Two lawyers walk into a swamp...

Briggs did nothing wrong In my opinion. Using an unsigned and uncorrected deposition Is unfair. I wondered why Goldsmith kept referring to some cryptic statement. To attack Briggs through his wife to protect special interests Is really hitting below the belt. I see an invasion of privacy case, too. The reporter enlisted all the "ethical experts" but provided them with misleading and incomplete "facts." With all the facts on the table, I'd say that Briggs did nothing wrong. I am sure that those same experts would agree. Just vary the hypothetical with the real facts and their opinions would probably change. If fact, Dorian, you should do this and ask the same experts if Goldsmith did anything wrong. That would be a real story! Andrew Jackson was attacked through his wife as he fought the bank. Did his critics really care about the validity of Jackson's first divorce? Or was it just political and financial reasons for their "professed morality?" In the stipulation at the end of most depositions it usually says that if not signed and corrected within thirty days, an unsigned copy may be used for any purpose. Does that mean that the City Attorney should give that deposition transcrpt to the press before it is corrected and signed? Only if he is trying to crucify an opponent in the press. This seems to be an abuse of discovery by the office of the City Attorney. Briggs may well sue. Where is the fairness in this? Use of incomplete testimony is misleading and unfair. It is false by omission. By publishing it in writing, it is defamatory about Brigg's character regarding his profession. Damages are presumed in such "libel per se" (regarding one's professional integrity) cases. It also appears to have been done with "malice," or reckless disregard for the truth falsity thereof. Even if Briggs is a "public figure," such conduct meets the test of New York Times v. Sullivan for "malice" of the press, despite the First Amendment protections accorded to the press. I was really surprised when this story broke and such condemnations were aired by the "reporter." It did not pass the smell test. It is way worse now - but not for Briggs - for Goldsmith and the reporter.
— April 25, 2015 6:23 a.m.

Order in the court, Judge Bencivengo!

Judge sits on a bench (bad joke) - you mean in what Department? - she is in the Federal District Court for the Southern District. The Schwartz Federal Building on Front Street. The clerk accepts complaint for filing, then the judge is assigned by the clerk. Affidavit of prejudice may be filed in state court for any reason. That is called a "preemptory writ." Federal judges can only be challenged for cause. I do not think there is a peremptory challenge I'm federal court. The order of dismissal with prejudice is an order that can be appealed. The Complaint cannot be amended and refiled. If it is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, it could be amended and refiled. If the dismissal was based on improper venue, then it could be refiled in another District. This judge indicated that Aguirre should somehow go to state court. I wonder if there is a state court remedy. I am not familiar with the route of judicial review of PUC orders. Maybe a writ of mandate. .... to review. I had a federal dismissal with prejudice in federal court in Los Angeles. We appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and won. That was a lot of work. I do not know who appointed the judge. Seems like it must have been the Obama administration. I have not heard of her. So I'm assuming it was not Bush. Democrats presumably would be more consumer friendly but Governor Gray Davis appointed Michael Peevey and Governor Brown is his friend. Federal judges are appointed for life I believe. They have much more independence. If there is no adequate state court remedy then the federal court should not dismiss the case. That is reason in and of itself to hear the case on constitutional grounds. The state court system is denying due process by its inadequate procedures and lack of an appropriate appeal process. That is Aguirre argument aleast as I understand it. I hope this information helps. Just attend the hearing to show moral support.
— April 16, 2015 10 p.m.

Win a pair of VIP tickets to
Reader Tacotopia!

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!