Pro-Se's can and should make lawyers fear them
Tom Sparks
On 22 Feb 1998 15:05:00 -0700, "Bob Hirschfeld, JD"
<news...@nolawyer.com> bravely declared:
>It was I, many months ago, who originally started the thread "Why Lawyers
>Fear Pro Se Litigants" My premises were:
>
>a) Most lawyers initially fail to recognize that pro-se opponents can be
>educated and effective, and therefore have their gaurd down, or don't
>prepare.
>
>b) Pro-Se's will usually not agree or be manipulated. A lawyer who cannot
>convince his opponent's lawyer to sell out the opponent client is in
>trouble.
>
>c) Pro-Se litigants are not bound by State Bar Rules of Ethics. A Pro-Se
>can get away with strategies and pleadings that, if submitted by a bar
>member, would subject the bar member to ethical sanction.
>
>d) A pro-se usually knows the facts of his case better than anyone who
>might represent him, and is willing to pursue his rights forever, rather
>than bailing out whjen the attorney fees run out.
>
>e) Finally, responding to the below-quoted post, The State Bars are a
>clannish "in-group". They go after political "outsiders" including bar
>members who iconclastically refuse to kow-tow to the political
>"insiders". The State Bars are corrupt, and not even their own members
>are safe from "insider" blackballing and attack. An ethical lawyer who
>crosses one of the high mucky-mucks of the State Bar is usually
>victimized by them.
>
>
>For pro-se's reading this response, there is competent education and help
>available to give opposing lawyers good reason to fear you.
>
>See: http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
>
>
>
>"michael j. walsh" <wals...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Bar enforcement units are manned largely by lawyers, but they are lawyers who love
>>nothing in life more than busting another lawyer. One of them described his job to me
>>as a "never-ending search for scumbag lawyers to dust." Do those sound like the words
>>of a lawyer who is biased in favor of other lawyers? Do you think that all lawyers wear
>>no hats other than their "lawyer" hats?
>>
>>Ronald Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Bar enforcement units of State Bars are manned by attorneys. Need I say
>>> more?
I finally found a newsgroup that had a message from you, and was
disappointed to learn that you are just peddling a book. It was my
hope that you were affiliated with some org that assisted pro se
litigants.
We have been embroiled in several pro se cases, one of which is a
horrendous child custody case. The issues that you address, both in
the newsgroups and at your site, are all things that we have found and
attempted to follow.
Nowhere, in anything, do you (or anyone else) address what to do when
the trial judge simply rules in total contradiction to the law, and
makes absurd demands upon the pro se litigant regarding perfecting
submitted documents (that were already prepared perfectly, while the
opposing attorney tossed off trash with numerous errors) and rules in
favour of the opposing party with quotes that never occurred before
the court. References from the bench in this case proved,
unquestionably, that numerous ex parte communications occurred with
the opposition.
No one addresses what to do when the clerk's office provides
intentionally misleading information that enables the court to deny
the hearing of most witnesses, or the enforcement of any hostiles to
appear.
Neither is addressed what to do when the appeals court replies, after
submission of perfect documents in accordance with law, "The appeal is
denied," and says NOTHING ELSE.
No one addresses the refusal of public assistance legal agencies to
provide like assistance to litigants within their jurisdiction, when
such litigants happen to live in other counties that do not have such
agencies.
No one addresses the refusal of civil rights organizations that handle
highly publicized cases in which homosexuality is a factor of
discrimination, to handle a practically identical case when the
litigant is a former lesbian activist who has abandoned that
lifestyle, and opposing attorneys and court officers give many
indications that they are currently part of that lifestyle.
Is there anyone out there with an interest in THESE issues? Our
concern is specifically for Georgia, and DeKalb County in Atlanta.
For CopWatch,
Tom Sparks newsgroup: alt.thebird.copwatch
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1794/copwatch.html
Brett Weiss
Tom Sparks wrote in message <3503f694...@nntp.stc.net>...
>I finally found a newsgroup that had a message from you, and was
>disappointed to learn that you are just peddling a book. It was my
>hope that you were affiliated with some org that assisted pro se
>litigants.
>We have been embroiled in several pro se cases, one of which is a
>horrendous child custody case. The issues that you address, both in
>the newsgroups and at your site, are all things that we have found and
>attempted to follow.
>
>Nowhere, in anything, do you (or anyone else) address what to do when
>the trial judge simply rules in total contradiction to the law, and
>makes absurd demands upon the pro se litigant regarding perfecting
>submitted documents (that were already prepared perfectly, while the
>opposing attorney tossed off trash with numerous errors) and rules in
>favour of the opposing party with quotes that never occurred before
>the court. References from the bench in this case proved,
>unquestionably, that numerous ex parte communications occurred with
>the opposition.
You do the same thing that all lawyers do when a judge makes a stupid
decision--you appeal.
>No one addresses what to do when the clerk's office provides
>intentionally misleading information that enables the court to deny
>the hearing of most witnesses, or the enforcement of any hostiles to
>appear.
You complain to the Court administrator, the Clerk of the Court and, if
necessary, your elected officials.
