Thursday, July 30, 2015

"Stark transgression against the norms of any decent and civilized society" AND bad briefing

Here's today's case of "staggering hubris" and not just because of pro se "Appellate Irregularities."
How often have thought this about a brief?
The brief also fails to articulate separate arguments under separate headings, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). Defendant appears unwilling or unable to distill his complaints into logical, which is to say syllogistic form, and separate them into a coherent structure. Instead the opening brief consists of 37 pages of meandering commentary under the heading “Statement of Case and Appealability,”followed by 11 pages of numbered paragraphs purportedly consisting of “Arguments,” but more accurately described as clusters of loosely associated protests.
Image result for cartoon herpes
Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Wondering where the Chief will be tomorrow? She's speaking at the 2015 ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago on The Language of Justice: Removing Language Barriers to Justice in the Nation's Courts.

For those with an interest in patent appeals, Law360 today features Rachel Hughey on How To Get A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance.

Closer to home, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Sunil Kulkarni offers Judicial Criticism Done the Right Way, in today's DJ.
In the end, appearances matter. It can be appropriate for lower court judges to express disagreement with binding precedent in their written opinions, but the disagreement should be conveyed in a concurrence or footnote, and with respect. A tricky task perhaps, but one I know we as lower court judges can accomplish - with grace. 
Can the California Supreme Court edit a Court of Appeal opinion (like this)? See what Professor Martin thinks about it here.

Finally, today's imposition of appellate sanctions decision is here.