that in 2003 warned Fannie Mae and worked with the independent counsel they appointed, Mark Cymrot, of Baker Hostetler in Washington DC, I have a unique perspective as well as set of facts that each of you could never obtain due to the cost and time limitations, that I have accumulated since 1993, almost 20-years!

However, as you will see by the attached letter to FHFA and links to reports and warnings I have authored since the mid-nineties, many were warned, including some of your offices since the mid to late nineties. I am also the individual that first discovered robo-signing and foreclosure fraud in the mid-nineties and authored reports documenting such abuses starting in the mid-nineties, until a "visiting judge" in Dallas, TX gagged me from telling this story.

It wasn’t until 2000, at the National Consumer Law Center conference in Colorado when I released reports on these frauds and abuses. Some of your lawyers were in attendance and were provided two reports. Only Max Gardner, a bankruptcy lawyer from North Carolina, took the reports to heart and began a decade-old fight to expose this corruption.

Robo-signing and foreclosure fraud and the intentional fraudulent filing of lawsuit complaints, advertisements of sale, assignments of mortgage, satisfactions of mortgage, and affidavits, as you will see from my well-documented reports, are not a recent phenomenon or the result of the securitization craze that swept America and the world from the late nineties to mid-2000’s.

They were carefully planned and orchestrated after the RTC debacle in the late 80s wherein a select group of "special servicers," commonly referred to in the industry as the industry’s "toxic waste dumps," were created to push these newly developed and even "patented" foreclosure factory processes that the four major special servicers "tested" and then "perfected" for the rest of the industry. These special servicers are known to many of you, but their names were EMC Mortgage, SPS f/k/a Conti-Fairbanks Capital, Ocwen, and Litton Loan.

Through "partnerships" with firms like the Barrett Burke operation in Texas, the LOGs group (Shapiro) out of Illinois, the McCalla Raymer group in Georgia and many others, they created an automated foreclosure machine that threw all caution to the wind when it not only came to ethics, but the law. In a newly expanding "virtual" world, they, along with vendors and third parties such as title insurers Fidelity National and First American created patented and marketable "cradle-to-grave" systems and processes to expand the housing and mortgage markets and cover-up and conceal the known fraud to all of them perpetrated mostly by aggressive loan brokers and occasionally borrowers and factored such losses and circumstances into their system. I can provide each of you with mens rea and scienter to prosecute for frauds.

As they tested these systems and perfected their fraud via such practices as intentionally concealing the real ownership of a promissory note and first foreclosing in the names of servicers who claimed to "own" the notes and then MERS, they really were double and multi-pledging the promissory notes to themselves and others to obtain servicing advances as well as take gain on sale accounting treatments on the notes they originated with no risk to them, since they had already forward sold the notes to our respective mutual, trust, and pension funds.

As you each take your own collective and individual approaches towards your investigations, I would whole-heartedly agree with Attorneys General Scheiderman, Biden, Harris, and others who want to continue this investigation. If you don’t continue and right the wrongs, I will boldly predict that each of you will have blood on your hands. I say this as no threat of any means whatsoever, but as a warning based on my understanding as a social scientist and advocate of the human psyche that for some is weak, but for others is broken. If you look at my forecasts and predictions over the years, I have one heck of a batting average in getting it right. As my former partner, Dr. Roy Stout who was featured in the book Blink, would say, I see things and data that others want to ignore. For the first time in my life, I am scared – – scared, not for me, but for our nation and our nation’s youth and those who might have to endure the consequence of the excesses of my generation.

Today, its mortgages, but when these young students, like an ex-girlfriend who at 22 left school with $150,000 in student debt realize what has occurred, all bets will be off. Today, they are peaceful – – tomorrow, they may be vengeful! The Occupy Wall Street movement is only the start. The American public and world, want to see accountability. They want to see perps walk. They want the intentional bankers, hedge funds, and Wall Street executives who intentionally created and manipulated this world-wide financial debacle prosecuted. If you don’t do it, I fear as the nation and the world’s economy suffers even more, there will be total anarchy in the streets as well as assaults and even "non-political" assassinations against banking CEOs, Wall St executives, and foreclosure lawyers, by para-military right and left wing extremists that were former Army Rangers and Navy Seals who are not only disenchanted with the current situation, but disenfranchised. Living in Savannah, GA last year, I met many Rangers each evening who were angry, very angry for fighting a war that they realized was not for Americans, but for other interests. The discussions I would have in the evenings were illuminating and gave me a great respect for our nation’s military men and women.