>Neither is addressed what to do when the appeals court replies, after
>submission of perfect documents in accordance with law, "The appeal is
>denied," and says NOTHING ELSE.
You appeal to the higher court.
>No one addresses the refusal of public assistance legal agencies to
>provide like assistance to litigants within their jurisdiction, when
>such litigants happen to live in other counties that do not have such
>agencies.
You lobby for funding for legal assistance in your county.
>No one addresses the refusal of civil rights organizations that handle
>highly publicized cases in which homosexuality is a factor of
>discrimination, to handle a practically identical case when the
>litigant is a former lesbian activist who has abandoned that
>lifestyle, and opposing attorneys and court officers give many
>indications that they are currently part of that lifestyle.
They can choose whatever cases they want to handle for whatever reason. You
have no *right* to have them handle your case.
>Is there anyone out there with an interest in THESE issues? Our
>concern is specifically for Georgia, and DeKalb County in Atlanta.
>
>
>For CopWatch,
>
>Tom Sparks newsgroup: alt.thebird.copwatch
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1794/copwatch.html
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
Issaqueena
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:59:43 -0500, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com>
grooved:
Why is it that when some people follow the procedures you have
mentioned above, that the results are consistently either being
denied, ignored, degraded, insulted and/or the next date being boosted
up? How can it be legal for treatment like that to continue for
years, especially regarding cases associated with children who could
be in mental and/or physical danger? Is it just routine for a child
to be in mental and/or physical danger for years without anyone being
required to show physical proof of that child's health? Say anyone's
word but the child's should be sufficient? I don't understand. Why
do people want to hurt others so badly?
Issaqueena Sparks (Walking Deer)
Man hunts deer now...someday deer will hunt man...think about it.
Ronald Williams
Brett Weiss wrote:
> --
> Brett
>
> *****************************************************************
> * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
> * *
> * BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
> * Attorneys at Law *
> * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
> * law...@erols.com *
> * http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
> * *
> * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
> ****************************************************************Ii
I have a case that involved a simple act but with horrendous results. A
Caucasian police officer defendant in my federal cause of action, files a
declaration under perjury that falsely attests to a material matter she knew to
be false. From the record and the responsive orders of the federal judges, the
judges knowingly adopted the perjured matter as legal justification to dismiss
my federal causes of action. I sent the two declarations that constituted the
criminal perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621 - 1623) to the United States Attorney. I also
sent the document that contained the matter the declarations under perjury
falsely attested too. I also reminded the U.S. Attorney of the federal
criminal civil rights statutes under 18 U.S.C. 242 and 1503, and that the State
actors conduct in federal court including the perjury, fell well within those
statutes. Nevertheless, apparently because I am a Black American with little
or no name recognition and because the persons complained against were Los
Angeles City officials and federal judges, the U.S. Attorney rejected my
Complaints - including the complaint and concrete evidence of perjury. The
federal judges involved in the deprivation of my rights and the City officials
escaped without any sanctions - in fact without even being investigated. If
anyone knows of a media source where I can make my plight a more publicized
one, please respond to: (1) Telephone 310-397-4195; (2) E-mail gips @ gte.net;
(3) Address 3905 Inglewood Blvd., #307, LA, CA 90066. One more thing. I just
read a case from the U.S. Supreme Court that held that a federal appeals court
may taken action against a judgment induced by fraud, no matter how long ago
the fraud and judgment took place. Yet, as I write this entry, the 9th Circuit
court has just rejected proof positive that a prior case decided by them two
years ago, had been the product of fraud. I am on my way to the United States
Supreme Court. My case before that court will include a clear case of acts and
failures to act, by a host of federal judges (trial and apppeals) that
constitute deprivation of rights and a clear case of obstruction of justice.
All of them by devious orders, decided all of my federal claims under a single
declaration of one of the defendants, that simply denied the injury in fact
that underlies all of my federal claims. I alleged I was unlawfully terminated
from my position of public employment. The California Superior court and the
State Court of Appeals affirmed that I was unlawfully terminated. Copies of
the judgment and affirming opinion were incorporated in the federal court
record. Yet, and in the face of that record, the federal judges' decision
rejecting my federal claims, did so, on the ground I had voluntarily retired
from my employment. The only evidence relied upon by the federal judges was
the declaration filed by one of the defendants under perjury, that I
voluntarily surrendered my employment. Thus, a case where federal judges
deemed a declaration as more probative than decisions of the California
Courts. Unbelievable but true. I have the record to prove each and every thing
I've just said. This kind of blatant conduct should not happen in the U.S. I
also say this. . . the federal judges I just wrote about also decide life and
death issues every single day. The degree of dishonesty each displayed as
jurists in my case, makes that thought a scary proposition. There is not a
single Afro-American regular judge on the 9th Circuit. When I sent a complaint
to the U.S. Attorney about all of this, again I was forced to deal with an all
Caucasian male cast of attorneys. My case proves that in some cases - JUSTICE
COMES IN COLORS AND DEPENDS ON COLOR.
>
George
that justice comes in colors, only some evidence. Your specific
situation is enough to arouse suspicion, particularly in this country
where so many people do have a color bias. But it is also true that
white boys (and girls) get burned by policemen daily in this country.
