Court of Appeals: "L" will lose her children

We featured a piece about a dependency case on the 6th of June 2011 entitled "Allegation: Evidence Fabrication by Cops". This is the case about a person I called “L” who lost an appeal in the 2nd District Court of Appeals. We filed an “Extraordinary Writ” and the matter was heard on the 22nd of June. We were late in reporting the outcome because a certified copy of the opinion was not readily available to us. We also wanted to consider options available to "L".

She was denied the petition and have now, in effect, lost the custody of her children to foster care. Nobody likes getting an unfavorable decision from the court. We are certainly no exception. But we are the more appalled because it appears that the court has overlooked the possibility of police misconduct, which was the reason we wanted a retrial. In our brief, which is attached below, we pointed to a statement that was purportedly taken from a 3-year old child. Two of the sentences included 7 words each. The MAYO Clinic, in their vast knowledge, said that children of that age will string sentences with 3-4 words each. The child’s statement to the police included the following sentences:

1. Mama holds me when Joe beats me.
2. Mama was there where he hurt me.
3. She whines.

We felt that the original and the substitute attorneys (yes, there’s two) did not prepare for and advocate in a way that would have assured a favorable result for “L”. As much as we would like to attach all the documents pertaining to this case, we are unable to do so at the moment. First, minor children are involved in the case, requiring careful publication of documents. Second, we have lost our scanner, but that’s another story altogether, which we will tackle on another blog.

The fortunate thing is, we are able to attach the “Objection” that we have filed. Furthermore, a new innovation that we call the “Green Line” is also being introduced on this particular blog. You’ll know what that means the moment you read the Objection. We are doing so to protect the identities of children involved in the case. And finally, we’ve attached the actual “Opinion” by the Court of Appeals. It is, in many ways, an invitation for us to file a request for review in the Supreme Court. If that happens, we’ll let our readers know.

MAYO CLINIC (Resource Page)
OBJECTION TO THE OPPOSITION (Green Lined)
OPINION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS

How did that case end up in L.A.?

“ ... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … ” (6th Amendment US Constitution)

Except for special circumstances, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department conducts all police related activities in the OC. The incident complained about in this case occurred in Orange County. And I, for all purposes relating to this matter, reside in Orange County. So, why did my case end up in Los Angeles? It was first assigned to Hon. Marc L. Goldman in Santa Ana who then transferred it to Hon. Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles.

Courts have generally kept true to the intent of the framers of the Constitution when it comes to questions of jurisdiction. Having a matter adjudicated in the proper venue insures fairness by guaranteeing that no party will be disadvantaged by the cost and distance of travel. This allows everyone involved to plan and commit resources accordingly. In Burger King v. Rudzewicz the court held that:

The Due Process Clause protects an individual from "not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.(Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985))

The conversations I had with other practitioners of the law gave me the impression that the US District Court was a whole world apart. Superlatives they used about the federal courts included, “they have better judges and more resources. And the decisions are generally better.” They also said that “... lawyers who practice in federal courts are more civilized." After experiencing all the difficulties that I have - the bias and prejudice in the hands of the Superior Court judges, (state courts) I had very high expectations of the US District Court.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department case was the first that I ever filed in the US Courts. (Filed May 19, 2010) And of all the actions I have lodged, it was the one where I felt justice was so completely and so utterly trampled on. It began with an improper seizure of my car and then the transfer of my case to a venue that was wholly improper. In fact, it expanded and heightened my conspiracy theory, which said that the criminal-justice system, including the law enforcement community, the legal profession and the courts systematically deprive parties who represent themselves their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Consider what happened in this case. Keep in mind that one of the parties - yours truly - is an indigent litigator - completely without money and homeless. This case was filed in the US District Court Central District in Santa Ana California. From where I live as a homeless individual (Aliso Viejo), it takes two buses to get there. Unilaterally and without prior notice the case was transferred to Los Angeles, approximately 50+ miles away. I only heard of the transfer after filing a “Proof of Service” for a document that I served. They took my filling but told me that future filings and hearings will be in Los Angeles. There were no indications of that possibility prior to the action being filed. Had I known, I would have modified my action and filed it in the Superior Court in Santa Ana.