However, as they lose more friends, limbs, spouses, their sanity and now their homes, a combustible mixture that is not only flammable, but toxic is spreading. You can see it in the OWS movement and some of the videos. I say these things not to scare you, but to warn you once again and most importantly, to EMPOWER EACH OF YOU, collectively or individually.

You have each been give a god-given opportunity at a vital point in our nation and the world’s history. Each of you, if you do your jobs and ignore the politics, political influence, and lobbying from both banks and the federal government, have a special moment in time to leave a mark. A mark that historians will one day write was the day America and the world decided to be free of political and banking influence and truly helped create a world democracy.

The money now, whether it is $20 billion or $50 billion in the scheme of trillion dollar losses is really not what the people are angry at. They was to see accountability and those who not only created the situation, but manipulated it or ignored it to their personal gain be prosecuted. I hear their voices each day and that’s why I am coming out of the closet, so to speak, despite the threats against my family and I to offer my help and assistance in doing what is right for this nation, our people, and those youths protesting for what they know, that many in our generation simply ignored as they drove their BMWs, put dope up their noses, and lived it up at the expense of their children and grand children.

Now is the time. I can give you the goods on many of these if you want to really follow the patented fraud. Have you all read the patents as yet of all these so-called "processes?" The most human element in the entire automated factory were the actual ignorant robo-signers! In fact, when I discovered and reported on robo-signing, I did so just to give one "minor example of the overall fraudulent scheme that was designed not to defraud borrowers who were only pawns in the "game" as it was called, but our respective pension funds and extraction of our so-called excess wealth.

Think about it, for a moment if you will. Robo-signing is such an elementary fraud, so simple, so stupid, so petty! The real fraud and why the banks want to settle with you so quickly is the securitization and the fact that none of these deals were "true sales," but the financing of receivables whereby investors were defrauded and multi-pledging of paid off notes occurred to inflate their earnings, stock prices, and bonuses.

How many of you have had your original wet-ink promissory note returned to you canceled and paid in full upon its payoff or refinancing? Ask around the office? Then, check your lien release or satisfaction and see if it was robo-signed? Who is your real lender?

Open the black Pandora’s box of financial alchemy in securitization and you will find the multi-pledging and sale of paid off notes, the same notes, and even "ghost notes" that were created with Photoshop and never even executed by a real live borrower. I will save the death threats, break-ins, arsons, computer hacks, and millions of dollars of vexatious litigation by the banks and its foreclosure lawyers against my family, myself, our trusts, and the select group of advocates who were the first to take the baton from my hand for another day. I will even save the bribery of judicial officers, court reporters, and local judges for another day. All I ask is for each of you to think long and very hard, before letting the banks, their servicers, vendors, and lawyers off the hook.

I’ll come to see any of you and give any of you my deposition as well as access to whatever I possess in terms of evidence. I would also suggest that you ask each bank you are investigating and law firm to preserve all evidence and provide to you everything they have in their possession that contains my name "Nye Lavalle" or "Aneurin Lavalle" or this email address that I have had since the mid-nineties. <mortgagefrauds@aol.com>                                                                                                              I am also more than willing to take polygraph exams, should you find that necessary.  In essence, all I personally want is the real and true story told by a real and true investigation and the subsequent civil and criminal prosecution of those responsible for this nation’s morass.

I pray some, or all of you, will take me up on my offer. Please feel free to call or email me at any time if I can be of assistance to you or any of your collective or respective investigations!

Nye Lavalle

FANNIE AND FREDDIE OF FORECLOSURE ABUSES

by nootkabear, posted in Court Cases, foreclosure, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

Original Message—–
From: Nye Lavalle

To: OIGhotline <OIGhotline@fhfa.gov>; DeputyDirector-Enterprises <DeputyDirector-Enterprises@FHFA.gov>;                      Director <Director@FHFA.gov>; DeputyDirector-FHLBanks <DeputyDirector-FHLBanks@FHFA.gov>;                    GeneralCounsel<GeneralCounsel@FHFA.gov>; Ombudsman <Ombudsman@FHFA.gov>
                                                                        Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 10:28 pm
Subject: I AM THE FANNIE SHAREHOLDER NAMED IN YOUR OIG REPORTS THAT WARNED FANNIE AND FREDDIE OF FORECLOSURE ABUSES IN 2003 AND AFTER

Gentlemen,

By way of introduction, my name is Nye Lavalle and I am the shareholder/investor, referenced in your recent OIG reports that warned Fannie Mae’s board and CEO of foreclosure and legal abuses almost a decade ago. For over a year, I worked closely with Fannie Mae and Mark Cymrot of Baker Hostetler, who was the independent counsel appointed by Fannie Mae, to investigate allegations contained in my 2004 report. I also warned Freddie Mac and its board as well.

