Become a Fan

twitter / LegalPadblog

LAWJOBS.COM S.F. BAY AREA JOB LISTINGS

« An Obvious Question for Patent Cases ... But Should Juries Answer It? | Main | Skype Founders Sues eBay Over IP Rights »

September 16, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d052253ef0120a5cd4201970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Court Closure Protests, Or Early Halloween?:

Comments

What are judges thinking?

So called "vexatious litigant" gets court's permission to sue victim.

http://cbs5.com/local/man.wins.lawsuit.2.1192013.html

Cardinalli admits on camera the purpose of his lawsuit was not to get money...he just wants the Shirakis to "tell the truth." At least *his* version.

Except in the context ntext of his criminal case.

Seems he admitted his lawsuit for monetary damages was"

A) frivolous and had a corrupt motive (ya think?); and

B) the lawsuit was intended to influence witnesses in his criminal case to his benefit.

What good was all that time and effort spent getting him declared a vexatious if the courts are just going to continue allowing him to file more suits of abusive litigation?

And Why aren't reporters asking these hard questions?

How about one asking the presiding judge why she would allow Cardinalli to do this without requiring him to post a security bond. Shouldn't every witness now worry they'll be hit with a seven-figure civil suit designed to make them "tell the truth" and they will have to spend thousands of dollars hiring attorneys to defend themselves?

Or maybe that's the point. 'Mo business.

Oh, Cardinalli filed another appeal against a woman in another case:

Cardinalli v Shimun (filed 7/16/09) case no. 1-09-AP-000723 (underlying case, Shimun v. Bantilan, case no. 5-06-CV-001862.)

Nevermind that he's not supposed to be able to file an appeal without prior court approval. Seems like that got the go-ahead too.

Wheeee! Both he and the Courts are taking the public on one long, ride.

In re R.H. (Fresno County Department of Children & Family Services v. R.H. (2009)) “‘Litigation’ for purposes of vexatious litigant requirements encompasses civil trials and special proceedings, but it is broader than that. It includes proceedings initiated in the Courts of Appeal by notice of appeal or by writ petitions other than habeas corpus or other criminal matters.”).

Wonder how many other lawsuits and appeals the courts allowed Cardinalli to file that the public is completely unaware?

Yo, fourth estate: there's work to be done here.

Bet Ms. Shimun doesn't know about the appeal, or that she's going to have to hire an attorney to untangle the mess before all is said and done.

The judges who allowed this fraud to go on for years, and who allow it to to continue, aren't even ashamed.

That's the saddest part of all.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • lawjobs
    Search For Jobs

    Job Type

    Region

    Keyword (optional)

August 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31