The fact is, I haven’t a car. The state revoked my Driver’s License and my DRE Salesperson’s License for failure to pay child support payment. Early morning hearings would have been problematic because buses in our area run a limited schedule. The bus transfers required to get there would have insured my tardiness for the hearing. If the hearings went on longer and I am not able to leave court early enough I would miss the bus that would take me back to Aliso Viejo. That means a long walk. CourtCall, a system that attorneys use to conduct hearings on the phone, would be out of the question. I simply can’t afford it.

It was as if a sledge hammer was brought to bear on my chest with full force.

Effectively, the court lost it’s authority over the matter, at least in my mind. I knew that I wasn’t going to get a fair hearing from that point onwards. Furthermore, a policy that is so inherently unjust and arbitrary cannot possibly withstand an assault in a higher court. I felt that objecting to the “Motion for Summary Judgment” was pointless. So, what this means is the matter will be filed in the highest court of the land. RobertsJustice will be going to the Supreme Court.

(We are unable to attach a copy of court filed documents for this case at this time. The trial binder was in the van that was recently towed from an acquaintance’s apartment. We are working on getting it back, requiring another case in court.)

LACAMBRA v. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
DISMISSAL ORDER

Thief swipes judge's gavel from courtroom

Every day for years, Magistrate Daniel Chris Cook came to court to hear matters of of the law and to officiate judicial proceedings. As a sign of his authority vested by the State of Ohio, he would punctuate his opinions by striking his gavel (wooden mallet) on a sound block to give his ruling finality. One day in March 2011, he reached out to find that his gavel was gone and nowhere to be found. It just mysteriously vanished.

An internal investigation was immediately done to find out what happened. The judge went back to the surveillance tape and hit rewind all the way back to the last day he remembered seeing the gavel. After enduring the sometimes boring viewing he found what he was looking for. There the culprit was - walking over to the bench and taking the gavel. It wasn’t immediately known who the individual was but the man with him was identified as having appeared in court trying to get his license back. With that information, Judge Cook turned over the tape to the authorities who soon identified the man as Christopher Collins, 47. Mr. Collins later admitted under questioning to have taken the gavel and was charged with petty theft. Asked where the gavel went, he said that he gave it to someone else who he didn't even know.

Of all people to mess with, he picks a judge. That’s really dumb.

WATCH THE SURVEILLANCE TAPE

READ THE DAILY MAIL ARTICLE

Fake Apple Stores in China

New images emerged on the web yesterday of a fake Apple Store in China selling what appears to be genuine products. The pictures were taken by a British expatriate who blogs under the name BirdAbroad. What gumption these fakers have. Try doing that anywhere in the US and your store will be swarming with undercover agents before you can even say the phrase “Jobs is back!”

There is a fascinating OPM (Other Peaple’s Money) aspect to this arrangement. It’s obvious that the cost of building and filling the store with expensive merchandise was not paid for by Apple. But knowing Apple’s obsession with the customer experience, we can be certain that they are not happy with the idea. Any other company would have said, “You want to fund our growth and build stores? Go right on ahead. How many of our computers would you need to do that with? Where can I ship it and when can you take delivery?”

Apple does not enter into franchising or licensing agreements for this purpose. Every legitimate Apple Store is owned and operated by Apple. So, if you walk into a fake store and you’ve never seen a real store before, you’ll probably think you were in a legitimate company owned store. In this case the give-away was the fact that it was not listed on the Apple website.

What is the big deal, anyway? Why is this illegal and why is it in the interest of Apple to take action to protect their brand? The simple answer is because Apple is the rightful owner of the brand. Anyone who has ever used Apple products know that they set a very high bar when it comes to quality and aesthetics. They have spent an inordinate amount of money and resources over the years to create one of the most admired and trusted brands in the world.

The overarching concern here is that nobody has a clear understanding who these fake Apple Store owners are. If they are knowingly selling Apple’s merchandise illegally, then at best, what you have are unethical individuals who are profiteering by criminal means. At worst, you have a full-blown criminal enterprise representing the Apple brand and maybe even laundering money. So you can’t be sure that the “Apple Geniuses” behind the counter are really geniuses at all. They may just be willing participants in some organized crime syndicate dressed in colorful Apple garb.

