The City Attorney's main defense is that they were the good guys and that they really were trying to release the records. The boxers were the bad ones and didn't want for them to release the records. Take a second to think about this. Is this even believable? Jeez.
Let's talk about another skirmish battle. Several days ago, I filed another emergency hearing against the Mayor for filing a dismissal without prejudice against me for his temporary restraining order. If you weren't a lawyer or knew the law, this might seem like a harmless move. It's not. The Mayor and his goons wanted to hold onto the right to get another TRO against me! If it's file with prejudice, the Mayor and his goons can't filed another TRO against me. Can you believe that?
So, I filed another emergency hearing against the City Attorney. The case dragged on and on, as no judge really wanted to hear the "Mayor's Restraining Order Case." It got transferred three times. In total, the case, since the beginning, has been transferred four times.
The last judge said it was alright for them to dismiss without prejudice because he ruled that temporary restraining order wasn't a trial. I argued it was a trial because evidence and counter-evidence was presented. The code is clear that when evidence is presented, it is a trial. It was an interesting hearing, as the judge obviously didn't want to rule that a TRO was a trial because it has other downstream consequences for the entire court, not just for this case.
The judge didn't want to hear the case. That was his first question to me. I answered that the case was in his courtroom because there were a series of transfers for unknown reasons.
Then he said that the dismissal was warranted because it was under a certain part of the code.
I said the other section of the code applied. I read it.
He said that it didn't apply because it wasn't a trial.
I said it did because evidence was presented.
He asked what evidence.
I said the newspaper article attached showed the evidence.
He said the newspaper article wasn't reliable evidence.
I said the evidence code allows newspaper articles as facts.
Then the judge did something I wasn't expecting. He threw the evidence code at me and asked me to find it.
I said, "If I could have five minutes your honor, that would be sufficient."
He said, "Sure."
I found the section of the code and said:
"Business record exception?"
"Nope."
"Official document exception?"
"Nope."
"Reliability catchall exception?"
"Nope."
"I got one. If a ruling denied a restraining order against me, there's a presumption (meaning a heavy assumption) that facts were presented."
The judge stayed silent. He changed his facial reaction. Yes, I thought. Got out of it!
I bet he's done that to a number of attorney's who never get out of the pressure of having to go through that. But I was happy with myself, I was able to do it. By the way, I knew the evidence code too like the back of my hand. Now, I don't every Californian section of the code, but I had a great professor at evidence who taught me.
The Judge, who seemed tired of the entire oral argument, said he was going to chambers. He came out and ruled against my ex parte. After he ruled against me, I did say for the record how unfair it was because Tafoya and Baldwin Park keep filing illegal documents in court without my permission, and unless they are held accountable, they'll keep doing it. Tofu didn't appreciate what I said in front of the judge, but it had to be said.
I thought about it. I was ready to appeal to the case; as I'm sure the law was on my side. But then, the next day, I got a filing from the City Attorney that they dismissed my TRO with prejudice. So, I don't know what to make of it all. Is it win or a lose? Well - at least the City finally did the right thing.
Anyways, tomorrow, is the first of the big battles. It's trial with Baldwin Park. I'm ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment