I do not know enough to speak intelligently about legal matters, but, as an entrepreneur who engaged the legal system pro se (here ya go), I’d like to point out some “inefficiencies”, offer some solutions, and begin discussing my future role with respect to the judicial system.
At the end of the day, I am very happy that the JoVE dispute has happened, for it made me aware that not all is well with our judicial system and the streets are, in fact, not paved with cheese. How so?
- Inefficient Process – why was I filing paper rather than uploading PDFs? Why was there no online archive? Why did I have to do so much printing? Why couldn’t I reference prior pleadings and had to reprint them?
Alrighty then. My petition for review has been denied. Congrats. Courts still not working as intended. Good to know I have my work cut out for me – this has become a matter of principle. Next stop: state supreme court.
So, let’s recap:
So… more updates. Real quick cause work:
Denied – My motion #76 (Judge Budd, reconsider). No surprise there, so filing petition for review (or a complete package with bookmarks and appendixes).
Denied – My petition for review (2013-J-0355) of Curran’s refusal to sanction Fitzpatrick and of stopping the judicial process due to my being an indigent.
On Judge Budd:
Backstory: about a year into the freeze-out, I found out that Beth Hovey, our head of editorial at the time, was leaving the company. Now a lot can break, but how bad must things be in order for a head of editorial to leave one of the most exciting developments in scientific publication?! So I decided to take a very carefully calculated step of changing Moshe’s password on his email account and demanding that we speak.
Filed a “Petition for Review” with the Appeals Court: petition PDF in the following folder. Let’s see where this takes us. One recurring theme I am hearing from some people familiar with our court system is that lower courts are often disgustingly political in their behavior. That is, people do each other “favors” and, as judges are former lawyers, everyone knows each other. That explains why, when talking to several attorneys, the conversation sometimes goes something like:
So, finally some good news. After my motion for reconsideration (Paper #81, Blog Post), Court clarified that Award of Default is Denied (Court Order), and that the clerk is ordered to not accept papers (a gag order? really?). Interestingly enough, Judge Curran followed up with an order to strike my motion for reconsideration (Paper #82). Continue reading
Filed a motion for reconsideration with Judge Dennis J. Curran (folder, PDF). Tricky Fitzpatrick filed his previous motion in a way that, effectively, mislead Judge Curran into thinking that I didn’t comply with discovery. At least that’s the only semi-reasonable explanation that I can imagine for a Judge to allow a motion that effectively stops the judicial process on an indigent individual without so much as a hearing over award of fees in violation of Court’s rules of procedure (explanation in my motion). Continue reading
Yesterday I got a bit of a lesson about how the Court system works from the clerk on my case (Arthur DeGuglielmo).
1. Filing Motions – you send in a motion. The motion is reviewed by the clerk (or assistant clerk) assigned to your case, who then directs your motion to the right judge. So the clerk apparently has quite a bit of influence. And remember: once a judge rules on a motion, any motion for reconsideration goes to that same judge. Continue reading