2010 was a defining year. I was barely surviving under the mountain of legal work. And for most of the year I was living outdoors – homeless - the unavoidable consequence of my lifestyle as an indigent litigator. Because I couldn't legally derive an income from legal work, I had to find a way to subsist on about $60 per week taking odd jobs here and there and accepting financial support from sponsors. In Southern California, where the standard of living is comparatively higher than most of the country, it takes quite a talent to do that. However, that life was necessary so that I can continue my legal fights. It was a decision between going back to my previous life as a mortgage banker and certain comfort or be that person I chose to become – an advocate for justice – albeit sleeping in public spaces. I chose the latter and what an adventure it has been.
2010 also marked the year my balance sheet took a major hit, further reducing my net worth from being poor to having nothing. That was the year that all my possessions at Aliso Viejo Storage got auctioned off because of failure to pay monthly rent. So, my earthly possession have been reduced to one travel bag full of clothing and a roll-away bag for my computer. If it weren't for some friends who came to my aid after my Mac G4 was stolen at the end of October, I wouldn't have a computer to write this blog entry. Some 15 friends and acquaintances lent me an average of $20 each. A non-profit organization I was working with advanced me the rest so I can finish the writing project I was crafting for them. I was able to purchase a new HPG62 with 3 Gigs of RAM and 320 Gigs of hard-drive for the incredible price of $379 plus tax.
The highlight of 2010 was a chance encounter with an acquaintance at the Neighborhood Cup, a coffeehouse in Aliso Viejo that I frequent. It was a few days after my Mac G4 was stolen and I was sitting at a table completely out of my element. Instead of browsing the web, I was reading a newspaper. In comes Desiree, a Pharmaceutical Representative I met months before and had some very soulful conversations about spirituality and all the other things we Southern Californians talk about (not the weather). After the customary greetings, I explained to her that I had lost my computer and that I was still homeless. Out of nowhere she said, “Come with me. I am going to a wedding in Cabo San Lucas and will be gone for a few days. You can stay at my apartment.” That was the end of October and she hasn't asked me to leave quite yet. As a result, I have been able to get a lot of rest. So, I can say this: What an amazing vacation it has been for me.
On the legal front, all of the cases I had on docket are now temporarily on hold until we can reconstruct some of the legal briefs that were lost. Many of the cases were on its way to being moved or refiled to the federal jurisdiction before my computer was stolen. Unfortunately, the Mac G4 contained all of my attorney product, setting back my work several months.
One of the most fulfilling cases that we worked on was against an old nemesis – Shea Properties – otherwise known as City Lights Apartments. The case is entitled City Lights – Aliso Viejo, LLC v. Karen Williams (Case#30-2010-00386949). Karen, who happens to be a friend of mine, was being sued for “Unlawful Detainer” (UD), the legal jargon for an eviction. She argued that the case was improperly filed as a UD Action because it failed to meet all the elements to sufficiently state a case. Two of the elements missing were, (1) An actual default in payment and (2) The 3-day notice to pay or quit was served. As soon as she was served with a “Complaint and Summons” she filed an “Answer” and a “Cross-Complaint” concurrently. Because she was seeking damages in excess of $25,000 the case was automatically transferred to the “Unlimited Jurisdiction” in Santa Ana. Several filings followed.
At the last motion hearing, the presiding judge, Hon. Frederick Horner, explained to her in no uncertain terms that she should get an attorney and that she was not likely to win. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy. We became witnesses to the long standing occupation of judges of protecting their own – the attorneys. To add insult to her injury, City Lights filed an “Anti-SLAPP Motion” against her – a motion that alleges three things, (1)That she was depriving them of their First Amendment Right to free speech; (2) That she had no possible chance of prevailing; and (3)That she was suing them to punish them by making them spend money to respond to her action. The acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation. When filed, all discoveries are stopped. And when the motion is sustained the action is terminated.
Although that case did not end in her favor, the consequences are staggering. We can show a pattern of bias and prejudice against the self-represented parties that is wholly unconstitutional. I have said time and time again that the “Halls of Justice” is the most unfair field of competition in this great land. Because of the consequences of rulings and verdicts on parties, it should be reformed with great haste. Any other realm of competition requires parity. A welter-weight prize fighter is never thrown in the ring against a heavy-weight fighter. A professional football team never plays against a college team. So on and so forth. Yet, a well financed law firm will argue cases against an indigent litigator, with predictable results – usually after the firm had dispatched the struggling opponent with mountains of paper before a motion hearing.
Current computer and web-based technologies can now make it less expensive and more efficient than ever before. Pleadings and other legal briefs could now be simplified by using drop down menus. Many of the documents – wills, contracts and other legal papers – can now be produced without the help of attorneys. If that trend is any indication, the archaic precept that attorneys and judges are the only and final arbiters of the law is now being tested. There was a time when statutes and case laws were the exclusive property of legal professionals and their wood paneled law firm libraries. Now, all that information is available through “Google Scholar” and the world wide web.
Every third Wednesdays of the month, the Superior Court in the County of Orange CA closes it's operations because of funding shortfalls. My observation tells me it is because they are so inefficient and entrenched in obsolete methodologies that it will be just a matter of time before the people starts demanding a better, faster and less expensive way to achieve justice. They will have all the right to ask for such a system. It is engrained in the California Government Code Section 100 that says partly:
The sovereignty of the state resides in the people ...
So, that sets the New Year up quite nicely for us. We are calling for a revamp of the judicial system in California. Currently, there are three civil divisions in the Superior Court of California. They are: (1) Small Claims up to $7000. (2) Limited – for actions less than $25,000 (3) Unlimited – for actions exceeding $25,000. We want the judicial system to establish another division expressly for the self-represented litigator that takes advantage of state of the art net-based technologies. So, we've resolved to file an action against the Superior Court of the State of California for bias and prejudice towards self-represented parties under 42 USC Section 1983. The language of that federal statute states:
42 USC Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I just love that statute and I can't wait to see if we can make that work for us.
