Not the brightest bulb

Have you ever come across a person who thought they knew everything about everything but what they don't know is that they don't know anything about anything but have the confidence of someone who does know what they're talking about?

As it turns out, there is a condition called the Dunning-Kruger Effect that covers this concept.  

Essentially, The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.  Basically, they don't know what they don't know but hold out that they know everything about everything.

You've seen these people.  Uncle Bob gets wasted at Thanksgiving and starts to pontificate about thing political like he's a well-versed pundit.   

Neighbor Alice drones on about how to properly grow flowers despite the fact that she has a brown thumb (i.e. kills everything).

 

Still unclear?  Some other examples might help identify these types of people, for example:

• A new employee who has only a basic understanding of a task might believe they are an expert and refuse feedback or further training, leading to mistakes and poor performance aaaaand, subsequently, gets fired.
• A manager (hired as a manager because of their relationship to a family member) who lacks experience in what a company/employees actually do makes poor decisions due to overconfidence impacting team morale and productivity.
• A person who’s watched a few episodes of a cooking show decides to host a 10-person dinner party with a five-course French menu winds up making hamburgers and soggy "french" fries.
• A non-technical startup founder insists on coding the company's website using only YouTube tutorials resulting in a site that is buggy, slow, and not secure.
• A new driver right out of high school who has only driven a car in a video game overestimate their actual driving skills and take unnecessary risks.
• A new law school graduate opens a solo practice and takes on a complex case, believing it’s “just filling out forms.”

It is to this last one that our story proceeds.  Years back, I had an buddy who had a wife who had money to burn.  Acquaintance (who had just graduated from law school) convinced wife to help him open a law office complete with flashy new furniture and an impressive library (think small Library of Congress).

Nary three (3) months into his law "practice" and without any law experience, Buddy calls me (who had, at that time, about a year of legal experience under my belt) asking for help.  Seems Buddy had taken on an appeal, taken a retainer, and promised client 100% success.   

Apparently, Buddy had convinced client that by virtue of his graduating from law school AND having a fancy law office AND throwing around classic Latin terms like res ipsa loquitur, de novo, habeas corpus, and actus reas, that Buddy knew everything about how to appeal a case.  

Buddy didn't but client didn't know that (and, clearly, neither did Buddy).

I don't know if you know, but appellate cases are much harder (and more costly) to represent than trial cases for a number of reasons, including:

• Appellate law is more technical and research-heavy. You're arguing about legal principles, statutory interpretation, constitutional issues, etc.—not just facts.
• Briefs must be meticulously researched and crafted, and oral arguments involve intense questioning by a panel of judges.
• Appellate deadlines and formatting rules are rigid. A missed deadline or a procedurally deficient brief can sink your appeal, no matter how valid the issue.
• You must often identify “preserved errors”—issues objected to during trial. If something wasn’t preserved, it's often waived on appeal.
• Appellate courts only review the record from the trial court. You can't introduce new facts, so if something wasn't brought up or preserved at trial, it's gone.
• Trial strategy is often collaborative with witnesses, experts, and clients. In appeals, it’s often just the attorney and the law.
• Unlike trial, where emotional appeal and charisma can sway a jury, appellate work requires pure logical reasoning and legal precision. It's a more academic form of advocacy.
• You're persuading experienced judges, not laypeople. They will spot weak arguments instantly.
• You often start from the position of defending a losing argument (if you’re appellant) or protecting a lower court win (if you’re appellee).
• Because trial court judges don't like having their decisions overturned, they are (often) careful how the trial is conducted.  Consequently, the majority of trial court decisions are affirmed (meaning you'll often lose and look bad in front of a now angry client).

The problem here was that Buddy was clueless about how the legal process worked and needed help with his 5th amended brief (the court was kind but patience was wearing thin).  To provide added clarity, the client had started the appeal process and already had had to do 3 amended briefs before encountering Buddy.

Reaching out to me, Buddy wanted me to re-write the brief.  Now, I had never done appellate work.  In fact, the closest I had ever come to appellate court was sitting in the gallery listening to oral arguments.  So, even though Buddy was offering me $80 an hour (remember wife with deep pockets?), I was not willing to help out or put my stamp anywhere near that case.