Sometimes the cops are mistaken, sometines they're lying. Ususally (as
I see it) they're telling the truth. In the end, just whom do you think
the system will believe, all other things being more or less equal. The
cop (servant of the people) or the other guy, who has something to gain
by making the cop out to be a liar? Pretty obvious answer.
Cops do, occasionally, get burned, too, when the facts are obvious.
Mark Furman, for example. I can't tell from your post just how you can
"prove" that the officer committed perjury. Frankly, if it's just a
swearing match between you and the cop, you lose. Nailing a lying cop
for perjury is damned difficult. But if that's what she's done, good
luck. You'll need it! -- George
Tom Sparks
I do appreciate your taking the time to reply to my extensive list of
complaints re prejudice against pro se in forma pauperis litigants,
but your replies add up (and they must be taken as a whole) to the
absolute need to have some judge agree with the litigant, in
opposition to the rest of the crooked judges and court officials.
The alternative, even as you present it, is to remove the crooks from
office and replace them with honest people.
What we need is an organization of citizens who fight this tyranny. I
have heard, previously of the existence of some such orgs - can you
refer us to any? How about an extensive list of all that you have,
with net addresses, email, etc.?
Tom Sparks
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:59:10 -0800, Ronald Williams <gi...@gte.net>
bravely declared:
I must ask, with apologies and assurances that I do not intend to
offend, if you will please use the "enter" key on occasion w/future
posts. This article is loaded with the very info that we want to see,
but it's REALLY hard to read.
Thank you for sharing this with us, and we sincerely hope that your
revelations will prompt many more to do the same.
Prosecutors regularly ignore calls for prosecution for perjury, and
that's why the system has become a sewer of lies and corruption -
attorneys know that they can do as they please with impunity.
There are, however, ways to force this issue, and it's time that we
began to actually DO something about it.
I want to help you get your cases properly prosecuted, and I want you
to help me get mine done.
If you know of any organizations that assist pro se/in forma pauperis
litigants, please tell us about them.
If we can't find any, shall we create one? We need to get together to
provide and access online resources for these things, and to bring
united pressure upon these prosecutors to do their jobs.
Let's keep this discussion here, in the newsgroups, where all citizens
can take part. Ignore the flames, and respond to those who have come
to help.
Walshfirm
I've read the published opinion, as well as the ravings that followed. I have a
prediction to make: cert. denied. Ron, I take back what I said about you getting
screwed. You didn't get screwed, you screwed up.
Ronald Williams wrote:
> I am on my way to the United States Supreme Court....
Tom Sparks
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 00:45:29 +0000, Walshfirm
<wals...@earthlink.net> bravely declared:
>I've read the published opinion, as well as the ravings that followed. I have a
>prediction to make: cert. denied. Ron, I take back what I said about you getting
>screwed. You didn't get screwed, you screwed up.
>
>Ronald Williams wrote:
>
>> I am on my way to the United States Supreme Court....
Show me a man who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a man who
never knows a success.
Give him credit - he TRIES!
Tom Sparks
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:10:18 -0600, George <ren...@flash.net> bravely
declared:
> I just KNOW you're going to be disappointed, but you don't have "proof"
>that justice comes in colors, only some evidence. Your specific
Agreed. We always have to prove that it's proof.
>situation is enough to arouse suspicion, particularly in this country
>where so many people do have a color bias. But it is also true that
>white boys (and girls) get burned by policemen daily in this country.
Present!
>Sometimes the cops are mistaken, sometines they're lying. Ususally (as
>I see it) they're telling the truth. In the end, just whom do you think
>the system will believe, all other things being more or less equal. The
>cop (servant of the people) or the other guy, who has something to gain
>by making the cop out to be a liar? Pretty obvious answer.
Quite often the cop has something to gain - an excercise of power, if
nothing else. We cannot discount the existence of those who are drawn
to positions of authority for more than an absolute sense of civic
duty.
> Cops do, occasionally, get burned, too, when the facts are obvious.
Agreed. The existence of bad cops does not preclude the existence of
good cops who are railroaded by unfortunate circumstances and
dishonest opponents.
>Mark Furman, for example. I can't tell from your post just how you can
>"prove" that the officer committed perjury. Frankly, if it's just a
>swearing match between you and the cop, you lose. Nailing a lying cop
>for perjury is damned difficult. But if that's what she's done, good
>luck. You'll need it! -- George
Agreed that luck is needed, but not that he WILL lose - just that it's
highly balanced against him. Hope for a jury that will honestly
consider the evidence and render a fair verdict.
Joey Smith
This didn't have anything to do with color -- It had to do with procedure.
In almost every trial, two witnesses will tell different stories (which is
why you are having the trial). If one witness is believed and the other one
isn't, doesn't that mean that the disbelieved witness committed perjury? Not
necessarily, the disbelieved witness could have just misinterpreted the
facts, be plain goofy, or whatever. Else, in every trial you would have a
referral for perjury. That you do not understand this ELEMENTAL precept of
procedure is more than ample evidence that you have no business assisting
anyone in any representation.