The attached letter will provide you more information and hopefully open a dialogue between us that will help us find solutions for our nation and its citizens as well as hold those responsible, accountable for their actions.

To that end, I stand ready and able to assist you each in your respective duties at FHFA and the OIG for FHFA.

Sincerely,

Nye Lavalle

SEC Investigates S&P in Mortgage Crisis

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, foreclosure, law, Legal

Law.com

SEC Investigating Standard & Poor’s Role in Mortgage-Crisis CDO

Brian Glaser Contact

Corporate Counsel

September 27, 2011

On Monday, Standard & Poor’s parent company McGraw-Hill reported its receipt of a Wells notice from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, warning of potential civil charges against the ratings agency for its role in the recent mortgage crisis.
According to CNN/Money, "the commission could fine the company for alleged securities violations related to a 2007 collateralized debt obligation deal that S&P rated. . . The CDO deal in question, known as Delphinus CDO 2007-1, was arranged by Mizuho International and Delaware Investments acted as the collateral manager. In 2007, S&P had a AAA rating on the security, which was backed largely by subprime mortgages."
McGraw-Hill was notified by the SEC on September 22 and, according to Financial Times, the move by the regulatory agency "marks the first time the SEC has sought to pursue charges against a ratings company in connection with its rating of a CDO, linked to pools of residential mortgages." S&P’s is also facing an ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice into its rating procedures.
The SEC’s action comes nearly two months after S&P’s downgraded the U.S. government’s credit rating.
As the SEC looks into possible charges against the company, The New York Times reports that the outcome is not clear-cut:

Standard & Poor’s and other rating agencies were not generally the architects of deals like Delphinus, but the AAA ratings they placed on parts of those deals were critical to the banks’ abilities to sell them to investors. S.& P. and other agencies made record profits placing ratings on mortgage securities like Delphinus, but they did not provide any sort of promises to investors that their ratings were accurate. If investigators at the S.E.C. or the Justice Department find that analysts at S.&P. intentionally gave out inaccurate ratings, that could be a violation of the law.

The news had an immediate effect on S&P’s and its parent company in one regard. Forbes reports of McGraw-Hill stock on Monday: "Shares slid 42 cents to $42.51 in afternoon trading. Earlier, the stock traded as low as $41.50."

See also, "Standard & Poor’s Sees Risk of U.S. Debt Default as Risk to U.S. Business," CorpCounsel, July 2011; and "The U.S. Credit-Rating Downgrade Will Keep In-House Lawyers Busy," CorpCounsel, August 2011.

Failure to show ownership

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, foreclosure, Judges, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

http://sn133w.snt133.mail.live.com/default.aspx#fid=265f0c107cc149b19b373483f323013d&n=1553048258&mid=2a5a8184-e5e5-11e0-91bc-002264c17c74&fv=1

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gabay

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Opinion Date: September 15, 2011

Judge: Alexander

Areas of Law: Commercial Law, Consumer Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Janelle Gabay defaulted on a promissory note secured by a mortgage of her real property. HSBC Bank USA, the holder of the mortgage, filed a complaint for foreclosure and sale against Gabay. The district court granted HSBC’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that entry of judgment as a matter of law was precluded where (1) HSBC’s statement of material facts failed to properly present proof of ownership of the mortgage note; (2) HSBC’s statement of material facts did not contain an adequate description of the mortgaged premises including a street address; (3) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the order of priority and amounts due to other parties-in-interest; and (4) the amount of costs due as part of the amount due on the mortgage was not included in the summary judgment record as required. Remanded.