Consequently, Buddy and the case was bounced out of appellate court and Buddy, consequent to narrowly avoiding a malpractice action with some more well-placed legal terms, quickly down-sized his law office (moving into a closet), and wound up helping neighbors and friends on more simpler cases.

The moral to this story: if ever you are in need of a legal expert, hire someone who knows what they're supposed to know.  

• Been in a car accident?  Hire an attorney with experience in car accidents.
• Need help drafting a Living Trust or durable power of attorney?  Hire an estate planning attorney.
• Having problems with the IRS?  Hire a tax attorney (i.e. someone with accounting and legal experience).
• Looking to get a divorce?  Hire a family law attorney.
• Looking to file a bankruptcy?  Hire an attorney familiar with bankruptcy in your jurisdiction.
• Looking to avoid ICE and want your very own (and legitimate) green card?  Hire an immigration attorney.
  

Now, you could represent yourself by buying a book about what it is you're trying to do from Nolo Press or looking at You Tube videos, but would you really try to build a house not knowing the difference between things electrical and things plumbing?

Yeah, me neither.

It's just a joke

Sad that I have to bring this up - again.  Seems the last time I talked about the 1st Amendment, someone got offended.  

...and left a mean comment.

Eh, I'm not going to get bogged down with other people's baggage.  What is funny, though, is the notion that people think they're tolerant of things but aren't.  Really, really aren't.

I mean, most people will say they are tolerant of things other people say and leave well enough alone.  But most people (I'm looking at the politically left-leaners) are most always looking for ways to be offended.

Take, for example the situation I was in the other day.  So, I met up with this guy waiting for his wife at a local department store and as I'm wont to do, I start telling him a joke.  It was funny but not overly so.  In fact, here it is:

A guy is out working on his car and is accosted one morning by his female neighbor.  

Neighbor says, "My husband has been unfaithful."  

"What happened?" says the guy.  

Neighbor says, "yesterday I was running late for work.  I was running all around trying to get ready.  My hair was a mess, couldn't get my make-up done, didn't eat breakfast and my husband was no help and kept getting in the way. 

I finally got in the car, started it up and took off down the street like a bat out of hell.  Just before I got to the first intersection, my car sputtered and died right in the middle of the street. 

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET!

I got out and had to walk back to the house in my heels.  I hadn't been gone but 10 minutes.  When got walked in my house I  heard giggling sounds coming from our upstairs master bedroom. 

Bursting in the bedroom, I saw my husband naked and in the arms of the neighbor's teenage daughter!" 

Exasperated, Neighbor exclaims, "What am I going to do?!"

Guy thinks for a moment and says, "A sputtering engine that stops after a short drive often indicates a fuel or ignition problem.  A few things come to mind like a failing ignition coil - which can prevent the spark plugs from firing correctly. You might also want a mechanic have a look at your fuel filter or even the fuel pump as those could lead to sputtering and stalling, especially at high speeds."

Which is funny because lady is looking for relationship advice but guy - being a guy - is thinking automotive problems.  

It's a guy thing.  If lady wants relationship advice, she needs to talk to her girl friends - not the next-door guy/neighbor working on his car.

Anyway, in the middle of the joke, a lady walks by, stops, listens intently and announces that I offended her and she stomped off.

That's announce as in she goes all Karen on us.

Guy and I bust up laughing more at lady than the joke (which was funny) and we couldn't stop.  

Funnier still was the group that stepped up.  One lady in said group started lecturing us on how childish we were laughing at the uptight lady who couldn't laugh at a joke.  Second lady also left in a huff with husband in tow (who was smirking but knew better than to laugh out loud.  Sad, that).

You know, the thing with jokes is that they are most always subjective.  Some people think they're funny, others not so much.  I suspect, the key is to take what people say with a grain of salt and go from there.

Well, that or go through life being offended. 

So, were you sufficiently offended by my joke?  If not, here's another one:

 

Anyway, my joke was classic, I made a friend, we ticked off two Karens, and were labeled as childish.  

Sounds like the end of another perfect day. 

On the Edge

It's a new year and like most new years, I generally take stock in how I did the previous year.  