A hypothetical: What if for instance a bad batch of computers were sold by that store? That’s probably the test for any company. If it is a legitimate store, a high level of customer service can be expected. This is where customers are usually retained by companies as lifelong users, if not advocates of the brand - when things go bad and the company saves the day. If the person dealing with the problem is a wannabe-genius, things might not turn out the way Apple would have expected and a customer walks away and never returns.

Intellectual property rights include the name and every other image associated with it. The individuals who built this store is likely experiencing success only because of the reputation that Apple has built over the years. So, Apple should have every right to control how that name is used and how to best benefit from that goodwill. That really is what property ownership is all about. Knowing Apple, they have probably known about this before the pictures became public. As a result, a group of geniuses are likely plotting a game plan in a way that would not compromise the brand. That means a solution that is infused with great finesse and an example of elegant design. Put in other words, these guys are toast.

VIEW THE PICS POSTED BY BIRDABROAD

Appellate Judges take attorneys to school.

Having your appeal denied because you don’t have a case is one thing. But if the judge grades your writing skills and calls it incompetent, you just have to know that the paper, not to mention the case, was half-baked. What’s more, you should seriously consider giving your clients a refund.

A tri-panel of judges in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana) recently wrote an opinion on a case originally filed as a civil rights action by a cheerleader, Samantha Sanchez (Plaintiff) against Carrolton-Farmers Branch Independent School District (Defendant) in Carrolton, Texas. The plaintiff was represented by Harry Jones and Jessica Brown Wilson of law firm Littler and Mendelson. In the summary of their opinion, the judges called the action a petty squabble.

Reduced to its essentials, this is nothing more than a dispute, fueled by a disgruntled cheerleader mom, over whether her daughter should have made the squad. It is a petty squabble, masquerading as a civil rights matter, that has no place in federal court or any other court.

We had no access to the actual appeal but much of it was referenced on the opinion. The tone of the appeal appeared to have been hostile to the original trial judge - Magistrate Judge Stickney - that the appeals judges found it appropriate to point out the poor manner in which the appellate briefs were prepared.

These sentences are so poorly written that it is difficult to decipher what the attorneys mean, but any plausible reading is troubling, and the quoted passage is an unjustified and most unprofessional and disrespectful attack on the judicial process in general and the magistrate judge assignment here in particular.  This may be a suggestion that Magistrate Judge Stickney is incompetent. It might be an assertion that all federal magistrate judges are incompetent.  It could be an allegation that only Article III judges are competent.  Or it may only mean that Magistrate Judge Stickney’s decisions in this case are incompetent, a proposition that is absurd in light of the correctness of his impressive rulings. Under any of these possible readings, the attorneys’ attack on Magistrate Judge Stickney’s decisionmaking is reprehensible. The summary judgment on all of Sanches’s claims is AFFIRMED

The footnote was the more scathing, giving the reader an impression that the law firm had no access to modern software that could check for spelling and grammatical errors. Here’s the footnote:

Usually we do not comment on technical and grammatical errors, because anyone can make such an occasional mistake, but here the miscues are so egregious and obvious that an average fourth grader would have avoided most of them. For example, the word “principals” should have been “principles.” The word “vacatur” is misspelled. The subject and verb are not in agreement in one of the sentences, which has a singular subject (“incompetence”) and a plural verb (“are”). Magistrate Judge Stickney is referred to as “it” instead of “he” and is called a “magistrate” instead of a “magistrate judge.” And finally, the sentence containing the word “incompetence” makes no sense as a matter of standard English prose, so it is not reasonably possible to understand the thought, if any, that is being conveyed. It is ironic that the term “incompetence” is used here, because the only thing that is incompetent is the passage itself.

The case obviously had no merit requiring no further analysis. What we found interesting was the manner in which the judges berated the trial attorneys. Such scathing attacks on a litigant's writing skills by judges are very rare and worth noting. It offers precious insights on the way that appeals judges may view a legal brief, particularly the tone.

