World's Most Fortunate Pro Se Litigant Represented By Judge Posner Now Also Represented By David Bo
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2018, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Above the Law
This story needs one of those “Individual Results May Vary” disclaimers. Because when you launch a pro se case against the government, your case probably won’t resemble William Bond’s. Bond managed to get Judge Richard Posner to volunteer to assist him, and subsequently represent him after the Fourth Circuit stupidly demanded that Posner and co-counsel Matthew Dowd, not Bond, sign their names to the brief eviscerating the federal judiciary for its terminally flawed pro se process.
Now that the Fourth Circuit kicked the case in a remarkably lazy opinion, Bond is looking to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it looks like he’s got David Boies on his side now.
In a motion filed Friday afternoon, Bond seeks an extension to file his cert petition. But in a surprising twist, the motion is signed by David Boies, with Boies Schiller’s Joanna Wright and Emily Harris also listed on the papers. Judge Posner and Dowd are still featured as part of the team, but it appears as though Boies is taking the lead as counsel of record at this stage based on his experience with Supreme Court advocacy.
Getting a cert petition picked up is a little bit of alchemy, but a motion featuring both Boies and Judge Posner on the cover should raise more than a few eyebrows in the cert pool.
Read more: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/worlds-most-fortunate-pro-se-litigant-represented-by-judge-posner-now-also-represented-by-david-boies/
Link to tweet
.
This is a case, long overdue, concerning the systemic abuse of indigent litigants.
Unfortunately, I've been prevented from reaching out to Judge Posner, due to a potential conflicts issues. It has been extremely frustrating, due to the fact that we have confessions of lying under oath, intentionally, in our eToys federal cases against Romney & Goldman Sachs; but the courts abuse me with 1 line dismisses stating (that lies under oath and homicides) are "insubstantial".
So - This case is AWESOME
I'm super excited to see this case go to the Supreme Ct; but very concerned given the status of the controlling mindsets.
Can't wait to see what rulings come from this case!
Regardless of you having a beef with your wife, neighbor, or some group, place or thing, we all have a Constitutional right to address a grievance, in court.
You either do it with a lawyer - or without.
Should you choose to go it alone, to sue your neighbor about his late night barking dog, or a prisoner on death row - this means you are "pro se".
Per Wikipedia:
This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per" ) .
.
Judge Posner, now that he has retired from the bench has - chosen to be a "pro se" advocate activist; because there are systemic abuses of "pro se" parties - as if "pro se" litigants - are a 2nd class of citizens.
It is against the law to dismiss a "pro se" without a court doing an adjudication upon the merits.
The notion that summary dismissal of "pro se" litigants relieves the case load is also bogus. In cases such as mine, it has become a plague upon the courts, which suffers; because the schemes that turned into being "pro se" are issues of manifest injustice.
Bad faith parties get judges to dismiss cases on the argument it is a fact that 70% of "pro se" parties, have no frigging idea what they are doing; which tends to be a royal pain in the ass, wasting the courts time.
I use to be one of those people.
Regrettably, your average John Q Public also, misguidely, believes the courts are there to - help you; but that's not true.
Courts are forbidden, by law, from assisting a case.
Judges are there to judge!
In this case His Honor Judge Posner has decided that enough is enough; and has offered to turn a "pro se" case into a nationally significant cause of action.
I Agree with Judge Posner - it's time to address this case.
.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wysimdnwyg
(2,233 posts)I've heard of some of these people, which I guess means I pay some attention to the news, but I'm a bit lost on this case, and the whole "pro se" thing is well beyond me.
Can you give a short explanation in layman's terms as to what this is and what it means?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Just what it means to laserhaas. Hopefully s/he'll update/amend it to make it more useful to others.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I get that this means a lot to you, but the lack of actual info in your post that contextualizes this case is glaring.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Judge Posner is internationally famous; and is written about, in main stream media, on a regular basis.
The case is about courts dismissing "pro se" parties, arbitrarily & capriciously; which us a deprivation of due processcivil rights.
His Honor putting his name & reputation on the case is proif the case has merits.
Details of which would take time; and is not for posting on LBN
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Pro Se means you are representing yourself, that is without a lawyer.
My memory of this case is hazy so I will probably get some of the facts in it incorrect.
eToys was one of the first on-line companies briefly selling more toys than Toys-R-Us and with its stock going through the roof. Then it cratered, went bankrupt, and closed down.
The owner of the company has claimed ever since that his stock was manipulated by George Romney and Goldman Sachs and has been waging a one-man battle against them in the courts. This is evidently the next step in his rather Quixotic fight.
Based on the bit above it seems as if he has found some high-powered 'advisors' to help him get his case before SOCTUS.
(Please note the disclaimers above. This is how I remember it and I probably have some/many details not quite correct.)
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)I became a "pro se" due to fraud.
My court approved/ compensated, law firm of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell (MNAT) represented me and my company, eToys; against Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital.
What Iand everyone else was uniformed about, is the fact MNAT was also Sachs & Bain's law firm.
How the court allowed that to occur, us that MNAT lied under oath - many times- to conceal MNAT's conflicts of interest.
MNAT and other criminal co-conspirators, offered me a million dollar bribe; and a chance to become a roaming manager of Romney.
When I turned down and reported it to the United States Attorney (Colm Connolly), he refused to investigate or prosecute MNAT, Sachs or Bain.
Problem is, Colm Connolly, also was, a partner of MNAT; which I did not find out, until 7 years later.
Now the same judges say U can't report the fraud and corruption due to the fact that MNAT presented the court with a HAAS Affidavit that they claim waived all my rights.
Judge said that my being "pro se" prevented me from going to court, as Laser Haas, to inform the court the HAAS Affidavit is a forgery.
Due to the abusive judge, corrupt federal prosecutor (who is a Judge now) - Toys R Us is DEAD.
Also dead are people murdered in my case.
The 9th Circuit said those facts are "insubstantial"
3rd Circuit that has Trump's sister on it and Walter K Stapleton (a partner of MNAT that Colm Connolly Clerked for) actually had the gall to publish an OPINION that the Law does not apply to my case.
Although my court approved contract pats my legal fees, and thousands if hours were worked on my case by court approved lawyers - Not a single Attorney would put in the evidence - that I used as a "pro se" to get those crooked attorneys fined for a million dollars.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)it would be heard by a right wing court, greatly diminishing any chance of justice.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)HOWEVER, I bet the opposing parties rush to settle the case; which is a hard effort to make the case - moot - preventing it from being heard.
Though, the goid judges could try to persuade a majority to addressthe issue - de novo
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Over 12 hours old. Published Oct 22, 2018 at 11:57 AM, posted on the LBN Forum Oct 23, 2018, 09:30 AM
Please post your OP on the General Discussions Forum or the Editorials and Other Articles Forum