JAIL4judges describes chaos in our court systems
The chaos is described in this JAIL4judges article, using the New York state court system as an example. The article says,
.
The statement about California is not true. California -- or at least Los Angeles County -- has two kinds of trial courts, the superior courts and the municipal courts (I am not counting the small claims courts, because I presume that all states have those).
When I sued in a Los Angeles superior court, no one on the court staff told me that I was supposed to sue in municipal court because my claim was less than $25,000 (it was actually $0). Suing in municipal court is much cheaper than suing in superior court and also a municipal court decision can be appealed to a superior court, which is much cheaper and easier than appealing to a state appeals court.
Also, there are three different statutes prescribing the rules for suing the US EPA under air quality laws, and the one that applied to my lawsuit against the grossly unconstitutional California smog impact fee was in a separate volume of the US Code.
Dealing with the chaos of our laws and court systems is hard enough even for attorneys who are experienced specialists in particular areas of the law and are familiar with particular court systems. For pro se litigants, even ones who are fairly knowledgeable about the law, it is impossible.
.
.
New York State has the most archaic and bizarrely convoluted court structure in the country. Antiquated provisions in our state Constitution create a confusing amalgam of trial courts: an inefficient and wasteful system that causes harm and heartache to all manner of litigants, and costs businesses, municipalities and taxpayers in excess of half a billion dollars per year. ....
New York...continues to operate a blizzard of overlapping courts: Supreme Courts, County Courts, Family Courts, Surrogate’s Courts, a Court of Claims, New York City Criminal and Civil Courts, District Courts, City Courts, and Town and Village Justice Courts.
New York has eleven separate trial courts; by contrast, California, a state that has twice our population, has only one. This complex structure is not simply a matter of academic or historical interest. It imposes significant harm and costs on our state and its people.
The statement about California is not true. California -- or at least Los Angeles County -- has two kinds of trial courts, the superior courts and the municipal courts (I am not counting the small claims courts, because I presume that all states have those).
When I sued in a Los Angeles superior court, no one on the court staff told me that I was supposed to sue in municipal court because my claim was less than $25,000 (it was actually $0). Suing in municipal court is much cheaper than suing in superior court and also a municipal court decision can be appealed to a superior court, which is much cheaper and easier than appealing to a state appeals court.
Also, there are three different statutes prescribing the rules for suing the US EPA under air quality laws, and the one that applied to my lawsuit against the grossly unconstitutional California smog impact fee was in a separate volume of the US Code.
Dealing with the chaos of our laws and court systems is hard enough even for attorneys who are experienced specialists in particular areas of the law and are familiar with particular court systems. For pro se litigants, even ones who are fairly knowledgeable about the law, it is impossible.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/06/2007 11:20:00 PM
9 Comments:
> When I sued in a Los Angeles superior court, no one on the court staff told me that I was supposed to sue in municipal court <
You are supposed to know what you are doing when you file a lawsuit. Nobody is supposed to be your keeper.
> For pro se litigants, even ones who are fairly knowledgeable about the law, it is impossible. <
Statistically pro se litigants win the majority of their cases. Some of these may know something about the law. For someone like you who does not, it is a different problem.
ViW driveled,
>>>>>> When I sued in a Los Angeles superior court, no one on the court staff told me that I was supposed to sue in municipal court <
You are supposed to know what you are doing when you file a lawsuit. <<<<<<
Wrong. Most pro se litigants are novices and so cannot be expected to know all the rules. Telling me that I was eligible to sue in municipal court because I was suing for less that $25,000 would have been a statement of fact rather than legal advice (court staffers are not allowed to give legal advice). The municipal court had a sign about the $25,000 limit but the superior court did not. An experienced out-of-state or out-of-town attorney would likely have made the same mistake that I made. Also, no thanks to jerks like you, the courthouse now has a special office to assist pro se litigants -- that office was not there when I sued.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton of the Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog certainly fancies himself to be an expert on the law -- he often pontificates his opinions about court cases and he kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule and he did not even give me a single chance to respond to his disagreement. But if he actually had to file a lawsuit himself without hiring an attorney, he wouldn't have a clue on even how to get started.
>>>> Statistically pro se litigants win the majority of their cases. <<<<<<
I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for this claim.
ViW, you and Kevin Vicklund are just lousy disgusting finks who believe that things should be as hard as possible for pro se litigants.
ViW, don't you ever get tired of being humiliated on this blog? I guess that the reason why you don't care is that you post comments under a false name.
>>>The statement about California is not true. California -- or at least Los Angeles County -- has two kinds of trial courts, the superior courts and the municipal courts (I am not counting the small claims courts, because I presume that all states have those).<<<
In 1998, the municipal and state courts were combined.
Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>> In 1998, the municipal and state courts were combined. <<<<<<
By "state court," I presume you mean "superior court." At the time I sued in superior court, the superior courts and the municipal courts were combined in some ways and were separate in others. Both a municipal court and a superior court occupied the same Los Angeles civic center courthouse and the judges in both courts were considered to be equal in status. However, the two court systems had separate court clerk's offices, separate courtrooms, and different fees and rules. The municipal court had much lower fees and a municipal court decision could be appealed to the superior court, which was much cheaper and simpler than appealing to a state appeals court. That was several years ago and I don't know exactly what the situation is now. The important thing is that there is now a special office to help inform pro se litigants about what the situation is now.