Lesson learned: Be respectful of judges, they may just embarrass you in public. Remember that their opinions are published and easily accessible on the web. Also, invest in writing software that checks for spelling and grammar.

READ THE ACTUAL OPINION

WEBSITE OF LITTLER MENDELSON 

Are we ready for television?

EPISODE ONE (SCREEN CONCEPT)

RobertsJustice was contacted by Jason Hardegen who asked for assistance to regain the privilege of shopping at Ralph's Supermarket. He was recently banned for smoking marijuana in the parking lot. It turns out that Jason has a medical marijuana license and uses pot for his chronic headaches. To compound the situation, he is homeless, unemployed and for income he sells bottles and plastic containers to the recycler that happens to lease a portion of the parking lot from Ralph's Supermarket. Unfortunately, the check that the recycler issues to patrons for recycables can only be cashed at a Ralph's Supermarket, the very place that Jason is no longer allowed to shop. Can RobertsJustice negotiate a resolution to this situation?

That was the teaser we were going to use for an episode of RobertsJustice around the beginning of this year. We had that in mind until we realized we didn’t quite have the resources to be able to pull it off, at least for now. So, this interesting idea is in our vault and labeled a concept that have yet to be produced. Perhaps.

The person and circumstances are real. I know this to be true because I personally helped Mr. Hardegen cash two of his checks so he can purchase food. I posted a screen shot of his Facebook profile just so our readers can see that he is a real person. We also added a satellite picture of the area described. We just thought that we’d share this with our readers because the funniest things in life are things that happens for real. Do not be surprised if one day you find that we have developed mini-episodes like this and posted it on our website. We at RobertsJustice take pride in saying that we do not fib.

CLICK TO VIEW THE ALBUM

The FBI gets ROBERT's van towed.

Normally this would be a devastating set-back. But because I am now in the process of building a case against the FBI, I’ve had to laugh about this recent installment to their body of work, bewildering though as it were. The level of amateurism required for this kind of nonsense must have been learned in some school for the advancement of mediocrity. For an institution that is tasked with protecting the liberties of Americans, it is incredibly disturbing. And at the center of this controversy is a woman who says she grew up in California but who is in fact from New York City working undercover.

This story begins with the purchase of a 1988 Dodge Ram 350 in April 2011 for the price of $500. After taking delivery I later discovered from a sheriff’s deputy who was conducting a field inspection that the tags on the van were in fact fake. After reasoning with him, the deputy allowed me to keep the van so I can bring the issue up with the previous owner. A few days later, the “NY Lady” walked into the Neighborhood Cup where I was working on my computer and told me another sheriffs deputy was outside inspecting my van. What amazing coincidence I thought that she would arrive at the precise moment to tell me that. This gave her the opportunity to offer me to park the van at her apartment complex. On their "To Get List" were case files and attorney product stored in the van, which included early work on my case against the FBI.

I agreed to park the van at her complex after she assured me that she was entitled to two parking spaces - her garage and another uncovered parking spot. She also told me that she was going to inform the management office. This sets up a text thread beginning with a Facebook message asking her what happened to the van after I discovered it was gone.

The person’s name has been changed to either (NY LADY) or (NYL) to keep her identity from being divulged prematurely. An action is being prepared at the moment and will be filed at the appropriate time.

FACEBOOK - JUNE 14, 2011
Me: (NY LADY) - I just went to the van this afternoon - at about 5:45PM and the it was gone. I didn't want to go to the office because you had told me that I shouldn't talk to them about it. And I didn't want to call the cops before you are able to check to see whether or not they had towed it. I will wait for you to get back to me tomorrow before I start my investigation. That will include talking to the people at (APARTMENT) office and potentially reporting a theft. If required, I will file civil actions against all known defendants in the courts of competent jurisdiction. So, please get back to me ASAP. Thanks a bunch. (ROBERT)

(This is a text thread between Robert Lacambra (Me) and (NY LADY) that began on the evening of June 14, 2011 at 7:39PM. It was continued the next morning.)

