Too Many “Bad” Appeals

Clerks and Judges on the Appellate bench will often get a sense of whining from an unfavorable result in the trial court. And they are besieged by appeals that don’t amount to anything more than a motion for rehearing that should be filed with the trial court. The purpose of an appeal is to have the appellate court decide (1) to intervene (2) to correct an error of law or procedure by the trial court. The purpose of a further appeal to the Supreme Court is to have the Court decide (1) to intervene and (2) to correct an error of law or procedure by the appellate court.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
Contrary to the myth that persists among most pro se litigants and some lawyers, an appeal is not a retrial. That ship has sailed. The only question on appeal is whether the record on appeal contains erroneous material rulings or orders AND whether those errors are sufficient to overturn the ruling or order.
Generally speaking the Supreme Court has no obligation to review anything. Depending upon the procedure of the court, as little as one Clerk and one justice might decide the outcome — i.e., of whether the Supreme Court will accept the case for review. Chances are very low that the Supreme Court will accept any Petition for Review (e.g. certiorari) so it is critical to bring up, front and center the reasons why the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary or required.
For both Pro Se litigants and lawyers, if you don’t possess really good writing skills, don’t file a brief — get someone else who can take what you would submit as a brief and make it clear and understandable. The main peeve of the appellate courts is that they feel nobody knows how to write anymore. Grammar, spelling and organization is essential. So is getting to the point instead of spending pages writing around the issue. EXACTLY what error was committed, is it in the record on appeal, and how did it affect the outcome of the case in the trial court.
Petitions to the Supreme Court are usually spit in the wind. What usually appears to be missing is why the Supreme Court should review this case. Most people concentrate on how badly they were wronged. You must first start with the allegation that you are seeking Supreme Court review under specific rules governing jurisdiction by appellate courts and ultimately review by the Supreme Court.
Then you need to state why the Supreme Court should take this petition under review and allow you to appeal from the appellate courts.
You might want to take the last two sentences of my narrative below and make them the first two sentences.
In this court’s decision in the Yvanova case, it was firmly established that wrongful foreclosure continues to be a threat to the public’s confidence in our judicial system. The only protection in our society against manipulation of the system against itself thus achieving an unlawful result are the Rules of Court, Rules of Civil Procedure, and the application of statutory law and common law doctrine.
This protection can only be achieved by requiring strict adherence to those rules, laws and doctrines. In the case at bar the presiding judge followed the consensus among trial judges that nearly all foreclosures should be allowed to proceed, and that the homeowner should be dispossessed of his homestead or other property, leaving only an action for damages. Thus homeowners, like the appellant at bar, are essentially drained of all of their financial resources and assets and were told that they can sue for monetary damages.
Foreclosure is the equivalent in civil procedure to the death penalty in criminal procedure. There was a time in which strict adherence to statutes, doctrines and rules was required in order to succeed in the foreclosure of collateral or property. This is congruent with common law and statutory doctrines dating back centuries.
In this case the Supreme Court should review the case at bar as raising issues of great public importance including respect for judicial policies, rules and procedures. The trial judge in this case felt at liberty to ignore basic protections of due process and statutory enactments as well as prior doctrine. Appellant seeks only to have the highest court in the State declare that existing doctrine, laws and rules of procedure must be strictly applied before a foreclosure sale.

2 Responses

  1. This article is BS. Maybe if lawyers started to help the homeowners at a affordable price you wouldn’t had a need for this article.
    And most pro se didn’t write appeals, they never made it that far. By the time the homeowners found out just a little of what is really going on the judge already gave their homes to the lying banks.
    People don’t need articles to make them feel better they need HELP fighting the bastards!!!

  2. Can you articulate the same thing you did so well here – for a combo – violating 362 stay, contempt of court order (judicially barred), and filing action – and uh – oh – that the real party was at all times Fannie Mae that should have appeared in the first place. . .

    Or we can get attorneys to start handling these actions. Thanks Neil.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: