The other day I got notice that I HAD to report for jury duty. Funny thing, that word "duty." The court makes it sound like it's voluntary. However, if you don't show up, you get tossed in jail - so how voluntary is that?!
I suspect it goes back to the days of indentured servitude where you were not a slave, persay, but you were still beholding to someone for paying your way over the Atlantic (so, you were less than a slave and were often treated worse).
Thing is, I really don't like having to do something. For example, the wife says, "Take out the garbage" or "Empty the dishwasher."
Yeah, I'll get to it eventually but what she's really saying is, "Take out the garbage....NOW!" Not when you want to do it, but NOW (as in right the @&#%!# NOW!!!). It's more of a demand than a request and if I do it when I want to there will be hell to pay (eventually).
This was all brought to my mind when a Guy came into the library. Seems he wanted to sue someone and really didn't want to spend the money to hire an attorney.
Of course, he could buy a new computer, shoes, a watch and other things but no money for an attorney. So, his buddy tells him to tell the court that he's "indigent" and that they'll appoint an attorney for him for FREE.
Free? Really?!? You can compel an attorney to serve your needs in a civil case for free? NOTE: this is different than working pro bono.
Pro bono means the attorney willingly works for free because s/he feels a visceral need to serve the public. What this guy wanted was to force an attorney to take his case regardless of said attorneys desire.
This was an interesting concept - free legal counsel in a civil case. So I looked into it.
First off, I looked at California Business and Professions code Section 6068(h) which reads:
It is the duty of an attorney to [n]ever reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
Uh huh. What I take this to mean is that attorneys, must help people by taking on cases even when people can't pay for their legal services. Promising, very promising.
Then I came across Hunt v. Hackett, 36 Cal.App3d 134, 111 Cal.Rptr 456 (1973) which held that where an action is basically civil in nature, there is "no statute or case law authorizing a trial court to furnish counsel at public expense or to appoint counsel without compensation." Hunt at 36 Cal. App. 3d, p. 138.
Then Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist., 490 U.S. 296 (1989) held that 28 U.S.C. section 1915 does not authorized a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case.
So, unlike criminal cases where attorneys can be pressed into service and represent indigent persons (at reduced rates), where the matter is civil in nature, attorneys cannot be forced to represent someone without any compensation.
Heck, I suspect under both Hunt and Mallard, attorneys can out and out refuse to represent anyone they like, regardless of circumstance or ability to pay. Of course, Guy didn't want to hear this and blew me off.
Hopefully, however, the judge in the case won't go all legislative and do his own thing and order the nearest attorney to take the (civil) case, sans retainer.
Hopefully the judge in the case will consult their local county law Librarian to see if there are any cases or codes that can help direct them in their decisions.
Yeah, it's a pipe dream but it's my dream and my blog, so there!
You know how somethings come at you in life that you never saw coming? I mean right upside the head it smacks you and there is nothing to prepare you for that moment. You can't practice for it or rehearse and there are no do-overs. You are either ready to deal with the situation or not.
A few years back, I had that experience when I was in a bank robbery. Laying face down with a Glock to the back of my head, I can still remember the feeling that in mere moments, life for me would end. I remember the young lady laying across from me was crying that she would not see her daughter again.
I have often reflected back on that scenario and thought how I could have been better prepared and have come to the conclusion that I could not. I am what I am and the best I can do is get ready for the next cataclysmic event, whatever that may be.
Such was the thoughts going through my mind when a young-ish guy came into the library. Guy had that I-just-got-punched-in-the-gut sort of look and tells me that his fledgling company had just been stolen from him.
Seems he and a buddy of his launched a small tech start up a couple years back. With a bevy of investors, guy and buddy worked tirelessly to make the company successful.
While the company should have been turning a profit, it wasn't and, in fact, it was floundering. After a while, guy found that college buddy had been funneling company secrets to a competitor.
Before guy knew what was happening, buddy quits and starts working with competitor. Shortly thereafter, competitor and buddy come out with a product exactly like guy and guy's business died an ignominious death.
Can you blame guy for feeling all out of sorts? His buddy steals his ideas and jumps ship only to stab him in the back and cause his baby to fail?
How can anyone possible plan for that kind of personal sabotage? Guy sure wasn't, but walking into my library was probably the best thing he'd done all day because in less time than it took to write this blog, I suggested guy take a look at:
- California Torts (Lexis; Vol. 3, Chp. 40, Fraud and Deceit and Other Business Torts, §§ 40.110—40.117)
- California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Series 2200 - Economic Interference
- Witkin, Summary of California Law, 10th ed. (TR; Vol. 5, Torts, §§ 741, 742, 759)
- California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 12, Chp. 122, Interference)
and guy, calmer now, went off to plot a course to success (and the demise of his buddy).
Yep, sometimes things come at you sideways and you never see them coming. Good thing there are people like your local county law Librarian who can help you make sense of it all when you find yourself laying in a heap in a gutter somewhere.
As the old saying goes, "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
A few days back, I picked up the LA Times to read an article: "Friend says he and Manafort were criminals" wherein Richard Gates testified that he and Paul Manafort (former Trump Campaign Manager) had engaged in criminal activities. Note: The testimony was that Gates and Manafort conducted criminal activities - not Trump (which goes back to the Judge's comment a while back that this case against Manafort was a witch hunt and not a drive to arrive at justice.
I hadn't gotten past the 4th paragraph when the word "TORTURE" popped in my head. I mean, why would anyone admit to having committed criminal activity in a Federal case unless they were being coerced into confessing? Or course, this brings us to the concept of "torture."
See, at least twice weekly, I have someone come into my library who has committed some kind of felony (that's "felony" as in over a year in prison). Thing is, it doesn't matter if it's arson, rape, murder, or treason - NO ONE ever admits that they actually did the crime. It's always someone elses fault. "They" got the wrong person. "They" are prosecuting the wrong wo/man.
Morale: No one ever confesses to anything unless someone is twisting their arm.
Soooooooooooooo, who is twisting Gates' arm? Of course, this goes back to when Robert Mueller was "asking" a Federal judge to grant immunity to five (5) witnesses.
Why grant immunity? Because torture is illegal, that's why. The problem with torture, is that it produces unreliable information and that that anyone will say anything to stop the pain. Don't believe me? Ask any five year-old who just stole a cookie. They'll cave in mere seconds just to avoid the ensuing interrogation.
So, like him or hate him, I doubt seriously that Manafort did anything technically wrong. Why? Because Gates was tortured into saying what he is saying; with immunity, he can say whatever he wants without fear of torture and/or further pain.
Frankly, anyone that believes anything that Mueller (the torturer) or Gates (the torturee) has to say, well,....I have a bridge to sell you situated out in the Florida Everglades.
No, really! I built a bridge that spans the ocean to Cuba and I'm selling it for a mere $4,000,000. Don't believe me? Well, that's probably for the best.
Do you remember the movie Hall Pass? Basically, a straight to DVD mid-life crisis flick about two guys who are given a "hall pass" by their wives to do whatever they want for a week. That's right, whatever they want. What do you think is going to happen?! What do you think the wives thought was going to happen?!?
I suspect the wives figured their husbands would shake out their mid-life blues and get on with life (or realize that the marriage is over and to get on with their lives). Either way, there are going to be problems with the granting of a "hall pass" in that one "someone" is going to have hurt feelings.
Before we get too far into our story of the month, let's define the word of the month: CONNIVANCE. According to Black's Law Dictionary, CONNIVANCE is:
the act of indulging or ignoring another's wrongdoing, esp. when action should be taken to prevent it. Family Law. A defense to divorce, one spouse's corrupt consent, express or implied, to have the other commit adultery or some other act of sexual misconduct. Consent is an essential element of connivance. The complaining spouse must have consented to the act complained of.
While most states have no-fault divorce, it can still be a thing. Take, for example, the Guy who came into my library a while back. Seems that after 15 years of marriage, Guy's wife was getting tired of his amorous advances.
I say, "Wait - your wife - the woman to whom you are married - is tired of your advances?" Eh, it happens, I guess. Thing is, after a decade of helping people defend or pursue dissolution actions, I have seen marriages fail for far less than simply getting blown off.
Anyway, the wife tells Guy one weekend to go crazy and find someone to "play" with. That's right, she gave him a hall pass and that's "play" as in nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Fast forward a few weeks later and wife is talking with a neighborhood friend who mentions her tryst with her husband while he was on the hall pass. Wife freaks out, the police summoned, relationships were severed, and wife filed for divorce.
Guy is now in the library looking for help on how to protect himself now that he and wife are on the outs. Wait - didn't wife say go forth and conquer? Does she not remember the hall pass?!?
So, when the wife says do whatever you want, she doesn't actually mean do whatever you want; she means DON'T do anything; stay home and be miserable. Apparently, Guy is a literal type of person (which is probably why he's getting divorced).
Anyway, I suggested guy take a look at:
and off Guy went developing a response to his soon-to-be ex-wife's petition for dissolution.
The problem with all this is that this is pretty much all wife's fault. Notwithstanding the fact that people can be really kookie dooks when it comes to life and marriage and stuff - particularly when it comes to being up front about what the real problem(s) is/are.
I suspect had wife been forthright and upfront with what was going on in her head, there would have been no divorce and life would have been as it was (or, in the very least, wife should have explicitly said the marriage is dead and let's get on with life).
Jeesh! Grant a hall pass and flipped out?! Some people's kids.
***Editor's Note: It's been about a month since I published this blog post and in that time, I have had quite a number of hateful slurs slung against me and this post. Of course, every hateful slur has been by a woman - which pretty much proves my point. What do "they" say: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones..."