In the last couple of years, the family and I have taken some serious blows what with moving from the west coast to the east coast, taking on a new job, buying a new (or different house) and dealing with other "stuff."  

Its been a rough ride.

This year's review I got to thinking about how I've grown (or whether I have) and my mind got to wandering (as it often does) and settled on the topic of pride.  What is pride?  One of the seven deadly sins, pride is defined as: 

a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired

Ever hear that line pride cometh before the fall?  I gotta wonder whether a person can ever be proud of their accomplishments but not prideful to the point that they think they are the best.  I've never heard a librarian say they're the best (pretty good, maybe) but I'll bet there are a few who have thought it.

Anyway, I've been teaching legal research and writing (on and off) for little over 12 years at various institutions and to/for a variety of persons.  As I was reflecting on what I've been doing and how I've been doing it, I got to thinking whether I'm as good as I think I am or, more to the point, whether I'm good at what I do or whether I just think I'm good at what I do. 

Of course all of this came to my mind when I read a case the other day about an attorney who tried to barter sex for legal services.  I'm guessing attorney thought he was the cock of the walk when he tried that move.  Dang but he must have thought he was coated with Teflon - that he could get away with anything.

See, back in 2013, Mr. McGinnis E. Hatfield visited the Cherry Bomb Gentleman's Club and met a young woman who was working the establishment.  Seems instead of charging the young woman his customary fee of $1,500, Mr. Hatfield offered to represent the young woman, in an upcoming divorce action, in exchange for sex.  

While reading this, I had a flashback to a television show back in the 80's called L.A. Law which revolved around the lives of a law firm and the employees at said firm.  One character, Arnie, was the divorce expert and was very handsy with his female clients. 

Anyway, young lady didn't appreciate Mr. Hatfield's proposal and filed a complaint against Mr. Hatfield.  Subsequently, Mr. Hatfield had his law licensed annulled.  Note: not just revoked - but annulled (like it never happened).  They didn't just want to get this guy off the books, they wanted him to disappear like he never existed!  A bit much but I guess you reap what you sow.

You know, I've known a number of attorneys who, over the years, were suspended or out and out lost their licenses for things like mismanagement of client funds, not filing documents, holding on to a client's files until they paid a past due bill, and other crazy stuff.  

I suspect there are a lot of attorneys out in attorney land who get away with this.  Me?  I'd be too terrified to pull something crazy like this....which is probably why I'm a law librarian and don't have to worry about such things.  Of course, I've got other things to worry about - but not that!  So, maybe one in my corner?

Yeah, best not to tempt the fates.

Just like dad

Typically when I'm looking through the legal rags, I see countless lawsuits against corporations or some family law matter.  The other day there was a story about a rear-end collision resulting in a $21 million verdict?  21 Million!!!  That's insane. 

The topper of the week, though, was the lawsuit filed by a dad against this son.  That's right - dad sued his son.  Seems dad and son were lawyers and son was working for dad.  

I'm guessing dad and son had a falling out and son decided to open his own law practice.  The problem is that dad had named his son after himself - so, the opposing parties were Dad and Dad, Jr.

Now, Dad had been practicing personal injury for a long time - long before Dad, Jr. decided to work for Dad.  After the falling out, Dad, Jr. opened his own practice and called it....wait for it...Dad, Jr law firm II (see the play on words there?  That's II as in too as in I'm Dad, too, or something like that).  

Poetic justice, I think since it's a real slap in Dad's face.  I'll bet Dad never thought Dad, Jr. would ever rebel against Dad and that Dad, Jr. would always just goose-step as he was so ordered.  Clearly, Dad, Jr. is a rebel and a force to be reckoned with.

Anyway, Dad didn't like (or get) the joke and sued Dad, Jr. for trademark infringement seeking, among other things, to prevent Dad, Jr. from using his own name.  Seems also that Dad is pulling out all the stops seeking to put the kibosh on Dad, Jr. from using his name (i.e. "Dad").  

For his part, Dad, Jr. is not Dad and Dad, Jr. created a website that (I think) is enough different as to not overlap Dad.  Being a techno fuddyduddy (and probably someone who was unable to program a VCR) Dad is livid that Dad, Jr. is using anything that resembles his name.  According to Dad:

Defendant's (i.e. Dad, Jr) confusingly similar designation in connection with identical services is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendant's with or by Plaintiff (i.e. Dad).