Money

BuzzNet Tags:

Utah Supreme Court

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Judges, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal
Pyper v. Bond

http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2011/20091025-11.html

Docket: 20091025
Opinion Date: July 29, 2011

Judge: Durrant

Areas of Law: Commercial Law, Consumer Law, Trusts & Estates

David Pyper hired attorney Justin Bond to represent him in a probate matter. Bond’s law firm subsequently sued Pyper to obtain payment of the attorney fees. The district court entered a judgment in favor of the law firm for $10,577. To satisfy the judgment, Bond filed a lien against a house owned by Pyper that was worth approximately $125,000. Bond was the only bidder at the sheriff’s sale auctioning Pyper’s home and purchased Pyper’s home for $329. Pyper later communicated his desire to redeem his property to Dale Dorius, another attorney at the firm, but was unable to speak to Bond after several attempts. After the redemption period expired, the deed to Pyper’s home was transferred to Bond. Pyper subsequently filed a petition seeking to set aside the sheriff’s sale of his property. The district court set aside the sheriff’s sale. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court of appeals did not err in (1) concluding that gross inadequacy of price together with slight circumstances of unfairness may justify setting aside a sheriff’s sale and (2) affirming the district court’s conclusion that Bond and Dorius’s conduct created, at least, slight circumstances of unfairness.

http://j.st/cZN

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

DEKALB COUNTY GOES FROM BAD TO WORSE.  NOW, THE ELECTED ENTITIES, ARE STABBING EACH OTHER IN THE BACK, THEN WHEN THAT PERSON IS GONE, THE PREDATOR TAKES THE JOB, AND SHE BRAGS ABOUT WHAT SHE HAS DONE; What the hell is this county, and the state of GEORGIA coming to?

http://www.atlawblog.com/2011/04/former-dekalb-court-clerk-sues-successor/

Former DeKalb Court Clerk Sues Successor
9:16 am, April 20th, 2011

Former DeKalb County Superior Court Clerk Linda Carter has sued the woman who now holds that title, Debra DeBerry, alleging that DeBerry tricked her into resigning from the job.

Carter sued DeBerry in her official capacity and individually, and seeks unspecified damages. Carter also sued Gov. Nathan Deal, seeking a writ of mandamus to remove DeBerry from office and to compel official recognition of Carter’s “status as the rightful elected Clerk.” The complaint alleges that Deal accepted the letter of resignation without knowing it was “null and void.”

Carter is represented by A. Lee Parks and James E. Radford Jr. of Parks, Chesin & Walbert. The suit, filed in DeKalb Superior Court, does not list counsel for DeBerry.

DeBerry’s chief deputy clerk, Rick Setser, who also serves as her public information officer, said the county attorney had advised both him and DeBerry not to comment.

“It’s unfortunate,” he said. “I’ve spoken to Ms. DeBerry, and she is eager to clear her name.”

Parks, in an earlier conversation with the Daily Report, said Carter suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and would not have left willingly, as she was two years shy of vesting in her pension and medical benefits. The complaint alleges that on the afternoon of March 24, Deputy Clerk Lisa Oakley—who is not a defendant in the suit—“acting on instructions from DeBerry” and with knowledge that “Carter was suffering from a temporary episode of dementia,” asked her to sign a letter of resignation.

“The letter was presented to Carter as a routine business document … its contents were obscured from Carter’s view. Oakley, acting on DeBerry’s instructions, did not inform Carter that she was being asked to sign a letter of resignation. … Oakley, acting on DeBerry’s instructions, and knowing that Carter did not know or understand the document’s content … indicated some urgency in having Carter sign the document.”

Oakley was not immediately available for comment.

The complaint alleges that on the evening that Carter signed her resignation letter, her husband, John Carter, came to pick her up from work and Oakley escorted her to the car. Oakley told Carter’s husband that “DeBerry had ordered that Oakley have Carter sign a letter of resignation.”

Also, allegedly on DeBerry’s instructions, Oakley said that Chief Judge Mark Anthony Scott “had ordered the Sheriff of DeKalb County, Georgia, to forcibly remove Carter from office.”

Scott said he did not even learn about Carter’s resignation until after it had been tendered and that he neither attempted to remove Carter from office nor ordered the sheriff to do so. He said he did not even have that authority. “I read those allegations. I do not know where they come from,” he said.

According to the complaint, when Carter’s husband called Setser, the chief deputy clerk, to discuss the circumstances of the resignation, Setser allegedly said he and DeBerry jointly created the letter and agreed to have Carter sign it “to avoid media inquiries into Carter’s medical condition.”

The case, Carter v. DeBerry, 11cv4584, has been assigned to DeKalb Superior Judge Daniel R. Coursey Jr.

