• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Statute Of Limitations To File a 42 USC 1983 CA?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

SL123

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA

Under Color of State Law in violation of 1st, 5th, and 14th amendment constitutional rights.

I keep reading that it is based on the statute for personal injury in the state. Personal Injury (related to death and health) is 2 years in CA but Fraud is 3 years.

“In actions under Section 1983, a court must ascertain the analogous underlying cause of action under state law and apply the applicable statute of limitations.”

“The Supreme Court has held that section 1983 is best characterized as a tort action for the recovery of damages, and therefore held that the appropriate statute of limitations to be adopted is the state statute applicable to personal injury actions.”

If the majority of the causes of action relate to fraud\misrepresentation, then would the statute be 3 years???

ThanksWhat is the name of your state?
 


tranquility

Senior Member
How do you have a 1st amendment violation for fraud? Each cause of action has its specific SOL. The underlying constitutional claim will guide the SOL for the civil rights violation. Remember that 42 U.S.C. 1988 gives the winner attorney's fees. While designed to encourage plaintiffs, the language is neutral. The burden is high for the defendant to win fees, but a pro per should see an attorney before filing to see if there is a risk.
 

SL123

Junior Member
1st Ammendment, Fraud?

I am definitely not going Pro Per in Federal Court, ugh. Attorney’s fees is one reason why I want to file 42 USC 1983, besides, my case seems to absolutely qualify. I’m only recently realizing that cases similar to mine were filed as civil land use\rights suits when in actuality, they are civil rights suits. Now, if I could only find the right attorney…

1st Amendment violation is as follows.

I had a public hearing that was broadcast live on public television.

The Hearing Board’s decisions are final and no other available adequate remedy at law in city government exists;
Their decision results from a proceeding in which by law a hearing where testimony taken under oath is required to be given;
Evidence is required to be taken; and
Discretion in the determination of facts is fully vested in the agency.

My opposition’s attorney lied under oath and presented fabricated visual evidence. The appeal briefs prove this. The City representative lied and omitted important information and the Board illegally acted outside of their jurisdiction to vote in favor of my opposition. It was obvious that my opponent, the city, and the Board had planned a strategy amongst themselves prior to my public hearing without informing me in advance. Everybody that was there was outraged.

*My Public Hearing Video and matching audio tapes which is now official record was professionally and selectively edited to the benefit of my opposition and to specifically erase certain very incriminating comments made by the Board. The Court Reporter admitted to me that she made the transcripts form the video and not by live steno. Then there’s the coverup…

Wouldn’t this be considered 1st Amendment censorship of my freedom of expression from government interference? It’s a conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Every single person that has watched even the edited version has stated that I have been severely wronged but they still got away with it. And I have to fight it.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
The first amendment is usually implicated when the government prevents you from expressing yourself. (In speech, religion, association etc.) I don't see you having your first amendment rights being violated in your scenario. But, first amendment jurisprudence has some weird aspects so I can't be sure. I would certainly take this to an attorney before filing as I don't the the 1st amendment requires the government to accurately report or publicize anything you say. That does not mean you don't have a claim, it's just that it is not that obvious to me what the civil right being violated is. I might go more towards an illegal seizure 4th amedment, but even then you are going to have a pretty high hurdle with qualified immunity.

To sue a governmental agency in California (or anywhere), you need to ask permission first. The claim must be filed within six months. The claim must be rejected before you can file suit.
 

SL123

Junior Member
Notice and Permission not required in 42 USC 1983

The First Amendment Coalition told me that editing any portion of my public hearing is a
1st Amendment issue of censorship and a serious violation of the Brown Act\Sunshine Ordinance. Besides, it’s tampering with evidence and public records.

“Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.”

“To sue a governmental agency in California (or anywhere), you need to ask permission first. The claim must be filed within six months. The claim must be rejected before you can file suit.”

Notice and permission is not required in filing of a civil rights 42 USC 1983 against a municipality or officials but adhering to statue of limitations is necessary to prevail. They don’t have qualified immunity when they illegally act outside of their jurisdiction and intentionally commit fraud.

In my case, for a civil lawsuit in Superior Court, I was required to file a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus within 90 days and I filed it but it is not necessary for a new 42 USC 1983 civil rights case.

This is only a small incident of what I have endured. They abused government power in a cover up and retaliated against me when I attempted to protect my rights. Luckily, they got caught every step of the way. I did nothing to deserve any of this and what’s worse is learning what they’ve done to other people is 100 times worst than what has happened to me.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
You are wrong in many details. A claim should be filed before you sue a governmental agency. Part of your complaint will list that fact or could have all parts but the 1983 action dismissed on demurer. You have more than a civil rights complaint and you would lose the right to sue for the other causes of action.

I was going to start speaking to the other portions, but you seem quite sure. Since you have all the facts as well as an understanding of what actually happened, I won't start a discussion which will go around in circles.

Info edit (To show how 1983 does not make the entire suit OK. I have removed some whole paragraphs because of space limits. I hope I did not edit unfairly.):
From Gatto v. County of Sonoma 98 Cal.App.4th 744

B. The Government Claims Act Applies And Operates to Extend the Limitations Period


[46] Appellants' argument that Gatto's causes of action, which they treat as Unruh Act claims, are not subject to the Government Claims Act (and the statute of limitations therefore was not extended) rests on the contention that, as stated in their opening brief, actions brought under that Act "are primarily for declaratory or injunctive relief and any monetary damages sought are incidental to the equitable relief sought." This general contention, which is debatable, begs the question. First of all, as earlier pointed out, the provisions of the Civil Code with which we are concerned clearly reflect a legislative intention to authorize civil actions for damages, whether or not they also include requests for injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief. (§§ 52, 52.1.) It may well be, as appellants say, that many or perhaps even most actions under these statutes seek only injunctive or declaratory relief, and not damages, but that provides no reason to exempt such actions from claim findings requirements where the plaintiff does seek to recover damages from a public entity and that is his or her chief purpose.


[47] Although appellants urge us to reject the statute of limitations determination in Independent Housing Services, supra, they find support in that case for their contention that Unruh Act actions cannot be subjected to the claim filing requirement. Appellants misread the case. As earlier explained, Independent Housing Services was an action against the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and others for violations of federal, state, and local handicap access laws and the Unruh Act. The plaintiff organizations, which brought suit on behalf of their disabled members, sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. The Agency argued that the plaintiffs were required to file a written claim within one year of the accrual of their cause of action as a condition precedent to filing any civil action against the Agency seeking money or damages (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 905.2, 911.2), and no such claim was filed. The court disagreed, stating that "[t]he requirement of filing a claim within one year does not apply to actions brought primarily for declaratory relief, even though incidental money damages are sought." (Id. at p. 1358, italics added, citing M.G.M. Construction Co. v. Alameda County (N.D.Cal. 1985) 615 F.Supp.149, 151.) The court pointed out that "[w]hile plaintiffs do seek damages, their request for an injunction declaring that the Agency is in violation of the handicap access laws and must comply with them in the future is of great weight and not just ancillary to the request for damages. [Plaintiff's] potential damages are small and particularly inconsequential compared to the effect of the declarations it seeks. The court therefore finds that no statutory notice was required under the Tort Claims Act." (Ibid.)


[48] Independent Housing Services simply stands for the proposition that where a claimant seeks both damages and non-monetary relief from a public entity in the same action, the applicability of the claim filing requirement turns on whether the damages sought are ancillary to the equitable relief also sought, in which case the claim filing requirement is inapplicable, or the reverse is true, in which case the filing requirement applies. The court concluded that the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by organizational plaintiffs dedicated to the vindication of the present and future rights of a large class of disabled persons was the primary purpose of the litigation, and the money damages they also sought was merely incidental to that overarching goal.


[49] The opinion in Independent Housing Services is consistent with the view of state courts. For example, in Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, the plaintiff, who had been discharged from employment with the community college district, instituted an action seeking both damages for his alleged wrongful termination and reinstatement. The defendants demurred on the ground that the complaint was barred by various statutes of limitation and, more particularly, by the plaintiff's failure to comply with the filing provisions of the Government Claims Act. Advancing an argument similar to that raised by appellants in this case, the plaintiff relied upon the general rule that the claims statutes do not apply to non-pecuniary actions, such as those seeking injunctive, specific or declaratory relief. (See generally Minsky v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 113, 121.) Since two of his six causes of action sought such relief, the plaintiff maintained he was not obliged to file a timely claim with the district. Rejecting this argument and affirming the sustaining of the demurrers without leave to amend, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the rule has no application "where a petition for extraordinary relief is merely incidental or ancillary to a prayer for damages." (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist, supra, at p. 1081.) As the court emphasized, the plaintiff's first three causes of action sought monetary damages for emotional and mental distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, and damage to reputation, and these actions "obviously fall within the terms of the Government Claims Act." (Ibid.) Recognizing "that in some situations a claimant may seek both damages and non-monetary relief from a public entity in the same action, and thus invoke a basis of recovery which is not within the purview of the Tort Claims Act," the court concluded that this was not such a case. (Ibid.) Loehr and other state cases thus support the proposition that "an action for specific relief does not lose its exempt status solely because incidental money damages are sought." (Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 870; accord, Eureka Teacher's Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 469, 475 [request for back pay and fringe benefits incidental to mandamus action for reemployment and therefore not subject to Government Claims Act]; Harris v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 639, 643, disapproved on other grounds in Coleman v. Dept. of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, 1122, fn. 8 [mandamus action for reinstatement and back pay not primarily for damages and therefore no claim needed to be filed].) The claims filing requirement remains applicable to actions in which money damages are not incidental or ancillary to any specific relief that is also sought, but the primary purpose of the action. (1 Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability Prac., § 5.53 (4th ed.) at p. 191.)
 
Last edited:

tranquility

Senior Member
The rest of the relevant passage.

(I found I couldn't edit out sections without changing meaning.)

[50] As in Loehr, supra, (and unlike Independent Housing Services, Eureka Teacher's Assn. and Harris, supra), the trial court in this case impliedly found that the request for damages was not merely incidental to a transcendent interest in injunctive relief but was the primary relief sought. The reasons are not hard to find. Gatto, an individual who sued in his own behalf and never expressed interest in vindicating rights of anyone other than himself, expressed his personal pecuniary interest by filing a claim in which he informed the county that the damages he sought for the injury he suffered "exceeds amount permitted by Government Code section 910 to be included in [the] claim," and that in a suit to be filed in "either State or Federal Court" he would seek not just injunctive relief but "attorney's fees and punitive damages in [the] combined amount of $35,000.00." Nothing in the record suggests Gatto ever considered his interest in obtaining money damages subsidiary to his interest in injunctive relief. Damages are the first thing mentioned in the title of his complaint and the prayer for relief, and the title of the complaint cites the specific provisions of the Unruh Act creating liability for actual damages (§ 52, subd. (a)) and authorizing individuals to institute civil actions for such damages. (§ 52.1, subd. (b).) The fact that Gatto recovered only $1,000, then the minimum amount recoverable under section 52, is of no significance, as it is the fact, not the amount, of damages that is important. Moreover, putting aside the $23,700 he received in attorney fees and costs, the $1,000 Gatto recovered as damages was the only relief he obtained; the trial court found it unnecessary to grant injunctive relief because the operator of the Fair voluntarily withdrew or appropriately modified the dress code found to have been unconstitutional.