This reminds me of the Lexis/Lexus lawsuit a few years back.  In that case, Lexus (the car manufacturer) sued claiming that Mead couldn't use the name Lexis (a data retrieval service). The court found that because the two names were being used in different industries, that there would be no confusion.

In this instant case, there are two problems to address.  First is whether trademark law can prohibit someone from using his own legal name or restrict its use when there are two people in the same industry who are using it to promote their business.  

Thing is, unless there were some contract provision saying that Dad, Jr. must not use the name of "Dad" withing 50 miles of Dad, then I don't see how Dad has a chance in hell of succeeding.

The second problem is what is going to happen years down the line when Dad, Jr. has kids.  Is Dad, Jr. going to want to have anything to do with Dad?  I don't know many grandparents that don't freak out when they discover that they can't see their grandchildren.  Dad, for his part, really needs to think these things through.  What is the real cost of winning?  

Maybe, Dad, you need to step back and see the big picture.  In the immediate sense it's all about about money and hurt feelings, but long term?  Maybe you need to think about who is going to be around when you can't take care of yourself.  Do you really want to make Dad, Jr. to be your enemy?  

Just think about it Dad, who would you rather have selecting your rest home?  A happy Dad, Jr. or a resentful Dad, Jr.?

I'm just sayin.

Word of the Month for June 2019: Scurrility

For the record, I have worked in and around the business of law for little over 30 years. 

In all that time, I have discovered that the single most contentious area of law is that of family law - which is really a misnomer because "family law" has very little to do with creating families.  In fact, I think the person in charge of naming this area of law did it as a prank to fool people into thinking that it actually helps families.

Anyway, I just finished helping a young lady get up and moving with her case.  Seems she had been divorced for a number of years from a particularly cantankerous guy; a real winner he was.  

Notwithstanding a judgement for child and spousal support, guy had never paid a dime.  Christmas, birthdays - nothing.  Then, to top it off, guy has the gall to file for modification every 6 months.  Heretofore no judge had actually granted said modification but he tries and tries and tries.

What set young lady off was that in between each round of modification, guy spews hatred and foul remarks about her (and her character) to their children every time the kids are over at guys' place.  It's not so much that young lady cares what guy thinks of her as it is the damage his language is having on tender ears.

Of course, this all brings us to our word of the month:  SCURRILITY.  According to Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed.), SCURRILITY is:

One or more slanderous, abusive, or off-color remarks; vulgar, indecent, or abusive language.  2. The quality of whatever is scandalous, abusive, or indecent.

So, young lady is livid about what-all guy is saying about her in front of their kids.  She asks what I can suggest she look at to help with plugging guy's pie hole.  Knowing my collection as I do, I suggest she take a look at:

• Understanding Family Law (Lexis)
• Family Law: cases, text, problems (Lexis)

I also suggested young lady take a look at Developing a Child Custody Parenting Plan put out by the Family Court Services of San Diego County Superior Court and off young lady went to piece together a plan of action in an already delicate situation.

You know, whether you're in the catbird seat or your sitting behind the 8-ball, your local county law librarian is pulling for you.  So, waste not a minute and head on over to see how you can get to your next happily ever after.

Break Free

Have you ever had one of those days that you are just happy?  I mean, uncontrollable, dancing like no one is watching happy?

So picture it.  This guy comes into the library with a smile from ear to ear.  Seems he's been paying child support for like forever.  I mean, it's been killing him.  Ex is a hag and she has kept nagging him and demanding a raise every year for the last 5 years.  While the ex wear furs, he wears Kohls.

Guy is feeling down in the dumps....until....guy finds out that his 16 year old kid had file for and was granted emancipation from his mom (Guy's ex).  

Guy is SOOOOOOO happy.  Why, might you ask?  Well, it's seems that when a kid is emancipated, the parent doesn't have to pay child support, anymore.  At least, that's what Guy is hoping is going to happen.  Ex-wife, on the other hand, is sweating bullets.