GA Court of Appeals Does It Again!

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

GA Court of Appeals Does It Again!.

Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. Edited this Book on the Calling to Be A Lawyer? That Explains the Corruption

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law

New Title! A Life In The Law: Advice For Young Lawyers, edited by William S. Duffey, Jr. and Richard A. Schneider American Bar Association, 2009
Call Number: KF 372 .L54 2009

In this book’s nineteen essays, editors Duffey (U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia) and Schneider (senior partner at King & Spalding in Atlanta) examine the calling to be a lawyer. Contributing authors include Griffin Bell, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge who was appointed by President Kennedy and served as Attorney General under President Carter; Paul Clement, former Solicitor General under George W. Bush; and Leah Sears, who at age 36 was the youngest lawyer and the first woman to sit on the Georgia Supreme Court, and later became its first Black female Chief Justice. These and many others write about the values of the profession, the responsibility of lawyers to their communities, and their duty of service to clients, to the public, and to each other. Also addressed are the troublesome issues of how hard lawyers are expected to work, and what sacrifices they should and shouldn’t make.

Georgia Citizens Rights to the Courts

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?id=1202473818462

Page printed from: Law Technology News

Georgia Mulls Citizens’ Right to Access Courts via E-File
Greg Land
10-25-2010

A DeKalb County judge expressed surprise Tuesday when an attorney representing the parent company of LexisNexis asserted that the public has no constitutional right of access to the courts. The exchange came in a hearing before DeKalb Superior Court Judge Robert J. Castellani on a motion for summary judgment in a case that seeks to have Fulton County’s e-filing system declared unconstitutional.

The case is the fourth iteration of a potential class action against Fulton County and its e-filing system, and charges that the Fulton court’s requirement that documents be filed via the fee-based LexisNexis File & Serve system declared an unconstitutional violation of citizens’ right to access the courts. The suit also says the Fulton court’s requirement violates Georgia law that stipulates the method by which legal documents must be filed and constitutes an “illegal scheme” between the county and LexisNexis’ parent company, Reed Elsevier, to “impose an unlawful mandatory e-filing system upon litigants in Fulton County State and Superior Court and to charge excessive and unauthorized fees in connection therewith.”

In a series of orders beginning in 1999, approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners and signed by then-State Court Chief Judge Albert L. Thompson, cases must be e-filed if they involve asbestos, Fen-Phen, mercury or lead, silicosis, welding rods, medical or legal malpractice, personal injury, cases with four or more plaintiffs or defendants, cases in which more than $50,000 in damages is being sought, torts cases, and those in which no specific dollar figure is demanded.

In Superior Court, certain asbestos and silicosis cases must e-file, and all filings in the criminal case against convicted Fulton County Courthouse shooter Brian Nichols also are required to be e-filed.

The complaint says that LexisNexis charges administrative fees of between $7 and $12 for each document filed in addition to the courts’ statutory filing fees, according to the complaint. A public access terminal at the courthouse allows pro se litigants to register and file documents without paying the fee.

The plaintiffs include three attorneys; a non-attorney who, as administrator of his father’s estate, “has been subjected to the Lexis fees”; and a corporate entity, Best Jewelry Manufacturing, which was a party to a suit in Fulton County State Court in 2008.

At one point, according to the complaint, Best’s attorney “was ‘locked out’ of defendant Lexis’ e-filing due to counsel’s alleged failure to pay fees,” and was thus unable to file a motion in the case.

The original eight-count complaint included charging Fulton County and Reed Elsevier with violating Georgia laws that require any court to accept paper filings, and forbidding “usage fees, interest, finance charges, administrative fees and other assessments not authorized by Georgia law.” Other counts allege violations of the rules governing state courts, and of the Georgia Constitution’s guarantee of access to the courts.

An amended complaint in March added counts of conversion and money had and received, which pertains to the fees already collected from the system’s users.

Atlanta attorney Steven J. Newton previously filed two similar suits in federal court; he voluntarily dismissed the first one in 2007, and the court dismissed the second last year. He also filed and voluntarily dismissed a 2007 suit in Fulton County Superior Court where the current suit, with two additional plaintiffs, was filed in January. The Fulton bench recused, and the case was assigned to Castellani.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the court heard arguments concerning Reed Elsevier’s motion to dismiss the suit. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker partner William K. Whitner, representing the company, argued that the dismissals of the earlier suits, and the submission of several amended complaints to them, indicated that the case has no merit and should be dismissed.