.
If there is racism, it is your racism in taking an adverse decision that had
nothing to do with race and, simply because you lost and with NO OTHER
FACTS, start waving the racism flag. Could it be that you lost simply
because you were wrong? Unfathomable to you, isn't it?
.
-- Joey Smith
Ronald Williams
Joey, Joey, Joey. What we have here, is a person (yourself) expressing all sorts of opinions and conclusions about my case, without ever having been exposed to any of the record of my case. Okay, Blue Collar Caucasian. Let me take a little time to teach you how we recognize and deal with racism.
Racists and race motivated acts or actions, Joey, are almost never preceded by the perpetrator's announcement that such are being done because of race. Legislatures and Courts Joey, have long since recognized this. That is why standards such as disparate treatment were created.
Now, Joey, whenever two sides with competing interests that are capable of resolution under neutral statutes and rules, and, whenever, one side is being treated more favorably than the other side, and, whenever the one doing the treating (judge) happens to be the same race as ALL of the ones being more favorably treated, than the aggrieved person who is an Afro American, our racist alarm goes off. Particularly when fundamental rules are disregarded in favor of the Whites defendants by the White judges. One of many, many examples: In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer or otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe it or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years to answer my complaint. The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a default judgment. What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory Judgment was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been adjudicated during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement of 190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before you smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the State Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have,
just ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission
to make the world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance,
as you have in my case.
Walshfirm
Bah. Lyndon LaRouche tries, too. But I wouldn't give that felon much credit.
Tom Sparks wrote:
> Show me a man who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a man who
> never knows a success.
>
> Give him credit - he TRIES!
>
Walshfirm
When I read the facts of the case, as reported by the Court of Appeals,
it appeared obvious that the correct party won below. I drew that
conclusion before I even knew the race of the parties. Believe it or
not, Ron, black people sometimes lose even if there is no racism
involved. And when their claims have merit, black people generally
win. None of my black clients have ever lost their case.
Joey Smith
Ronald Williams wrote in message <6dcp0q$4iv$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
Joey Smith wrote:
<<snip>>
In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer or
otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe it
or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years to
answer my complaint.
.
I guess it would blow your mind if you learned that white litigants are
often treated in a similar fashion. Is there ANY evidence that the delay was
caused by race?
.
The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a
default judgment.
.
Why?
.
What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another
Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory Judgment
was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the
State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify
the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been adjudicated
during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for
the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the
claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement of
190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before you
smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the State
Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California
Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
.
Lost me here (and probably the Court as well). Were those two Cal
Supreme Court cases in your case, or in some other case and you were trying
to get them to apply.
.
So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just
ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the
world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as you
have in my case.
.
Hey, I agree that racism is absolutely intolerable in any way, shape or
fashion. It especially should not be tolerated in the courts. However, to
assume that your case was decided for racial reasons simply because there
was a long delay is not convincing. Moreover, my response didn't deal with
delay or racism as much as your claim that witnesses perjured themselves but
you couldn't get them prosecuted for perjury. Don't yell bad apples at my
oranges. What I do get a whiff of here is that you are somewhat belligerent
(see your other post where you advocate physical violence against me) -- I
have to know, in the court's decision did it mention whether or not you
seemed beligerent, had an "attitude problem" or anything similar? It was,
after all, an employment case, and would it surprise you to learn that
litigants who are belligerent or who do have an attitude problem rarely ever
win, irrespective of the merits of their case?
.
-- Joey Smith
Ronald Williams
Walshfirm wrote:
I hope not many Black clients are under your representation. As far as
the opinion goes. Its more complicated than you think it is. You see, the
opinion was decided under a single provision of a pension ordinance scheme
- 190.111(A)(1). You note that no othe section was cited or otherwise
referred too. If you are any kind of a lawyer, you know that questions and
facts arising from an employer/employee dispute, cannot be decided under a
single provision of any statutory scheme. Particularly where the dispute
concerns a discipline action (decided under a scheme other than a pension
scheme) and whether a terminated party forfeits right to a state court
remedy in exchange of a pension. There are two Constitutions that preempt
such a result: the California (Art. 11, Sect 5 and 7) and the United States
under the 5th and 14th Amendment. If you think that a municipality and
state court have unlimited and unchecked power - please do not undertake to
represent minorities in Civil Rights lawsuits - please. You ignorance of
that area of law is abundantly clear.
Ronald Williams
Joey Smith wrote:
> Ronald Williams wrote in message <6dcp0q$4iv$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
>
> <<snip>>
> In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer or
> otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe it
> or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years to
> answer my complaint.
> .
> I guess it would blow your mind if you learned that white litigants are
> often treated in a similar fashion. Is there ANY evidence that the delay was
> caused by race?
> .
> The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a
> default judgment.
> .
> Why?
> .
> What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another
> Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory Judgment
> was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the
> State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify
> the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been adjudicated
> during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for
> the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the
> claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement of
> 190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before you
> smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the State
> Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California
> Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
> .
> Lost me here (and probably the Court as well). Were those two Cal
> Supreme Court cases in your case, or in some other case and you were trying
> to get them to apply.