GOOGLE VOICE
Me: (NYL) - Check your FB. I just sent you a message. The van isn't there at your apartment. I'm wondering if it got towed or was stolen. 7:39 PM
(NY LADY): (1/2) I don't know, I haven't been there for awhile and am not town. I don't live anymore I am sorry to hear about what happened. You will have to call the she 7:49 PM
(NY LADY): (2/2) rrifs to find out or file a stolen report. 7:49 PM
(NY LADY): I am sorry, I cannot help you out with this one. I gotta run. 7:52 PM
Me: What do you mean you don't live there anymore? You told me I have until the end of the month to move the van? Why didn't you tell me you were moving? 8:02 PM
(NY LADY): (1/2) Yes I did inform you, I cannot help you. I always informed you to move the van to different spots every couple of days. If you didn' do that, it is not my 8:14 PM
(NY LADY): (2/2) responsibilty. I cannot help you, especially right now. I am Not there. 8:15 PM
Me: You told me that you were going to tell the office about the van. I even offered to tell them. You said that you were entitled to one additional parking spot apart from your garage. (NYL), this is right. 8:21 PM
Me: (NYL), This isn't right! 8:26 PM
(NY LADY): He even called for back up because there may have been warrants for person registered to the vehicle, which put you in danger and in a compromising position 10:00 PM
Me: Who called for backup? That van was parked in a private lot, though. What does that mean? 10:03 PM
(NY LADY): (1/3) So think about it before assessing guilt to anyone. Your van is your responsible And no one else's. Just be grateful you aren't bars right now. I am no lo 10:09 PM
(NY LADY): (2/3) nger in involved in the situation haven't been since the moment you parked your van there. I told you I will not take liability for the van. Why should be 10:09 PM
(NY LADY): (3/3) held responsible I'd somerhing. Happened to your van??? 10:09 PM
Me: You are not making sense. It was parked in a private lot. And I have your permission to park there. That parking lot belongs to your complex. There is enough liability to go around including you. What law enforcement agency was involved - OCSD or FBI? 10:14 PM
(NY LADY): (1/2) The property doesn't take responsibility for others behavior. I am held to the same standard. I am done talking about this. I am not in town, regardless t 10:14 PM
(NY LADY): (2/2) here is nothing I can do about at this point on time. I am sincerely sorry 10:14 PM
Me: You are being evasive, (NYL). enough so that I have a terrible feeling that you are complicit in depriving me of my rights. I will have to attach this blame to you if you do not answer my question. Which law enforcement agency was responsible for towing the van? 10:17 PM
(NY LADY): (1/3) You need to stop now, and in way over head. Take responsibility for your own actions and figure out yourself what happened to your van. I am not the owner 10:40 PM
(NY LADY): (2/3) of the vehicle. You are the one That admitted there were fraudulent tags on there. That is why I said you should be glad you are not in jail right now be 10:40 PM
(NY LADY): (3/3) cause the deputy probably already knew the tag MAY HAVE BEEN fraudulent and called for back up. It's standard procedure to call cannot verifu 10:40 PM
(NY LADY): (1/2) To call FOR back up. I cannot verify if he indeed ran the plates. I am going off observation from my own experience with standards and procedure! Therefor 10:44 PM
(NY LADY): (2/2) e, no has deprived you 10:44 PM
(NY LADY): (1/2) No one has not deprived of your rights. SO becaring what legal terms you are throwing around. I have more pertinent matters to deal with at the moment. An 10:51 PM
(NY LADY): (2/2) d I am very busy at the moment.10:51 PM
Me: Someone took my van without my permission. You don't think that was a deprivation? Let's try one more time. What law enforcement agency took the van? Who called back up? 6:15 AM
(NY LADY): (1/3) To stay calm and think healthy. Take care of yourself before You cause your mind and cardiosystem to shut down the limbic system. You have too much adera 6:41 AM
(NY LADY): (2/3) line intake in blood stream. Drink some tea. Relax and refresh yourself to remember what happened. I cannot help you any further, I am sorry. I already di 6:41 AM
(NY LADY): (3/3) d my best for you. I have nothing. Else give anyone at the moment. Take care 6:41 AM
Me: I am calm as a cucumber. At any rate, it sounds like there was a crime committed which will definitely require authorities to ask you questions. You'll have to make yourself available. When are you going to be back in town? 6:48 AM
(NY LADY): So you already filed a police report?? Trust me if and when the authorities need 6:50 AM
(NY LADY): (1/2) To get a hold of me for any sort of questions. They will call first to set up a phone appointment. I am still sleeping right now. I have ask you kindly to 6:54 AM
(NY LADY): (2/2) back off. This is unfortunately the last time I will be asking to stop. TTYL. 6:54 AM
Me: Your evasiveness is highly suspicious How can you be sleeping? You've been answering my questions. I will have more questions for you in the coming days. Whether you cooperate or not will be entirely up to you. I can bring you under the jurisdiction of the courts as a hostile witness or a defendant and you won't have the luxury of ignoring me. 7:13 AM
Me: The van contained information essential to legal proceedings and who may have taken it is obstructing justice. 7:13 AM
(NY LADY): (1/3) A friend, a true friend doesn't treat some one like this. No more contact For awhile!! When I have a free moment, I will contact you and let you know when 7:54 AM
(NY LADY): (2/3) I answer your questions. As of now, you can no longer contact via text/email/what have you/ in person until you can calm down and rationally get yourself 7:54 AM
(NY LADY): (3/3) together. Until then, you need to stop. ***This is your last verbal written warning** 7:54 AM
Me: STOP THIS REHEARSED DIATRIBE that works for your male suitors. I have no interest in you, only the van. You are obliged to assist in solving a crime whenever one is committed. For the last time, who has possession of my van? 8:16 AM