Further, he said, several of the allegations had no bearing on his client.

Reed “is a private party,” he said, and assertions that it could violate laws and regulations relating to the behavior of courts, clerks, or state agencies “have nothing to do with a contractual supplier like Reed Elsevier.”

Whitner pointed to the March 23, 2009, order dismissing the second federal case authored by U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey Jr., which includes the statement that “[p]laintiffs’ state law claims, to the extent they can be discerned at all, repeatedly allege violations of Georgia statutes and court rules that could be broken, if at all, only by the government defendants in this case.”

That order, said Whitner, “while not binding on this court, is certainly instructional.”

“It’s clear that, even if the e-filing were instituted improperly — which we do not believe — Reed has no control,” he said.

But it was Whitner’s statement on the constitutional claims that got Castellani’s attention.

“On the constitutional claims,” said Whitner, “they repeatedly refer to it as a ‘right to access to the courts.’ … The Georgia Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no constitutional right to access to the courts.”

“Did you just say there’s no right of access to the courts?” asked Castellani.

“No constitutional right,” said Whitner.

“So a court could establish a filing fee of $1,000, and if somebody didn’t have it, that would be OK?” asked the judge.

“It’s not even a close call,” said Whitner, citing Article 1 of the state Constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person’s own cause in any of the courts of this state.”

“This provides a right to representation,” he said. “That’s the what the case law says; I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.”

“I hope that’s not what your case rests on,” replied Castellani.

Newton’s co-counsel, associate Shuli L. Green, rose for the plaintiffs, first arguing that Georgia’s voluntary dismissal doctrine clearly allows a case to be voluntarily dismissed and refiled, and that the addition of the new plaintiffs meant that they should certainly have their chance in court.

“Does that mean that no class action could ever be subject to the voluntary dismissal doctrine” as long as new plaintiffs were added? asked Castellani.

“Not until the putative class members are certified by the court,” Green replied.

“That makes sense,” she added, “since we don’t even know who the class members are yet.”

As to Reed’s assertions that it could not be held responsible for the actions of state actors, Green replied that the company is “the functional equivalent of Fulton County as far as setting these filing fees.”

But she saved her harshest critique for the defense argument that the state Constitution affords no right to access to the courts.

She cited the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling in Nelms v. Georgia Manor Condo Association (253 Ga. 410), which held that while the right to access to the courts is not unfettered, “it is axiomatic that an individual must have access to the courts in order to assert the right of self-representation provided by [the right to the courts provision].”

The requirement that all attorneys pay the fees and may not file by mail or in person is onerous enough, she said, but the burden on pro se filers — who have to either sign up with Lexis to pursue their case, or make their way to the Fulton County Courthouse, perhaps at considerable expense, to use the free PAT terminals creates a hardship that breaches constitutional strictures, she said.

Further, she said, the necessity to make that choice itself impacts a citizen’s right to select his or her choice of representation.

She also noted that, under the defense interpretation, there is no limit as to what fees can be charged.

“That proposition does concern me a little bit,” said Castellani, although “I don’t think it’s relevant here. There are alternatives available.”

“Their argument is that you don’t have to pay [to use the PATs],” she said, “but if you do have a lawyer your only option is to either have your lawyer file orders and pay him for his time, or pay a lawyer to use the free terminal, so it’s not free.”

Castellani did not issue any rulings, nor did he indicate when he might do so.

In response to an inquiry, a Reed Elsevier spokesman provided an e-mailed statement.

“LexisNexis has worked with the Fulton County courts since 1999 to provide court personnel and legal professionals with an efficient way to handle the exchange of legal documents through File & Serve,” it said. “The service allows for increased control over case file management, quicker and more cost effective filing and service, improved access to information and enhanced case monitoring. We believe the residents of Fulton County also benefit by the Court’s ability to more efficiently manage documents and reduce costs for document storage and administration.”

The case is McCurdy v. Fulton County, No. 2010CV179757.

A similar case is proceeding in federal court in Texas, where a class action was filed earlier this year against a judge, court clerk and county. In 2003, Montgomery County District Court Judge Frederick E. Edwards issued an order requiring that civil case documents be filed only through LexisNexis, exempting only filings filed by the state, Child Protective Services, adoptive actions, and new divorce and annulment cases that are resolved within 90 days, according to the complaint.