> .
> So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
> until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just
> ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the
> world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as you
> have in my case.
>
> .
>
> Hey, I agree that racism is absolutely intolerable in any way, shape or
> fashion. It especially should not be tolerated in the courts. However, to
> assume that your case was decided for racial reasons simply because there
> was a long delay is not convincing. Moreover, my response didn't deal with
> delay or racism as much as your claim that witnesses perjured themselves but
> you couldn't get them prosecuted for perjury. Don't yell bad apples at my
> oranges. What I do get a whiff of here is that you are somewhat belligerent
> (see your other post where you advocate physical violence against me) -- I
> have to know, in the court's decision did it mention whether or not you
> seemed beligerent, had an "attitude problem" or anything similar? It was,
> after all, an employment case, and would it surprise you to learn that
> litigants who are belligerent or who do have an attitude problem rarely ever
> win, irrespective of the merits of their case?
>
> .
>
> -- Joey Smith
My attitude is the product of the many years of blatant misapplication of the
law by those who suppose to uphold the law. (judges) I admit to displaying some
of that hostility against the judges involved. Let me say this. I spent almost
10 years as a Sergeant and 3 years a a police Lieutenant. During those periods,
I became obsessed with insisting that officers under my charge treat people
fairly, regardless whether they had a pensonal dislike for them. I was also
particularly aggressive against Sergeants who were unfair to police officers who
they did not like. Having said that, I was particularly hostile when what I
preached and practiced, was not accorded me. Yea, I am hostile, to you, judges
and the like. I, however, stand by my unshaken belief that persons in the
positions of power must be fair and objective, notwithstanding person feelings.
I have an attitude problem - for which I continue not to be sorry. I am,
however, sorry I offended anyone here. In fact, these debates will only serve
to sharpen my litigation skills as I continue this litigation.
Joey Smith
Ronald Williams wrote in message <6df4or$28k$3...@gte2.gte.net>...
Well stated. I wish you the very best of luck. Even most experienced trial
lawyers will tell you that the courts are the shits.
-- Joey Smith
Tom Sparks
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 05:02:02 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@nospam.com>
bravely declared:
>This didn't have anything to do with color -- It had to do with procedure.
>In almost every trial, two witnesses will tell different stories (which is
>why you are having the trial). If one witness is believed and the other one
>isn't, doesn't that mean that the disbelieved witness committed perjury? Not
>necessarily, the disbelieved witness could have just misinterpreted the
>facts, be plain goofy, or whatever. Else, in every trial you would have a
>referral for perjury. That you do not understand this ELEMENTAL precept of
>procedure is more than ample evidence that you have no business assisting
>anyone in any representation.
You statements are most observant and QUITE applicaple to the actual
practices in court. You seem, though, to have a misperception
regarding the referral for perjury. Prosecutors don't pursue the
matter - regularly - due to the workload that they already have - and
dishonest attorneys regularly COUNT on that. I am presently involved
in cases that will easily lock up all of my opposition if I can get
those issues of perjury to trial.
>If there is racism, it is your racism in taking an adverse decision that had
>nothing to do with race and, simply because you lost and with NO OTHER
>FACTS, start waving the racism flag. Could it be that you lost simply
>because you were wrong? Unfathomable to you, isn't it?
We all make mistakes, and we are all, on occasion (at least), wrong.
This does not discount the application of racism in all facets of our
lives. It is real, it is used, and it must be considered.
Tom Sparks
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 14:59:11 -0800, Ronald Williams <gi...@gte.net>
bravely declared:
>So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions until you
>are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just ask - don't
>assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the world a better
>place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as you have in my case.
The greatest deterrent that we have - in clarification of the facts in
these discussions, and in putting into practice the corrections that
are needed in our systems, is an assumption that does not consider ALL
of the facts of each situation.
I second the motion that Ron presents: when in doubt, ASK. Any who
have real issues that are honestly contested will readily provide any
missing informtion; anyone who withholds that information is not to be
trusted as an honest complainant.
Tom Sparks
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:23:51 -0800, Ronald Williams <gi...@gte.net>
bravely declared:
> I hope not many Black clients are under your representation. As far as
>the opinion goes. Its more complicated than you think it is. You see, the
>opinion was decided under a single provision of a pension ordinance scheme
>- 190.111(A)(1). You note that no othe section was cited or otherwise
>referred too. If you are any kind of a lawyer, you know that questions and
>facts arising from an employer/employee dispute, cannot be decided under a
>single provision of any statutory scheme. Particularly where the dispute
>concerns a discipline action (decided under a scheme other than a pension
>scheme) and whether a terminated party forfeits right to a state court
>remedy in exchange of a pension. There are two Constitutions that preempt
>such a result: the California (Art. 11, Sect 5 and 7) and the United States
>under the 5th and 14th Amendment. If you think that a municipality and
>state court have unlimited and unchecked power - please do not undertake to
>represent minorities in Civil Rights lawsuits - please. You ignorance of
>that area of law is abundantly clear.
I know several judges who follow that logic, and we are faced with the
absolutely necessary requirement of demonstrating that they are
incorrect - then getting them to rule accordingly.