So, standing in front of me, Guy is looking for anything that can help him break free of his support obligations.  So, turning to my collection, I suggest Guy look at:

• Am Jur Proof of Facts (TR; 108 POF3d 177 (Proof of the emancipation of child in order to terminate child support))
• Am Jur Trials (TR; 37 Trials 639, 657)
• California Civil Practice: Family Law Litigation (TR; Vol 1, Chp. 3)
• American Jurisprudence, 2d (TR; Divorce §§959-964; Parent §§ 73-78, 100)

and with a giddy step in his walk, Guy sets about to make his living hell of a life into a paradise.

Yep, sometimes it's like that.  Sometimes you're down in the dumps and sometimes you're the cock of the walk.  Wherever you are at in life, know that your county law library (and, by extension county law Librarians) are ready to help you get on with your life.

Word of the Month for April 2019: Emancipated Minor

Ah, spring.  A time of renewal.  A time to think about new possibilities and resolve old conflicts and that, as it turns out, is why a number of people come to our law library - to resolve conflicts (real or imagined).

Take, for example the couple that came in the other day.  Seems they were parents of a resourceful child of 12 years of age.  Seems Child had designed, developed, marketed, and was now selling a device to businesses in the area.  

No joke.  The device (parents would not elaborate on what it was or what it did - other than the fact that Child was making a killing) was very profitable and was making Child (and, by extension, Child's parents) very wealthy.

The problem was that Child realized that he did not need parents anymore and was seeking to be classified as an Emancipated Minor.  What is an Emancipated Minor, you ask?  Well, according to Black's Law Dictionary, an Emancipated Minor is:

A minor who is self-supporting and independent of parental control, usu. as a result of a court order.  See Emancipation.

I suspect the problem was not so much that Child wanted to be Emancipated as much as Child didn't want parents dipping into his profits (and, subsequently, dad would have to go back to work).  Parents wanted to know what they could do to put the kibosh on the emancipation proceeding.

Uh huh.  So it comes down to parents v. kids, is it?  Already, battle lines drawn, I suggest parents take a look at:

• California Family Code (Div. 11, Part 6, Chp. 1-3, §§ 7000 et seq.)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 20, Chp. 245)
• American Jurisprudence, 2d (TR; Parent § 110)

and off parents went trying to figure out what to do next.

For as many times as I've heard about kids failing to launch (i.e leave the nest), it's funky to see the times when the parents are trying to prevent it.  Good luck with that.

Don't forget your pen

I know you're out there. Those who walk into law libraries with a huge chip on your shoulder complaining that no one will help you and that the whole world is out to get you.  

So mad as hornets, you come up to the reference law librarian after being rejected by the court clerk, every administrative agency, the DA and PD, the Family Law Facilitator, the self-help coordinator and then, when you're standing in front of the the law librarian, who is trying to help you and is spewing forth words of wisdom, you stand there with mouth open and brain closed.

Such was the case the other day.  

Guy comes in all flustered and flummoxed claiming that no one will help him.  Seems that he had been renting a stall for his horse.  Seems, he sub-leased the stall to someone who had been paying the rent on the stall.  Seems, suddenly, that landowner decided he wanted the stall back and prevented Guy from stepping onto the land (on which the stall was located). 

So, technically, guy guy wants information on conversion and constructive eviction.  It's a stretch but he's running with it. So, I lead guy over to and suggest he look at:

• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 13, Chp. 150)
• AmJur Pleading and Practice Forms (TR; Vol. 16A §§ 251, 339)
• Proof of Facts (TR; 42 POF2d 317)

opened to the page(s), the chapter(s), the section(s), suggested he read a particular page, and......10 minutes later he was back at the front desk complaining that he didn't know what to do.  

Not know what to do?!?  I just spent 15 minutes explaining what you should do and you don't...wait,...you didn't write anything down, did you?  Well of course you don't know what to do because you can't remember what I said and now he's running out the door spewing obscenities and curses at the world because no one would help him. 

Well, isn't that just precious.

Then there was the couple that came in not long after Guy left.  Seems couple had lost their CPS claim (i.e. lost custody of their kids).  59 days later, they show up at the law library asking how to file an appeal.  Remember the 59 days as it will be important later.

So, lead couple over to the two (2) volume set of

• California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB)

and immediately lady's eyes glaze over and husband starts mouthing off that isn't this all free on the Internet?  I turned towards him and said, no, this isn't on the Internet.  Guy is sure it is and wants to argue and got pouty.  

Turning to lady, I try to soothe her and say that some chapters are not relevant to their case.  I start thumbing chapter by chapter showing what they should read and what they can ignore.  Five (5) minutes into it they walk away and storm out the door.

Remember the 59 days?  The thing with appeals in California, under Rules of Court 8.104, you must file your Notice to Appeal (which starts the appeals process) within 60 days or you lose your right to appeal.  Had couple given me a couple of minutes, I could have at least warned them about the rules of court so they would have been motivated to file something.

As it stands, they're probably going to permanently lose custody of their kids and be pissed off at everyone because no one would help them.  

Well, no one except their local county law Librarian who was trying to help before they flipped out.  Thing is, I get it.  Law is stressful.  It freaks people out.  That's why I speak slow and soft when dealing the those who are freaked out.

Anyway, I suspect the moral to this story is that if you think the world is out to get you (what with the giving of grief), know that your local county law librarian is available and willing to help you keep it together.

Whether you're willing to listen is up to you.

It's just sooooooo frustrating sometimes

WARNING:  This blog post runs a bit deep and leans towards the dark side of how law stuff works.  So, if you're looking for light and fluffy, check out some of my other blog posts.

Anyway, you know what I'm grateful for?  Well, among other things, I'm grateful for the fact that while I've been in the legal business for little over two decades (that's 20 years for you millennials), I've not had to actually litigate anything. Knock on wood but no one has sued me and I haven't had to sue anyone.  

That's actually pretty impressive given that I live in the litigation capital of the world (i.e. California).

Despite my good luck (so far), I have pity on people who come into my law library with problems.  Take, for example the guy that come in the other day.  He was embroiled in a family law matter and only recently his soon-to-be ex's lawyer filed a complaint for Joinder.

Typically, when people seek Joinder in legal matters, it means that they are looking to include a plaintiff or defendant that they neglected to include when they initially filed the complaint.  In guy's family law matter, the Joinder action was being used to include his business and not just some unnamed person.

Here's where things get "fun."  Thing is, I don't practice law and so I don't know the ins and outs of many legal wranglings.  See, when you typically file for Joinder, you do it as a motion and not a complaint.  This, apparently, is important when you go to file a response.

So, here's how things went down.  Guy's ex's attorney files a complaint for Joinder.  Note, he didn't file a motion for Joinder.  When Guy was served with the complaint, he didn't know the difference between a motion and a complaint.  

Going to the California Judicial Council Forms site, he searched under the Family Law forms until he found FL-373 (Responsive Declaration to Motion for Joinder and Consent Order of Joinder) which, to the casual observer would be what you would use - if what you were responding to was a motion.

Fast forward a bit and Guy heads over to the court clerk to file his response.  The clerk says, "that's not the correct form; we won't accept/file it."  Guy asks, "What's the correct form?"  Clerk says (in, what I suspect is their best Cosby accent), "I can't tell you [ha ha ha ha ha ha ha]. Go to the law library and they can help you find the form(s) you need."

The problem (according to a number of attorneys that I've spoken to) is that the court clerk is wrong.  Guy's ex wife's attorney filed the wrong thing but because he's an attorney, the clerk doesn't question what is being filed.  

Guy, not an attorney, tried to file the right thing but because it was not in the format recognized by the court clerk (and because the court system favors attorneys and hates pro se litigants), they would not accept it.  

Two problems exist here.  First, the court clerk is exercising authority outside his/her jurisdiction (i.e. the clerk MUST accept all filings and it is the judge to determine if it is correct).  Second, clerk assumed that the attorney filed the correct document because he is an attorney.  Fact is, everyone screws up.  

That you have the initials Esq. after your name does not make you perfect or immune from screwups.

Another thing to note is that every time anyone comes to the my law library after they've been rebuffed by the court clerk, they ALWAYS say the clerk told them the law library has the forms they need. 

Always.  