The Texas suit alleges constitutional equal protection and due process violations, and asserts that the arrangement between the company and county constitutes a violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law.

The case in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is McPeters v. Edwards, No. 4:10-CV-1103.

Beware of Court’s Clerks

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, law, Legal

Order on Appeal from Probate Court

by nootkabear, posted in Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal
After waiting for almost four years for an Order on Appeal/Void Judgment from DeKalb County Probate Court Judge Rosh’s Order. The Court had set three peremptory hearings, and a jury trial hearing. This morning another peremptory hearing was scheduled. Judge Elliott A Shoenthall replaced Judge Scott. When he performed roll call, he informed James that the case had been dismissed March 2006 by Order. He stated that something must have been filed wrong. Judge Shoenthall announced a two minute recess. The Judge and clerks were gone about twenty minutes.
Judge Shoenthall obviously read the file and read the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law James filed in January before the jury trial hearing date.
Judge Shoenthall promised James if he would wait, he would get the Order. Not only did James receive the Order from Judge Scott’s 2006 Ruling, he presented us with an appealable Order dated today. The clerk made sure to inform James that the Order would be appealable.
Judge Shoenthall must have realized all that James had ever wanted was the Right to Appeal the Order, but without an Order, you cannot Appeal. Notice of Intent to Appeal had been filed with Judge Scott before he Ruled, and two Motions for Orders had been filed, but no Order was forthcoming.

Thanks Judge Shoenthall!

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Georgia Supreme Court Opinions Database: Direct Appeal Opinions

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Injustice, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

Georgia Supreme Court Opinions Database: Direct Appeal Opinions.

Georgia Supreme Court Opinion: Smith et al. v. Baptiste et al.

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Injustice, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law

Georgia Supreme Court Opinion: Smith et al. v. Baptiste et al..

Georgia Supreme Court Opinion: State of Georgia ex rel. Doyle v. Frederick J.Hanna

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Injustice, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

Georgia Supreme Court Opinion: State of Georgia ex rel. Doyle v. Frederick J.Hanna.

Court Thwarts Governor’s Attempt to Investigate Debt Collection Firm (via Georgia Supreme Court Blog)

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Injustice, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

In a 4-to-3 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court has upheld a ruling by a Cobb County court prohibiting a state official from investigating a law firm that collects debts on behalf of creditors. Background Joseph Doyle is the Administrator of the Fair Business Practices Act of 1975, Georgia's principal consumer protection law that prohibits deceptive practices involving consumer trade. Doyle enforces the law through the Governor's Office of Consum … Read More

via Georgia Supreme Court Blog

In the Domain Name World

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

For all of those who are involved in domain names, visits Domain news websites, and/or keeps up with the Rick Latona auctions…

All I have to say is the following in support of John Zuccarini in the DS Holdings v Zuccarini and/or the Zuccarini v NameJet, Network Solutions, Verisign, Enom cases:

“Equal Justice for All”????

If you go back to the original Office Depot v Zuccarini suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction and venue. They claimed quasi in rem jurisdiction under ACPA, but still a problem… In that case they should have had to go to VA to do the suit.

Then Office Depot gets this judgment, and never tried to collect on it, yea DSH has repeatedly claimed that Office Depot couldn’t ever collect because of Zuccarini and his notorious way of moving around and not being able to find him. That too is hogwash.

The facts clearly show that Zuccarini was living in FL since 2001 and was fairly easy to find (most of the time); nevertheless, Office Depot never bothered to file the Judgment in FL, so that means they never tried to collect on it.

And for everyone else that wants to say some really bad things about Zuccarini… he may be alot of things, but really people “criminal notorious cybersquatter”; “serial cybersquatter”, and other references, which are really quite worse… Then you have some asshole attorney, Kronie, who claims that the Shields case is where some of the worse comes from. I read the Shields Appellate Court Opinion, it didn’t say that at all. It said:

“Although Zuccarini’s sites did not involve pornography, his intent was the same as that mentioned in the legislative history above — to register a domain name in anticipation that consumers would make a mistake, thereby increasing the number of hits his site would receive, and, consequently, the number of advertising dollars he would gain.”

So John was given a bad time, and there are a lot of wild rumors out there, and a lot of people want to say a lot of BullShit, but really… does that make DS Holdings, Rick Latona, or any other number of entities better? They are actually bigger crooks than Zuccarini could ever be… Kronie does it under the guise of being an attorney.