Tom Sparks
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 17:02:21 +0000, Walshfirm
<wals...@earthlink.net> bravely declared:
>When I read the facts of the case, as reported by the Court of Appeals,
>it appeared obvious that the correct party won below. I drew that
>conclusion before I even knew the race of the parties. Believe it or
>not, Ron, black people sometimes lose even if there is no racism
>involved. And when their claims have merit, black people generally
>win. None of my black clients have ever lost their case.
Damned good track record! I, like MANY who follow these threads,
sincerely hope that you will continue to participate with us here. We
appreciate the advice of those who have been there, even when it may
disagree with our own hopes - at least it helps us reconsider dead
ends that may not be viable purusuits.
Tom Sparks
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:22:32 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@htims.com>
bravely declared:
> In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer or
>otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe it
>or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years to
>answer my complaint.
> .
> I guess it would blow your mind if you learned that white litigants are
>often treated in a similar fashion. Is there ANY evidence that the delay was
>caused by race?
> .
> The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a
>default judgment.
> .
> Why?
> .
> What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another
>Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory Judgment
>was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the
>State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify
>the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been adjudicated
>during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for
>the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the
>claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement of
>190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before you
>smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the State
>Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California
>Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
> .
> Lost me here (and probably the Court as well). Were those two Cal
>Supreme Court cases in your case, or in some other case and you were trying
>to get them to apply.
> .
> So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
>until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just
>ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the
>world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as you
>have in my case.
>
> .
>
> Hey, I agree that racism is absolutely intolerable in any way, shape or
>fashion. It especially should not be tolerated in the courts. However, to
>assume that your case was decided for racial reasons simply because there
>was a long delay is not convincing. Moreover, my response didn't deal with
>delay or racism as much as your claim that witnesses perjured themselves but
>you couldn't get them prosecuted for perjury. Don't yell bad apples at my
>oranges. What I do get a whiff of here is that you are somewhat belligerent
>(see your other post where you advocate physical violence against me) -- I
>have to know, in the court's decision did it mention whether or not you
>seemed beligerent, had an "attitude problem" or anything similar? It was,
>after all, an employment case, and would it surprise you to learn that
>litigants who are belligerent or who do have an attitude problem rarely ever
>win, irrespective of the merits of their case?
Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
attorney?
Tom Sparks
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:56:15 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@nospam.com>
bravely declared:
>Well stated. I wish you the very best of luck. Even most experienced trial
>lawyers will tell you that the courts are the shits.
We need experts to tell us this? How can we get them to help us
correct the problems?
Walshfirm
About 1/7 of my clients are black. I don't know why you wouldn't want me
representing them. Or does it piss you off that other blacks WIN their cases
because they have merit?
And how, exactly, is my ignorance of the law so apparent by virtue of my
agreement with a well-reasoned appellate decision? Why don't you just go sit
for the bar, smart guy, since you are obviously the only person on the planet
who understands these complicated issues that us dumb folk, including appellate
court justices, can't seem to grasp.
Bahahahahaha.
P.S. The word "your" has an "r" at the end of it. I swear. Look it up.
Ronald Williams
Walshfirm wrote:
IF IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT THE STATUS OF A JUDICIAL OFFICER DETERMINES WHETHER HE IS
CORRECT, I NOT ONLY FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR BLACK CLIENTS, I FEEL FOR ALL OF YOU
CLIENTS. ESPECIALLY IF YOU REPRESENT THEM IN AN APPEALS COURT. SUCKER
Ronald Williams
Tom Sparks wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 17:02:21 +0000, Walshfirm
> <wals...@earthlink.net> bravely declared:
>
> >When I read the facts of the case, as reported by the Court of Appeals,
> >it appeared obvious that the correct party won below. I drew that
> >conclusion before I even knew the race of the parties. Believe it or
> >not, Ron, black people sometimes lose even if there is no racism
> >involved. And when their claims have merit, black people generally
> >win. None of my black clients have ever lost their case.
> NONE AND EVER = THAT YOU LIE, SIR AND BELIEVE IT THERE IS AND ALWAYS HAS
> BEEN RACISM IN EVERY SEGMENT OF OUR SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE COURT. IF THIS
> WERE NOT SO, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO ENACT CIVIL RIGHTS
> STATUTES..
> Damned good track record! I, like MANY who follow these threads,
> sincerely hope that you will continue to participate with us here. We
> appreciate the advice of those who have been there, even when it may
> disagree with our own hopes - at least it helps us reconsider dead
> ends that may not be viable purusuits.
>
Ronald Williams
Tom Sparks wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:22:32 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@htims.com>
> bravely declared:
>
> > In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer or
> >otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe it
> >or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years to
> >answer my complaint.
> > .
> > I guess it would blow your mind if you learned that white litigants are
> >often treated in a similar fashion. Is there ANY evidence that the delay was
> >caused by race?
> > .
> > The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a
> >default judgment.
> > .
> > Why?
> > .
> > What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another
> >Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory Judgment
> >was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the
> >State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify
> >the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been adjudicated
> >during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for
> >the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the
> >claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement of
> >190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before you
> >smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the State
> >Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California
> >Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
> > .
> > Lost me here (and probably the Court as well). Were those two Cal
> >Supreme Court cases in your case, or in some other case and you were trying
> >to get them to apply.
> > .
> > So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
> >until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just
> >ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the
> >world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as you
> >have in my case.
> >
> > .
> >
> > Hey, I agree that racism is absolutely intolerable in any way, shape or
> >fashion. It especially should not be tolerated in the courts. However, to
> >assume that your case was decided for racial reasons simply because there
> >was a long delay is not convincing. Moreover, my response didn't deal with
> >delay or racism as much as your claim that witnesses perjured themselves but
> >you couldn't get them prosecuted for perjury. Don't yell bad apples at my
> >oranges. What I do get a whiff of here is that you are somewhat belligerent
> >(see your other post where you advocate physical violence against me) -- I
> >have to know, in the court's decision did it mention whether or not you
> >seemed beligerent, had an "attitude problem" or anything similar? It was,
> >after all, an employment case, and would it surprise you to learn that
> >litigants who are belligerent or who do have an attitude problem rarely ever
> >win, irrespective of the merits of their case?
>
> Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
> earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
> attorney?
>
> For CopWatch,
>
> Tom Sparks newsgroup: alt.thebird.copwatch
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1794/copwatch.html
Black people, sir, do not go searching to find out whether or not the disparity
they faced had also been faced by a White person. In all probability,
preferential treatment has existed to the detriment of White people also. You
cannot, however, object when a Black person believes and states he was subjected
to racism. Since, racism is such an integral part of our existence as a
society. Nothing blows my mind you simpleton
Joey Smith
Tom Sparks wrote in message <3501a8d8...@nntp.stc.net>...
>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:22:32 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@htims.com>
>bravely declared:
>
>> In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory period in which to answer
or
>>otherwise defend a Complaint. Here, its' 20 days. Nevertheless, believe
it
>>or not, the White Judge allowed the White City's attorney almost 4 years
to
>>answer my complaint.
>> .
>> I guess it would blow your mind if you learned that white litigants
are
>>often treated in a similar fashion. Is there ANY evidence that the delay
was
>>caused by race?
>> .
>> The White Judge rejected two motions I filed, 3 years apart, for a
>>default judgment.
>> .
>> Why?
>> .
>> What were we also doing all of the 3 years. I was prosecuting another
>>Complaint under the Civil Rights Act. The action for a Declaratory
Judgment
>>was filed as a collateral action. It sought a declaration regarding the
>>State Appeals decisions (of 1989 and 1991) among other reasons, to clarify
>>the rights and the obligations of the parties, as these had been
adjudicated
>>during the State court litigation. Jurisdiction of the federal court for
>>the collateral action for a declaratory judgment, was predicated from the
>>claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, that the application and enforcement
of
>>190.111 - under the State Appeals decision was unconstitutional. Before
you
>>smart asses ask. The Full Faith and Credit Act does not attach to the
State
>>Appeals decision. Because, I also cited two decisions of the California
>>Supreme Court that preempts the State Appeals court decision.
>> .
>> Lost me here (and probably the Court as well). Were those two Cal
>>Supreme Court cases in your case, or in some other case and you were
trying
>>to get them to apply.
>> .
>> So, Frick and Frat (Joey and Jon) maybe you will temper your opinions
>>until you are sure you have all of the facts. Facts you don't have, just
>>ask - don't assume or speculate. If it is truly your mission to make the
>>world a better place by your posting here, don't do so in ignorance, as
you
>>have in my case.
>>
>> .
>>
>> Hey, I agree that racism is absolutely intolerable in any way, shape
or
>>fashion. It especially should not be tolerated in the courts. However, to
>>assume that your case was decided for racial reasons simply because there
>>was a long delay is not convincing. Moreover, my response didn't deal with
>>delay or racism as much as your claim that witnesses perjured themselves
but
>>you couldn't get them prosecuted for perjury. Don't yell bad apples at my
>>oranges. What I do get a whiff of here is that you are somewhat
belligerent
>>(see your other post where you advocate physical violence against me) -- I
>>have to know, in the court's decision did it mention whether or not you
>>seemed beligerent, had an "attitude problem" or anything similar? It was,
>>after all, an employment case, and would it surprise you to learn that
>>litigants who are belligerent or who do have an attitude problem rarely
ever
>>win, irrespective of the merits of their case?
>
>Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
>earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
>attorney?
.
Attorney who believes that the small claims courts (as well as divorce and
child-support tribunals) should be modernized to assist pro se litigants,
but who is against hucksters who attempt to promote victims to take on a
much bigger case than they can chew so that the huckster can make a buck
"consulting" them to victory (loss).
-- Joey Smith (Esq.)
Tom Sparks
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:33:23 -0800, Ronald Williams <gi...@gte.net>
bravely declared:
>> Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
>> earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
>> attorney?