So, Guy hightails it to the law library and is standing in front of me and I can't figure out what he's trying to do.  Why?  Because Joinder is typically filed as a motion - NOT a complaint.  So, I'm stumped.

I'm thinking, "Guy has form FL-373 all filled out detailing his wishes (i.e. that the complaint for Joinder should fail). The problem is that this is a complaint - not a motion (and the clerk, for whatever reason, won't accept the response to a motion).  So, you can't respond to this complaint like I would a motion."  

OK, that looks like catch-22 thinking but it's my brain and it's worked for me this far, so leave...wait....why not just use what guy has in his completed FL-373 and put it on pleading paper (like you would to respond to a complaint)?

Wait, what in blazes is pleading paper?!  The term “pleading paper” is used to describe how to format legal documents under Title Two of the California Rules of Court when a pre-made form is not available.   

Good thing for you, if you click THIS LINK, you will have access to a great sample Pleading Paper template.

Anyway, with Guy still standing in front of me, I casually suggest that he copy the language in his completed form FL-373 and paste it in/on the pleading paper template and file that with the court (and see what the clerk does).

Do you see what happened there?  Guy took the information that was already contained in his motion response and copied it onto pleading paper. 

Even thought that's not what Guy should have had to do, but for whatever reason, and as far as the court clerk is concerned, Guy was hoping (finger's crossed) the court clerk would accept and file it. 

Turns out, that did the trick.  Who knew?!?  

The court clerk accepted Guy's jerry-rigged response and Guy was able to move on with the case

What a freakin #&^*%*^$%*& crock show, but that's law and, apparently, that's how things "work" in the law business.

I was just getting started

I have always liked doing research.  From my early days in elementary school to post-graduate programs, if I had a choice of taking a test or writing a paper, I'd write the paper.  Always. 

The thing is, I knew that there was no one, catch-all book where I could find everything.  I would pull facts and figures from dozens of resources and then start writing.

Imagine my surprise, then, when years later I'm helping people do research in a law library and they are regularly put off when I tell them that there is no one tell-all book that lays all the law out for them in easy to read steps with pictures. 

There was nothing like that in undergrad, why would there be something like that in a post-graduate study like law?  Really?!

Anyway, I was thinking about this when a young lady came into my library the other day.  Seems she wanted information about foster children.   More to the point, she was looking for the rights of children in the foster program.

Motioning her to follow me, I started looking in Legal Rights of Children (TR; Vol. 1, Chp. 3 section 4).  That was a good start but she was looking for more.  

So, I stepped to my left and pulled Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adoption Cases (TR; Chp. 10 section 8 and Chp. 12 Chp. 31).  Again, not what she was looking for.  

Looking down, I noticed Children and the Law in a Nutshell (TR; Foster Care pp. 161-193).  Finally, a good introduction and she was off and running.

But not for long.  Soon she was wanting for more and was getting anxious.  So, turning to my California collection, I pulled

• Summary of California Law (TR; Vol. 10 (Parent and Child, section 9)
• California Jurisprudence, 3d (TR; Vol. 32 (Family law, section 456-458)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol 28, Chp. 328 (Juvenile Courts: Dependency Proceedings)

at which point young lady blurted out, "Isn't there just one book that covers everything?"  

Yeah, no.  

As Einsten noted, "It's called research because we don't know."  We don't know the answer so we have to look at a variety of resources to find the/an answer.  Young lady was not impressed and stomped out the door.

Some people I can help, and some I can't.  Guess we chalk one up in the "can't" category and move on.  

Better luck next time, huh?

The Tale of Two Brothers

The thing with the holiday season is that it starts tugging at the heartstrings.  People start longing to be with family, people start looking to go home, and kids look to be with mom and dad.  Well, some kids, anyway.  

Some kids you kind of don't want to see again as all they want is more of everything (ungrateful little buggers).  Anyway, today's blog is a story about two diametrically opposed brothers who were in my law library a while back.

Brother #1 was a nice enough guy.  Affable, dressed like Bing Crosby and spoke well of his mother.  Brother #2 was a jerk. He dressed like he lived on the Jersey Shore and spoke with a Harvard accent (even though he was from California).  Two brothers, two perspectives.  I know all about Brothers #1 and #2 because they came in on consecutive weeks seeking information about how to "best" deal with Mom's money.  