Maybe that is why attorneys have bad names (not all attorneys, Berryhill has shown to not be quite like the rest, and I hear good things about several others that run domain news websites)

Then you have this Judge…Illston. What the hell kind of Judge allows that much fraud upon the Court in their Courtroom? Is she just stupid, or is she in on it too?
Does DS Holdings somehow own Illston?

Hell, now I have more questions than I had before I found out that Kronie is DSH!

The Invention of a criminal statute in order to arrest a citizen

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal
Basically that is exactly what happened.  I don’t really know onto who’s Birthday cake John Zuccarini shit so many years ago, but the whole incident has had the Domain world talking about it off and on for more than ten years. 
Yes, the gov’t did invent a new crime in order to arrest Zuccarini; why?  Because they could.  Where in the hell is due process of law when that happens?
Don’t take my word for it, John Berryhill is an attorney, and well known in the “Domain” world… Berryhill was responding to one of my questions on the matter as I was trying to learn more about the situation…
John Berryhill
June 9th, 2010 | 3:38 pm

“My question is this… If Zuccarini was prosecuted for using these particular domain names, are they not illegal?”

There are several legal actions involving what might be termed “Zuccarini domains”.

The basic lay of the land in THIS case is that an attorney in California bought uncollected civil judgments against Zuccarini and used those judgments to levy against his *other* domain names. In that view, *these* domain names were not the ones which triggered the civil judgments (which I believe also transferred the infringing domains). It is something like my putting a lien against your house because I obtained a judgment against you for hitting me with your car.

Now, there is another shoe to drop here, because the US government also has some outstanding issues, and has filed to intervene in the case. The US issues relate, IMHO, to back taxes and to a judgment with the FTC obtained against Zuccarini at some time in the murky past. Interestingly, the FTC order prevented him from engaging in a laundry list of activities involving trafficking in the entire set of his domain names.

Apart from all of that, there was a criminal conviction of Mr. Zuccarini resulting from an alleged violation of the Truth in Domain Names Act (or whatever it was called). Oddly, the indictment in that case relied on acts committed prior to the effective date of the statute, but Mr. Z took a plea deal for reasons unknown. US Attorneys can be very persuasive.

While the US has not completely dropped its shoe yet (the last time I checked the docket), it is not outside of the range of possibilities for the US to see things your way – i.e. that the collection of domains itself (cybersquatted or not) is somehow tainted as “instruments of crime” or some other theory that will snatch defeat from that clever California attorney’s hands.

Needless to say, the US government has large shoes.

The decade-long sweep of this story is epic.

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Mark Anthony Scott

by nootkabear, posted in Attorneys, Court Cases, Courts, Fraud Upon the Court, Injustice, Judges, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Rulings, law, Legal

Keep in mind, Judge Scott has had an Appeal and Void Judgment in front of him for over three years. He set it for Jury Trial that was to begin January 26, 2009. He failed to send Notice of trial to any of the parties.



Monday, January 26, 2009 in a wheelchair, I attended a “Jury Trial” calendar call in Superior Court before Judge Mark Anthony Scott for an Appeal from Probate Court, which was filed three years ago. When my name was called I responded; Judge asked if I was ready for trial, I responded that I was. Judge asked if I was proceeding Pro Se, I responded that I was. Judge asked if I was represented by counsel, I responded that No, I am proceeding Pro Se. The Judge asked me two more times if I was represented, and/or if I was proceeding Pro Se, I responded that I am proceeding Pro Se both times.



The clerk, very quietly spoke to the Judge. The Judge stated that there are “technical difficulties” in the file. I asked what the technical difficulties are. The Judge, very irritated stated to the Bailiff “take him out back!” I stated to the Judge: “All I did was ask what the difficulties are”; Judge responded: “I didn’t like your tone of voice!”; I responded: “I am in constant pain, I wasn’t rude”; Judge said: “Why didn’t you tell me that to begin with, I was having you arrested for contempt!”; I said nothing. The Judge then said: “Bailiffs take him out of my Courtroom!”



At that point the Bailiffs, one grabbing the handles of my wheelchair physically removed me from the courtroom. I waited outside approximately 30 minutes, decided I should go in case this Judge decided to have me arrested for contempt. I have heard nothing sense.