[51] Exempting damage actions under sections 51 and 52.1 from the claim filing requirement, even in a case in which that is the primary relief sought, as appellants urge, would conflict with the statutory scheme relating to damage claims against public entities and with the relevant case law. "The `purpose of the [statutory requirements for presenting claims against the state or a local public entity] is to facilitate early investigation of disputes and settlement without trial if appropriate, as well as to enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future.' " (Lewis C. Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 64, 72, quoting Baines Pickwick, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 298, 303.) Mindful of the mandatory nature of the claim filing requirements (see, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 905, 905.2), a division of this District has held that the Legislature intended all claims for money or damages against a public entity to be governed by the statutory procedure "unless specifically exempted." (Gehman v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 257, 262, disapproved on other grounds in People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1979) 26 Cal.3d 746, 758, fn. 5; but see, Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 868-869.) In Government Code section 905, the Legislature enumerated 12 types of claims against local public entities that are excepted from the mandatory filing requirement (Gov. Code, § 905, subds (a) - (l)); claims for damages for violation of sections 51 and 52.1 are not among them. As has been noted, "commentators have construed the section 905 exceptions as essentially non-tortious claims `for which some other adequate claims procedure has already been devised, or for which the procedural protection of the Tort Claims Act is believed to be unnecessary.' " (Dalton v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1574, quoting Cal. Gov. Tort Liability Prac. (Cont.Ed.Bar 1992) § 6.24, pp. 651-652.)


[52] Exceptions to the filing requirement not specifically enumerated in the Government Claims Act have occasionally been allowed, but only where the claim is based on a statute or statutory scheme that includes a functionally equivalent claim process. Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 861 is illustrative. That case was an action against a city and its police department for employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Gov. Code, §§ 12900 et seq.) (FEHA).) The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that the plaintiff failed to allege that he complied with the claim filing requirement of the Government Claims Act. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the purpose and procedures of the FEHA demonstrate a legislative intent that actions against governmental entities brought under the FEHA are to be excepted from the general requirements of the Tort Claims Act." (Id. at p. 865.) After describing the statutory scheme in considerable detail, the court explained its reasoning: "The procedural guidelines and the time framework provided in the FEHA are special rules for this particular type of claim which control over the general rules governing claims against governmental entities. The FEHA not only creates a statutory cause of action, but sets out a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement, emphasizing conciliation, persuasion, and voluntary compliance, and containing specific limitations periods." (Id. at p. 868.) The statutes Gatto relies upon contain no comparable provisions, and there is, therefore, no reason to exempt actions under those statutes from the claim filing requirement when the primary relief sought against the state or a local public entity is money damages.


[53] The fact that federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are exempt from the requirements of the Government Claims Act also provides no reason to exempt claims under sections 51 and 52.1, despite the similarity of the claims that can be made under the federal and state statutes. Section 1983 claims are exempt from the state claims requirements because the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution does not permit a state law to alter or restrict federally created rights. As our Supreme Court has noted, "the filing of a claim for damages `is more than a procedural requirement, it is a condition precedent to plaintiff's maintaining an action against defendants, in short, an integral part of plaintiff's cause of action.' And while it may be constitutionally permissible for the Legislature to place this substantive impediment in the path of a state cause of action, it is clear that the supremacy clause will not permit a like abrogation of the perquisites of a federal civil rights litigant." (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 842.) Conditioning damage claims against public entities under the Unruh Act (however it may be defined) on compliance with the Government Claims Act presents no such constitutional problem.


[54] For the foregoing reasons, the trial court correctly concluded that the Government Claims Act applied to this action and extended the limitations period beyond the one year specified in section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because Gatto filed his complaint in the superior court within six months from the date of the notice he received of the rejection of his claim (Gov. Code, §§ 911.8, subd. (b), 913, subd. (b)), it was not time barred. *fn12
 

ellencee

Senior Member
I am definitely not going Pro Per in Federal Court, ugh. Attorney’s fees is one reason why I want to file 42 USC 1983, besides, my case seems to absolutely qualify. I’m only recently realizing that cases similar to mine were filed as civil land use\rights suits when in actuality, they are civil rights suits. Now, if I could only find the right attorney…

1st Amendment violation is as follows.

I had a public hearing that was broadcast live on public television.

The Hearing Board’s decisions are final and no other available adequate remedy at law in city government exists;
Their decision results from a proceeding in which by law a hearing where testimony taken under oath is required to be given;
Evidence is required to be taken; and
Discretion in the determination of facts is fully vested in the agency.