She didn’t reply to that question. However, another series of bewildering texts where sent to me a day later that amounted to more attempts at manipulations. I have been able to confirm with the sheriff’s department that the van was towed and not actually stolen. Given that I am without any money, the van is virtually lost unless I could convince a judge to release the van because of unlawful removal and possession.

Where is the woman now? She is gone and nowhere to be found. She’s already moved out from her apartment. Stay tuned. This thing’s beginning to heat up.

Happy 235th Birthday, America!

May the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country. (Daniel Webster)

Aliso Viejo, California is a comparatively small city with less than 50,000 residents. It is small enough that it can be called a town. In fact, in 2009 Forbes Magazine called it one of the "Best Towns to Live in America". It’s amazing to me how beautiful this city is. We have 42 miles of coastline in the OC, and several cities that border the Pacific Ocean but none of them could match what Aliso Viejo can offer an individual like myself - an indigent litigator. One of my favorite places in the city is the Grand Park where sometimes during a long week I could be found napping under one of the park trees. It's a great place for moments of contemplation where during the afternoon different species of birds flock to fill the air with their melodic serenade.

Sundays are usually short days for me, meaning that I don’t work late at night. The Neighborhood Cup closes at 5PM on Sundays, which gave me a chance to stroll around the city and let off some of that pent up energy - the residue of all that coffee I consumed. I arrived at the Grand Park to find some activity, people preparing the area for this year's 4th of July celebrations.

It was already getting dark when I wondered upon a team of pyrotechnic experts setting up the fireworks array for the show. With the distances those projectiles travel, you would think that it would require the use of artillery-like pieces. But to my surprise, it wasn’t anything like I imagined. What I saw were micro-cannons made of three-inch diameter pipes that they’ve cut out to about a foot tall. Some were made of plastic and some were made of very hard cardboard. They were clustered like batteries in square steel crates and lined up along the edge of the park.

The man I spoke to estimated there will be approximately 1500 shells sent off into the sky for this evening’s show. He also told me that the explosives will cost anywhere between $5.00 to $20.00 per shell depending on how elaborate the explosions. At $12.00 average per shell, the fireworks alone will cost approximately $18,000.00. Then, you have the live entertainment, the exhibitor’s booths, the portable bathrooms, the trash bins and all the other things that go along with community events. City Hall meeting minutes available on the web had budgeted $23,618 for the pyrotechnics and $3,000 for musical entertainment for the year 2010. It may cost more or less this year. Having seen last year's show, that actually seems reasonable.

Now for the long wait until sundown, which we expect to be at 8:05PM.

Happy Birthday to you America. May you be forever free.