> Black people, sir, do not go searching to find out whether or not the disparity
>they faced had also been faced by a White person. In all probability,
>preferential treatment has existed to the detriment of White people also. You
>cannot, however, object when a Black person believes and states he was subjected
>to racism. Since, racism is such an integral part of our existence as a
>society. Nothing blows my mind you simpleton
I'm withya on that, Ron - it's up to the defense to show that other
races (particularly "white") have been subjected to the same
discrimination as the complainant, so use whatya have and let THEM try
to disprove it, but you overlooked MY question at the end of that - am
I correct in assuming that you're a pro se litigant, yourself, with no
law degree? There has been so much in this thread that I simply don't
have time to cover it all and remember who's what, y'know.
Tom Sparks
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 02:22:47 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@nospam.com>
bravely declared:
>>Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
>>earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
>>attorney?
>.
>Attorney who believes that the small claims courts (as well as divorce and
>child-support tribunals) should be modernized to assist pro se litigants,
>but who is against hucksters who attempt to promote victims to take on a
>much bigger case than they can chew so that the huckster can make a buck
>"consulting" them to victory (loss).
Let's talk.
What state are you in, and are you really DOING anything about this?
You may email me in confidence if you like, but I'll encourage you to
come back to the public thread to actually move forward.
Jon Beaver
copw...@usa.net (Tom Sparks) wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 02:22:47 GMT, "Joey Smith" <yo...@nospam.com>
>bravely declared:
>
>>>Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
>>>earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
>>>attorney?
>>.
>>Attorney who believes that the small claims courts (as well as divorce and
>>child-support tribunals) should be modernized to assist pro se litigants,
>>but who is against hucksters who attempt to promote victims to take on a
>>much bigger case than they can chew so that the huckster can make a buck
>>"consulting" them to victory (loss).
>
>Let's talk.
>
>What state are you in, and are you really DOING anything about this?
That was an interesting question to ask a lawyer. What is it that you
think a lawyer should do to assist pro se litigants? Why wouldn't I
assume that he should do the same thing that a grocer should do to
promote home growing of food?
-Jon Beaver
Joey Smith
I am advocating change through the bar associations (in several states) of
which I am a member and through other civic-minded attorney groups. However,
I have a strict policy of maintaining my anonymity on the 'net because my
views are often upsetting to extremists and I like to tell it the way I see
it without reservation.
-- Joey Smith
Ronald Williams
Tom Sparks wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:33:23 -0800, Ronald Williams <gi...@gte.net>
> bravely declared:
>
> >> Speaking of aspects of the case: forgive me if I have missed an
> >> earlier reference to this, but are you a pro se litigant or an
> >> attorney?
>
> > Black people, sir, do not go searching to find out whether or not the disparity
> >they faced had also been faced by a White person. In all probability,
> >preferential treatment has existed to the detriment of White people also. You
> >cannot, however, object when a Black person believes and states he was subjected
> >to racism. Since, racism is such an integral part of our existence as a
> >society. Nothing blows my mind you simpleton
>
> I'm withya on that, Ron - it's up to the defense to show that other
> races (particularly "white") have been subjected to the same
> discrimination as the complainant, so use whatya have and let THEM try
> to disprove it, but you overlooked MY question at the end of that - am
> I correct in assuming that you're a pro se litigant, yourself, with no
> law degree? There has been so much in this thread that I simply don't
> have time to cover it all and remember who's what, y'know.
>
> For CopWatch,
>
> Tom Sparks newsgroup: alt.thebird.copwatch
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1794/copwatch.html
That's correct. I am a pro se litigant. My limited education is a BA degree and a 2
year degree in paralegal studies. I took three courses in lawschool. Had to drop out
in 1991, when the State appeals court rendered the decision we've been debating. Had
to fired the attorney responsible, after having paid him 25K. Took up the cases in
federal court, and have been litigating them since 1991. Have spent, literally, 1000s
of hours in law libraries. Have filed in excess of 60 motions. Have completely briefed
two cases to the 9th Circuit. Even filed a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court. (rejected becasue it was filed one day late). I have never received a response
from any of the federal judges: that he or she did not comprehend; that an action was
frivolous; or any other comment attacking substance or form of a given action.
I have read hundreds of cases under Title VII, Section 1983 and 1985; the Declaratory
Judgment Act under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. I have practiced every aspect of
pre-trial litigation under applicable federal rules of civil procedure, including
discovery. I am thoroughly famaliar with the hierarchy of authority from the U.S.
Constitution, Federal Laws, to the State Constitution and State Statutes, and all the
way down to a municipal ordinance. In a nutshell, my litigation has sought to
circumvent the City, through the State and Federal Court, from causing its municipal
ordinance as continuing preemption authority over all that I tried to do. Under the
Constitution, as it relates to my federal cases. Under the State's Constititon and
State laws, as it pertains to my State cases. Ron.
unity action
On April 4,1998 there will be massive protests taking place throughout
the states concerning police concerns.
Here in baltimore our protst will be at the police headquarters which is
located at 601 E. Fayette St. It will start at 1 p.m. and we encourage
all groups and indivuals who have any concern to please be present.
We also encourage everyone to play a part in helping to organize by
spreading the word and creating leaflets to distribute.
The time is now.