My opposition’s attorney lied under oath and presented fabricated visual evidence. The appeal briefs prove this. The City representative lied and omitted important information and the Board illegally acted outside of their jurisdiction to vote in favor of my opposition. It was obvious that my opponent, the city, and the Board had planned a strategy amongst themselves prior to my public hearing without informing me in advance. Everybody that was there was outraged.

*My Public Hearing Video and matching audio tapes which is now official record was professionally and selectively edited to the benefit of my opposition and to specifically erase certain very incriminating comments made by the Board. The Court Reporter admitted to me that she made the transcripts form the video and not by live steno. Then there’s the coverup…

Wouldn’t this be considered 1st Amendment censorship of my freedom of expression from government interference? It’s a conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Every single person that has watched even the edited version has stated that I have been severely wronged but they still got away with it. And I have to fight it.
I have a question. Referenced in bold in the above quoted post is the statement that the hearing was broadcast LIVE, not replayed from a video.

How can you claim anything was done improperly, when the actual hearing was broadcast to anyone and everyone who wanted to watch it and, or record it?

I'm sure that you have a recording of the live broadcast or that a family member or friend has a copy of the live broadcast, including the verdict that was apparently not in your favor.

Do you expect a federal court to grant you relief for being found "guilty" of whatever you did or did not do as you were legally responsible to do? My opinion is that you will only waste money and gain further embarassment when you are issued a loss in court, again, and gain a huge debt for defense attorney(s)' fees.

I fail to understand what you think you stand to gain that would be better than letting it go and moving on with life, allowing everyone to forget whatever it was that you did in the first place.

EC
 

SL123

Junior Member
claims

First of all, thank you very much for your time regarding my issue.

At this point, I’m not sure of anything... The last time I was sure was when I thought I’d trust my beloved city, go the Board, tell em the truth, and the nightmare would be over.

This is another reason why this experience has been so frustrating. I talk to 10+ different lawyers, get 10+ different answers, and all 10+ are at least significantly partially, wrong. All of the lawyers are experienced, respected, and very stubborn. When I ask questions based on what I’ve read, I’m told I’m not a lawyer, ugh. This is why I haven’t been able to find the right lawyer, and I am the first to admit that the success of my case will rest primarily on my lawyer, ugh. The lawyers that I want can’t sue the city. The only thing I can get everybody to agree upon is that I have been severely wronged and am entitled to compensation.

I was told that in my case the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus filed timely in Superior Court was the first step in filing a lawsuit against the city and is equivalent or supersede the claim. It can also be amended. My deadline was 90 days not 6 months as in other grievances. It would be mute at this point if I had to file a claim within 6 months because my deadline would have past. Other cases were dismissed for not filing a timely Writ. My City Hearing was the final step in City Jurisdiction and the next step is Superior Court so I would think that the city would no longer have jurisdiction to even address a claim. I would also assume that if the claim or Writ came into play, the portions of the case would have to be removed from Federal Court back to Superior Court as a state jurisdiction. I do have significant monetary damages in addition to being deprived of my property (rights) without due process and equal protection violations all enacted intentionally and with malice. I can prove everything I am saying beyond doubt.

On a personal note, I never wanted to sue the city. I love my city. I did everything possible to try to resolve this amicably. When my lawsuit is filed, I plan to name the perpetrators in their official capacity and as individuals. In another similar recent case, the City Attorney for the first time officially denied representation of city employee defendants and they had to hire their own lawyers. Although not represented by City Attorney, they still acted Under Color of State law.

A criminal trial finally begins next week that I believe will eventually lead to the indictment of the majority of defendants in my case. I hope this will help my problem.
 

SL123

Junior Member
Hearings, Lies, and Video Tapes...

My Public Hearing was Broadcast Live (in its entirety unedited) on Public Television.

All evidentiary Public Hearings of this nature must be archived as record and made available for viewing on the internet for at least 90 days, rebroadcast on public television, and audiotapes and DVD videos made available to the public for purchase.

