Will Breyer’s Supreme Court Disgrace Itself Again?

Post Reply
solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Will Breyer’s Supreme Court Disgrace Itself Again?

Post by solutions »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Will The Breyer Supreme Court Disgrace Itself Again?
From: Solutions
Date: Fri, January 7, 2011 9:21 am PST
To: John Karls
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two questions regarding your e-mail of yesterday –

(1) How is it the US Supreme Court appeal petition was denied and the weekly Reading Liberally e-mail of 11/27/2010 postponed the 12/8/2010 meeting to 12/15/2010 for the stated reason that the California Court of Appeal (San Francisco) had scheduled oral argument on short notice for 12/8/2010?

(2) If some of the cases against the 15 large international financial institutions went through the federal courts and were the subject of the US Supreme Court appeal petition, and some of the cases are still proceeding in California state court system, what is the status of the latter and will the US Supreme Court get an opportunity to disgrace itself again?


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Will The Breyer Supreme Court Disgrace Itself Again?
From: John Karls
Date: Fri, January 7, 2011 9:47 pm GMT+1
To: Solutions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your e-mail posed the same questions that nearly two dozen other recipients of Saturday’s regular e-mail also sent in.

Re your first question, yes, three cases were removed to US District Court (San Francisco) as described on pp. 4-7 of the Statement of Facts of the Mellon/Bank of NY Rehearing Petition that appears below.

I do not feel comfortable commenting on cases that are still active, so I will merely attach, since they are a matter of public record, the most recent filings in the two actions (Mellon/Bank of NY and Wachovia/Wells Fargo) that are currently active in the California state court system. [As described on pp. 4-7 of the Statement of Facts in the Mellon/Bank of NY Rehearing Petition, 7 others are still stayed in the state trial court awaiting the final disposition of the Wachovia/Wells Fargo appeal.]

The filings can speak for themselves. (Miscellaneous brief components such as proof of service and certificate of length are omitted.)

Unfortunately, the three components of each of the two filings require being posted separately to preserve their original pagination systems.

The Mellon/Bank of NY Petition for Rehearing was filed 12/29/2010 with the California Court of Appeal –
MellonBNY-vc29-Rehearing-Cover-Orange.DOC
(38.5 KiB) Downloaded 304 times
MellonBNY-vc29-Rehearing-Body.doc
(148.5 KiB) Downloaded 295 times
The Wachovia/Wells Fargo Reply Brief was filed 1/6/2011 with the California Supreme Court –
WachWells-w106-ReplyBrief-Cover-White.DOC
(38 KiB) Downloaded 197 times
WachWells-w106-ReplyBrief-Body.doc
(76 KiB) Downloaded 280 times
And, yes, if neither court acts to reverse or modify the current California Court of Appeal decisions, there will be an opportunity to file another Appeal Petition with the US Supreme Court to consider the same U.S. Constitutional issue that the Supreme Court refused to review in rejecting the Appeal Petition in Karls v. Goldman Sachs, et. al.

This is because both the Court of Appeal decision in Mellon Financial - Bank of NY and the Court of Appeal decision in Wachovia Bank - Wells Fargo were the unpublished and un-citable kind involved in Karls v. Goldman Sachs, et. al. which comprise “separate and inherently unequal” jurisprudence.

Presumably the US Supreme will also reject any new appeal petition(s) for one of the two reasons set forth in my e-mail of yesterday for why they rejected the Goldman Sachs appeal petition.

However, my conscience will be clear that no stone was left unturned.

PS –

Before you send me another e-mail inquiring into the precedential value of Karls v. Goldman Sachs, et. al. in the Mellon Financial - Bank of NY and Wachovia Bank - Wells Fargo actions, please permit me to make the following comments.

People v. Barragan, 23 Cal.4th 236, 256 (Cal. S.Ct. 2004) provides that court decisions will be accorded no precedential value if the losing party never received a “fair day in court.”

On 10/4/2010, virtually identical Petitions for Transfer for Decision were filed with the California Supreme Court to by-pass the California Court of Appeal in both Mellon Financial - Bank of NY and Wachovia Bank - Wells Fargo because of the prejudice described on pp. 1-3 of the Wachovia - Wells Fargo Reply Brief described above.

Pages 28-31 of both Petitions for Transfer for Decision contained the virtually-identical argument based on People v. Barragan that Karls v. Goldman Sachs, et. al., has no precedential value.

To their credit, neither Reed Smith LLP representing Wachovia Bank and Wells Fargo nor Bingham McCutchen LLP representing Mellon Financial and Bank of NY have attempted to cite Karls v. Goldman Sachs, et. al.

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - Making Our Democracy Work by US Supreme Ct Justice Stephen Breyer - Jan 12th”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest