Funny discussion with attorney troll below. To cut to the chase, here are links to papers I wrote as paralegal to attorney Marc Angelucci:
Regarding Judge Emily T. Spear Violating CCP § 2024.020 (Close of Discovery) and Family Code § 2105 (Right to Declaration of Disclosure)
Appeal of Denial of DVRO Judge Emily T. Spear Violating DVPA Impersonation Clause finding forgery is not DV abuse as a matter of law
Clearly, Judge Emily T. Spear is conspiring with the well-funded, organized crime-connected adverse attorneys to screw me over and keep the forged documents from ever seeing the light of day. She's willing to violate statutory, black letter law to to it.
What's funny about the below Quora discussion is that an attorney is trying to convince me that I am "not qualified" to say that a judge is violating a statute. Mind you, this attorney never bothers to ask what statute I'm talking about!
So, one of my answers on Quora is delicious troll food for an attorney called "Alice Baker". Sounds quite like "Alex Baker", but the similarity ends there. The question was:
Could you cope with the weight of being a Judge in a Court of Law?
My answer was:
No, I could never cope with the weight of being a judge, because I have morals and empathy. Every judge is under tremendous pressure to take bribes and fix cases for high-caliber defendants. It’s very lucrative business, and there is essentially zero risk of legal repercussions. But the memories of all the lives destroyed and wealth confiscated would be an unbearably heavy weight on me, or anybody with a heart.
This first prompted Barry Gold to opine:
I doubt if judges take bribes or consciously “fix cases” for “high-caliber defendants”. But such defendants are more likely to win because (surprise!) they can afford to hire the very best lawyers.
To which I said;
You’re half-right. Perhaps seeing judges repeatedly violate statutory, black-letter law with impunity would begin to open your mind. Then, an inquiry into specific cases could demonstrate that the “very best lawyers” aren’t doing anything legally different than the hapless little sole practitioners and pro se they dominate. They are not any more skillful, usually.
Rather, the “very best lawyers” are those with close personal friendships with judges. Because of those connections, they are able to obtain “miraculous” legal results, and command mind-boggling sums of money. You are absolutely correct that the side with the “very best lawyers” wins.
This prompted Alice Baker, an attorney, to reply:
I could not disagree with the things you claim in this answer more firmly if you had said that the moon was made of green cheese.
Attorney Alice goes on to explain that she clerked for a judge and never saw anything such as I describe. She then tells me "what happens in reality."
What happens in reality is that the judge accidentally encounters a litigant while he’s golfing on the weekend, and then immediately leaves the golf course without finishing his game because he’s concerned about creating an appearance of impropriety.
What happens in reality is that the litigant’s relatives try to telephone the judge’s office and the judicial assistant refuses to let them talk to the judge.
What happens in reality is that the litigant’s friends send a letter to the judge’s chambers and the judicial assistant throws the letter straight into the wastebasket without showing it to the judge.
I flat-out asked this lawyer:
If I provide you documentation of multiple Judges repeatedly violating statutory, black letter law so as to fix a case, would you please help me bring this the proper authorities?
And she answers:
No I won't.
If a trial judge issues a ruling that is contrary to settled law, your proper recourse is to appeal the ruling.
If the trial judge’s ruling was actually contrary to the law, the court of appeals will overturn the trial judge’s decision.
Attorney Alice refuses to look at the issue, and repeatedly questions my "competence". Trying to keep it serious, I ask:
Would you believe me if I told you that (1) a prominent civil rights attorney took my case (regarding judges violating statutes) pro bono, (2) filed an appeal from those orders that were appealable, (3) filed a Writ seeking relief from orders not appealable, and filed (3) Contempt of Court action against adverse attorney regarding other related issues, and (4) all of those actions were fully briefed, but that (5) before oral argument on any of this my attorney (and my supervisor, and my friend) was MURDERED in cold blood? Would you believe me Alice? Am I competent to say such things?
And this where hilarity ensues. Says Attorney Alice:
Alex, you have just committed the same error I have seen about a zillion non-lawyers in your shoes make. You have gotten off-track. Your brain is so full of an amorphous sense of “I was treated unfairly” that you are not even responding to what I said.
I stated that you are not qualified to determine whether the decision a judge made in your case was legally correct because you are not a lawyer. I stand by that statement.
I stated that you lack the competence to determine whether the decision a judge made in your case was legally correct because you don’t understand the legal rules that govern your case as well as you should. I stand by that statement.
You have not addressed the content of my reply to you. Instead of addressing what I said, you have responded by saying that you were represented by counsel at one time but your lawyer was killed while your appeal was pending. I am very sorry to hear about your friend. But it doesn’t change anything I said.
You’ve been going around accusing multiple judges of ‘repeatedly violating statutory, blackletter law.’ You are not qualified to make that statement. You are no more qualified to say the judge who presided over your case got the law wrong than I am to accuse a mathematics professor of messing up a calculus equation. I recognize that I’m not an expert in mathematics, so I don’t go around accusing professional mathematicians of integrating trigonometric functions incorrectly. I am aware that those mathematicians know rules that I don’t know.
By the same token, you need to recognize that you’re not an expert in the law. Your confidence that you understand the statutes that govern your case is grossly misplaced. If multiple judges have told you that the law is X_____, then it’s time for you to acknowledge that the law is X_____.
I was laughing so hard I had to use the bathroom. Maybe it was the second cup of coffee. Whatever. When I got back to my laptop, I closed by saying to attorney Alice Baker:
The problem is that multiple judges in my case say the law is “X”, but multiple judges in other cases say the law is “Y”. Your analogy to a calculus professor would hold weight if she consistently got the same solution to the same equation. But what you would say about a layperson who points to a calculus professor who gives a different answer to the same problem on different days?
You would do well to learn the facts and procedural history before you make ridiculous assumptions. Since you are basing your “conclusion” on my unlicensed status, one would think you would be at least curious to see the briefing on the matter by someone I describe as a “prominent civil rights attorney”.
In fact, you wouldn’t you at least be curious to know what the hell statutes and orders I’m even on about? You know, so you could straighten me out? I mean, you haven’t shown even the slightest interest in learning the facts.
Going deeper, aren’t you saying that only lawyers are competent to understand statutes? In fact, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, aren’t you saying that only the SCOTUS is competent to understand a statute? And if layperson of ordinary intelligence is not competent to understand a statute, is that not the very definition of unconstitutionally void for vagueness?
I repeat my offer to dialog with you on my podcast, whenever is mutually convenient.
Here is a link to a blog article discussing this very educational thread. Please note that at the top of the article are links to the Appeal and the Writ.
Comments