The problem is:

The Broadcast on the internet, the replays on public television, the audiotape, and the DVD which is now public record is DIFFERENT from the true Hearing broadcasted live on television. The transcripts also match word for word to the edited DVD but the court reporter who was 75 years old, terminally ill, and by her own admission, incapable of taking live steno for 6 hours and making it match word for word with the edited DVD admitted to me that she makes the transcripts from the DVDs and not live steno like it says when we pay her 6 bucks a page. She even remembered things herself said at hearing that are not on her transcripts.

Many people offered to videotape the hearing from home TV but I declined saying I would purchase the Digital copy from the television station instead, ugh. I’m certain that an unedited version will surface before this over.

I do however, have testimony from the audience, from good city officials, and my supporters who testified on my behalf at the hearing that the Hearing was selectively edited. Very important statements remembered by many that evening no longer exist on record.

I also have testimony from reputable filmmakers saying that my DVD hearing could not be in it’s original state as the city claims. I can tell you where it was cut and what was said. Conveniently, there is no timed record of these hearings except for timed testimony portions of which they could not edit.

They put me through hell over this until the discovery of another controversial hearing after mine that was edited and removed from internet identically as mine. The First Amendment Coalition publicly addressed this issue in the media.

I was the appellant requesting help from the Board and not guilty of anything and at the moment, I am definitely not the one in embarrassment.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Civil rights lawsuits are complex, depend on may facts and subtle infrences. They have many areas which seem to be obvious which slip away when you look closer. Find an attorney who has experience in this area. If he believes in your case he may take it on hoping for 1988 relief.
 

ellencee

Senior Member
My Public Hearing was Broadcast Live (in its entirety unedited) on Public Television.

All evidentiary Public Hearings of this nature must be archived as record and made available for viewing on the internet for at least 90 days, rebroadcast on public television, and audiotapes and DVD videos made available to the public for purchase.

The problem is:

The Broadcast on the internet, the replays on public television, the audiotape, and the DVD which is now public record is DIFFERENT from the true Hearing broadcasted live on television. The transcripts also match word for word to the edited DVD but the court reporter who was 75 years old, terminally ill, and by her own admission, incapable of taking live steno for 6 hours and making it match word for word with the edited DVD admitted to me that she makes the transcripts from the DVDs and not live steno like it says when we pay her 6 bucks a page. She even remembered things herself said at hearing that are not on her transcripts.

Many people offered to videotape the hearing from home TV but I declined saying I would purchase the Digital copy from the television station instead, ugh. I’m certain that an unedited version will surface before this over.

I do however, have testimony from the audience, from good city officials, and my supporters who testified on my behalf at the hearing that the Hearing was selectively edited. Very important statements remembered by many that evening no longer exist on record.

I also have testimony from reputable filmmakers saying that my DVD hearing could not be in it’s original state as the city claims. I can tell you where it was cut and what was said. Conveniently, there is no timed record of these hearings except for timed testimony portions of which they could not edit.

They put me through hell over this until the discovery of another controversial hearing after mine that was edited and removed from internet identically as mine. The First Amendment Coalition publicly addressed this issue in the media.

I was the appellant requesting help from the Board and not guilty of anything and at the moment, I am definitely not the one in embarrassment.
At least this helps to clear up some of my question(s).

Lordy--you need a team of attorneys to pull this off. So far, it appears to exemplify what I try to tell pro se wanna-bes can and will happen in court when (you) are up against one or more attorneys. More than once, I have witnessed a pro se litigant shut down before completing his of her opening statement as the opposing attorney(s) successfully objected virtually each statement. I've seen would-be pro se litigants arrive in an attorney's office with letters from opposing council citing numerous reasons the pro se litigant's every action is reason for dismissal with an award for opposing council's fees.

You must be quite determined to die on this particular hill of battle. I have no advice, just lots of respect for your guts and bravo and lots of hope that you will back out if you can't locate a dream team of attorneys to help you.

Thanks,
EC
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top