>>>Also, there are three different statutes prescribing the rules for suing the US EPA under air quality laws, and the one that applied to my lawsuit against the grossly unconstitutional California smog impact fee was in a separate volume of the US Code.<<<
One slight problem with Larry's assertion. Assuming he is referring to Title 5 section 706, Title 42 section 7607 does not permit section 706 suits for his type of suit. (Note: my language here is very loose - I'm not attempting a rigorous phrasing)
The overall point (there are often multiple statutes that need to be considered, and they can be quite confusing in their interplay) is valid.
Pettifogging cyberbully Kevin Vicklund strikes -- and strikes out -- again.
>>>>> One slight problem with Larry's assertion. Assuming he is referring to Title 5 section 706, Title 42 section 7607 does not permit section 706 suits for his type of suit. <<<<<<
And there is one slight problem with Kevin's assertion: Title 42 USC section 7607 does not apply to my type of suit. I am well aware of the provision in section 7607 that you are referring to:
The provisions of section 553 through 557 and section 706 of title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to which this subsection applies.
The subsection does not apply to my action. Section 7607 obviously applies only to challenges of official US EPA rulemaking decisions that follow official public comment periods that are announced in the Federal Register -- the language of Section 7607 makes that very clear, e.g.,
Promptly upon receipt by the agency, all written comments and documentary information on the proposed rule received from any person for inclusion in the docket during the comment period shall be placed in the docket.
All documents which become available after the proposed rule has been published and which the Administrator determines are of central relevance to the rulemaking shall be placed in the docket as soon as possible after their availability.
Only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.
There was no US EPA proposed rule or public comment period regarding the California smog impact fee. Sec. 7607 is completely irrelevant.
Give up, Kevin. I have this all figured out in advance. I studied these laws and legal issues over a period of several years. You can't win -- all that you and Voice in the Wilderness can do is just rant and rave that I don't know what I am talking about. Furthermore, there is nothing that you can say now that can excuse the failure of California and TJ "Mad" Hatter to answer my arguments.
> Most pro se litigants are novices and so cannot be expected to know all the rules. <
If they are unwilling to research the basics, they have no business filing pro se.
> Telling me that I was eligible to sue in municipal court because I was suing for less that $25,000 would have been a statement of fact rather than legal advice <
Telling you who won the battle of Stamford Bridge would have been a statement of fact, and equally outside their job responsibilities.
> Fatheaded Ed Brayton of the Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog certainly fancies himself to be an expert on the law <
He definitely knows more about the subjcet than fatheaded Larry Fafarman.
> he kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule <
You still believe that repeating this lie will fool anyone. We all know why you were thrown off.
> But if he actually had to file a lawsuit himself without hiring an attorney, he wouldn't have a clue on even how to get started. <
He could do no worse than you did. You have a perfect record of losses.
>>>> Statistically pro se litigants win the majority of their cases. <<<<<<
> I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for this claim. <
Look back on your blog. The proof is still there. I do not believe that repeating it would change your neutron star mind.
> ViW, you and Kevin Vicklund are just lousy disgusting finks who believe that things should be as hard as possible for pro se litigants. <
Not at all. I don't know about Kevin but I have won all of my Pro per cases, as has your friend Bill Carter. You should ask him for advice the next time you file. He has an exemplary record.
> ViW, don't you ever get tired of being humiliated on this blog? <
A moot question. So far only you are being humiliated on this blog. I guess you are too dense to realize it.
> Give up, Kevin. I have this all figured out in advance. I studied these laws and legal issues over a period of several years. You can't win <
He has been winning so far.
> rant and rave that I don't know what I am talking about. <
No. We are just stating a fact.
> Furthermore, there is nothing that you can say now that can excuse the failure of California and TJ "Mad" Hatter to answer my arguments. <
As has been said before, Judge Hatter had no obligation to waste his time on a dead case.
ViW, has it ever occurred to you that I don't give a shit how many "Pro per" cases you -- or that other dunghill, Bill Carter or whoever he is -- have won? What counts here is how you argue about the issues on this blog -- and you have been an abysmal failure at that. All you can do is just say I am wrong and nothing more. It doesn't take any talent just to say that someone else is wrong. I don't know what you are trying to prove.
> ViW, has it ever occurred to you that I don't give a shit how ...<
You pathetic asshole. You obviously care a great deal.
> that other dunghill, Bill Carter or whoever he is <
What constitutes a dunghill? Success in legal cases? Your brother has confirmed that you have known Bill Carter for over 50 years and I can personally testify that I have known you to know him for many decades. What is the basis of this insanity that has you pretending not to know people, even your brother?
> What counts here is how you argue about the issues on this blog <
Then your score is zero. Nearly everyone on this blog has made a fool out of you. You have done a great deal to further this perception on your own.
> All you can do is just say I am wrong and nothing more. <
When we give reasons, you pretend that they have not been stated. You then you repeat things without support in the apparent belief that repetition is proof.
I think Kevin has the right idea. You are starved for attention and don't care if you make a fool of yourself. Another possibility is that you are totally delusional and believe that you have actually won some of these debates.
Post a Comment
<< Home