Other tidbits of law and practice

Court News 1998 - San Bernardino Mediation of Civil Harassment page 5

1200  referrals Cecilia Lowe

Deprivation of Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - as it was with the battle for civil rights, local courts are often not at the front of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens.  A Federal Court may provide a better venue to argue denial of constitutional rights.  This is especially true when the people who caused harm are employees of the government.  California Civil Code Section 1714.10 provides lawyers special immunity for such claims but even they can be found guilty of conspiring with their client.

Public Access to Exhibits

Clear and Convincing — California Jury Instructions—" 'Clear and convincing' evidence requires a finding of high probability." (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919 [171 Cal.Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198].)  How Much is Enough?

Harassment Law and Free Speech Doctrine —  1992, Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School

Regulating the Availability of Public Records Online — article about what is available.

2010 California Rules of Court - Rule 2.503. Public access

All electronic records must be made reasonably available to the public in some form, whether in electronic or in paper form, except those that are sealed by court order or made confidential by law.  However, read 2.50(c) and its "may provide only" language about 527.6.  Some would interpret that language to indicate that there is no requirement for a court to supply 527.6 records, others (not this author) might say it directs a court not to publish 527.6 records.  For published appellant ruling on the meaning of "may" see the "may"  vs. "shall" discussion about Judge Bert Swift's misinterpretation of the word may in the "slapping penis" case.

www.nonpublication.com — Appeal decisions set precedent (other judges must rule the same way) only if they are "published" in official law publications.  However, currently 93% of the decisions of the California Court of Appeal and 85% of those of the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals are not published and may not be brought to the attention of any court as legal precedent or otherwise.  One can not even tell a court that last year they ruled in a way favorable to one side so they should rule the same way this year.

Simply put, non-publication allows courts to be nonresponsible to the People. The lawyers at nonpublication.com are attempting to reform publication rules for more consistent and predictable decisions across the State.

Supreme Court of California — Securing High-Court Review

by Rochelle L. Wilcox and Terri D. Keville

How do you get to the California Supreme Court? Forget MapQuest and GPS. We're not talking directions, but rather how to secure high court review for cases involving disputed issues.

In all your cases, make sure to follow the applicable procedural rules. The hard part is not some intricate formatting requirement; it's getting the Supreme Court's attention. And in that regard, never lose sight of the oft-cited reason for Supreme Court review: "to secure uniformity of decision or to settle an important question of law."  (Cal. R. Ct. 8.500(b)(1).)

Policy Regarding State Appellate Judicial Disqualification


"There is nothing in the statute [CCP 170] to indicate such a limited interpretation, and without express legislative exception, appellate judges must be deemed subject to the rules applicable to judges generally." Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 689 [28 P.2d 913]

"Who, if Anyone, Has Authority to Decide That a Court of Appeal Justice Should Be Disqualified? ... Absent new legislation, that means that neither one's colleagues nor a judge or panel agreed on may assume jurisdiction."   Kaufman v. Court of Appeal , 31 Cal.3d 933


Nothing contained herein is tendered as nor should it be considered as legal advice.  What is legal is not necessarily justice.  Almost all of reality is non-"published", ergo, what is legally affirmed is always a retarded misrepresentation of reality.   Use at your own risk!