Mr. Hoffman Esq. I respect you and I respect your reply. I also respectfully beg to differ. I know I need a federal issue or issues as a basis for removal to federal court. And I will do further homework before I do so IF I do so. I did my homework very, very well on my Calif. state suit filed on 7/29/1992, dying by court judgement on Good Friday April 5 1996, RESSURECTED by appeal with 30 days of its death and concluding with what I will argue is "a draw" with the per cuiam decision of 2/27/1997. I will ALWAYS argue it died on Good Friday, resurrected with a per curiam appellate opinion to a draw. PLEASE do not demean my intellect. I have my high school grade transcripts proving my aptitude for mathmatics. When I was 16 I was one of two juniors in a trigonometry class of seniors.We both got A's. Then we both got A's in analytical geometry. I did my legal homework using the local law library, some coaching from my attorney, and mainly from the law books I would buy from CEB. I thank God they sell to the lay public or else my suit would have died very early by way of a summary judgement for the three defendants. Its not just that I'm still emotional about this old lawsuit, I happened to develop at a very young age a "begging, burning need for justice". Sir, it is the "begging need", not the normal need that distorts human behavior. A begging need is at least ten times stronger than a normal need. It is a need so strong as to bring the beggar to his knees in addition to distorting his or her behavior. In my case I did spend a lot of money in pursuit of principle. I maintain that some injustices cry to heaven for justice NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO the injustice occurred. You also claim to be skeptical about the merit of my old suit. I am not a bit surprised. It took me nine or ten months to convince my own attorney I was right. My suit was a defamation suit (labeled as a false light invasion of privacy). I was definitvely and legally correct but confused the hell out of the trial judge. That is much of the reason I lost the trial. See Restatement (second) of Torts 652E for the most succinct explanation of this tort. Most attorneys don't take defamation cases because they think there are no damages to collect. Wrong! You can collect "presumed" general damages if you can prove "constitutional actual malice" in addition to or in place of common law malice of ill will. New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254; Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323,348,349; Contento vs. Mitchell (1972) 104 C.R. 591,592. Mr. Hoffman CEB taught me things my attorney, the opposing attorney and even the judges did not know. In my appeal I more fully explained privacy invasion-false light to the appellate judges and that even if I did not have all the elements for this cause of action I certainly did for libel per se and slander per se. 134 C.R. 840. I beleive two judges witheld their signatures on purpose to give me a draw and grounds to ressurect this case in a higher court in a future day. 134C.R. may have been replaced by a law that states that each cause of action must be clearly labeled in the complaint. Such was not the law at the time of my suit. Sir, you asked what makes my case special. First, only one judge (the presiding judge) signed the per curiam opinion. Second, I was denied a video taped copy of the appellate oral argument that I was willing to purchase. They did not video tape it like they were supposed to by law. I only have the memory of my attorney that this oral argument went my way. Removing my case to the ninth circuit is NOT about winning the judgment. Reread what I wrote. It's about appellate case law FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL EMPLOYEES! If you know any attorneys ABLE and willing enough to help me on a pro bono basis will you let me know? I can and will do much of the legal research myself.
Answered on: 9/02/13, 3:25 pm by Edward Hoffman
[A note to other readers: This user has posted several related questions in the past 24 hours. His latest question builds on what came before. You can see the prior questions and answers at http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/calif-appellate-judges-affirm-trial-389914368/, http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/past-small-claims-court-municipal-307581789/, http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-general-civil-litigation/-sued-small-claims-court-377144058/, and http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/mr-anthony-roach-esq-correct-243397054/.]
I'm not disputing your intelligence. You're obviously very smart. But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
Yes, a state court case can often be removed to federal court if it presents a federal issue -- but only if a party seeks removal early in the litigation. When does it become too late? That varies according to the procedural posture of each case, but it always has to be done long before there is a judgment. Your judgment was entered many years ago, and it became final shortly after the conclusion of your appeal. Removal is no longer an option in your case, even if it was an option long ago.
If a federal issue only arises late in the case, there is one -- and only one -- way to seek federal review. That it to exhaust the state-court appeals process and then petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Your time to do that ran out long ago as well.
Our justice system strives to ensure that the party who wins is the party who deserves to win. But like everything else humans create, the system is imperfect. Sometimes the loser is the party who deserved to win. And more often, the loser is the party who *says* he deserved to win.
Right or wrong, once a judgment is final, it's final. "Final" does not mean "final unless the losing party comes up with a great new argument". It doesn't mean "final unless the losing party protests loudly enough". It doesn't even mean "final unless the losing party can prove he deserved to win". "Final" means "final". Period.
Finality matters. It's important in any system of justice that the losing party at some point is no longer able to make his opponent keep litigating. The party who won is entitled to know at some point that the litigation is over. The courts are entitled to know that they won't have to deal with the case any more. And the party who loses has to come to grips with the fact that he lost. That's the situation you're in.
It doesn't matter how loudly you proclaim the righteousness of your cause. At this point, it doesn't even matter how right you might be. You're entitled to your day in court, and you're entitled to an appeal. You had both. You are not entitled to keep demanding more and more days in court or more and more appeals until you get a result that satisfies you.
On top of that, the issues you point to would not have entitled you to any relief even if you had raised them properly before your time ran out. It's quite proper for only one judge to sign a per curiam opinion. And the video recording of an oral argument is not a material part of the official record. It's made for the convenience of the courts and the parties. The unavailability of a recording has nothing to do with whether the decision should be upheld. But even if it did, you would have had to raise the issue long ago. It's just too late now.
I'm sorry I can't be more encouraging. But you reached the end of the line years ago. It's high time you accepted that fact.
Did you find this answer helpful?
0 Users found this answer helpful.
0 Attorneys agree with this answer.
Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90025► Other answers from this attorney