See, Mom was about 88 years young and, apparently, was exhibiting early symptoms of Dementia. Brother #1 had been working for the last few years to gain conservatorship of his Mom (who had an estate worth millions).  

Brother #1 had his own job, wife and kids and wanted to take care of Mom and let her live her golden years in peace and comfort.  It was her money, after all.  Actually, Brother #1 shocked me what with most people who are out to stiff their folks and take over their parent's estate instead of having to work (like their folks did).

Enter Brother #2.  Brother #2 didn't have a job and came seeking to take control of Mom's fortune. Apparently, Brother #2 had an idea for a number of business ventures and needed Mom to pay for it all.  Problem was Brother #1 kept getting in the way of his plans (to control Mom).

So, when Brother #1 came in asking for information about conservatorships, I was surprised that he knew what he wanted and suggested he take a look at:

• California Conservatorship Practice (CEB)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 24)
• American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR; Vol 14, Incompetent Persons)

A week later, Brother #2 came in looking for information on guardianships.  Clearly Brother #2 had not been keeping up on things nor bothered to do any research on the difference between guardianships and conservatorships.  

For the record, a Guardian cares for children and a Conservator cares for incapacitated adults.  But because I can't give legal advice and I was not wanting to upset Brother #2's false sense of self-importance, I Ied him over to:

• California Guardianship Practice (CEB)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 24)
• American  Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR; Vol 19, Parent and Child)

and off and running Brother #2 went on his wild goose chase.

Maybe it was because I don't like seeing old people get taken advantage of or maybe it was because Brother #2 repeatedly called me a "stupid Librarian" that I failed to note the difference between guardianships and conservatorships.  

C'est la vie.  Maybe if Brother #2 done a little homework and/or not gone and bagged on his local county law librarian, he might have had better luck finding what he really wanted.

I'm just sayin.

Word of the Month for August 2018: Connivance

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:

• California Family Law: practice and procedure (Lexis)
• California Practice Guide: Family Law (TR)
• California Marital and other Family Law Agreements (CEB)
• Dividing Pensions and Other Employee Benefits in California Divorces (CEB)
• Bassett on California Community Property Law (TR)

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..."

Let them be

It's officially summer time.  I remember when I was a kid during summer we took swimming lessons, went on picnics at the park, took vacations, and rode our bikes all around the city - alone.  That's right, I rode my bide into every corner of the city all by myself.

Why is that an issue?  Well, apparently because there are a number of busy-body adults these days who think that leaving your kid alone for even a second is negligent parenting.  

Like that Maryland couple who saw their two kids get picked up by child protective services ("CPS") simply because the parents let their kids walk home from the park.  Really?! 

Mind your own freaking business, people!

It's such a big thing that Utah took it upon themselves to be the first state in the Union to pass a law saying that kids can play alone outside without adult supervision.  Not just play but ride their bikes around town - without a parent or adult hovering over them.

So, all of this came to mind when just the other day we had a couple come to the law library.  Seems they had lost custody of their kids and were seeking an appeal of the action.  

What had happened was the kids were in the backyard playing, a neighbor (who didn't have anything else to do) called the cops saying the kids were in trouble, CPS came, police snagged the kids (from their backyard) and now you're up to speed.

Really?  They're playing in their backyard and that's not good enough?!?  OK, so that does sound fishy, backyard and all, but it's sad that government doesn't have enough to do than to mess up people's lives who are, otherwise, trying to follow the rules of the game.

I mean, it's nice that neighbors are keeping an eye out for the safety of kids but,... if nothing is going on, mind your own freaking business, people!

Anyway, couple is freaking out.  I suggest couple take a look at 

• California Practice Guide: Administrative Law (TR)
• California Administrative Hearing Practice (CEB)
• California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis)
• American Law Reports (TR; 62 A.L.R.6th 413, Search and Seizure: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Backyards)

and couple started in on trying to get their kids from the clutches of the CPS.

Life's tough.  It gets tougher when you have busy-bodies unnecessarily sticking their noses into places there they don't belong.  Nice that there are county law libraries (and, by extension, county law Librarians) who are around to help point you where you need to go.