Apparently a Mandatory Answer with a Motion to Dismiss is no longer required.

The Northern District of Illinois launched a Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (“MIDP”) on June 1, 2017.  The three-year pilot has now been in effect for 18 months, and the judges of the district have decided to modify it slightly. During the first 18 months, the MIDP has required parties in civil cases to file answers to complaints even when they file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or similar motion.  Answers are not required if motions to dismiss assert jurisdictional or immunity defenses.  As you know, answers trigger the 30-day period for the exchange of MIDP responses.  The MIDP requires these early answers to ensure that MIDP responses are exchanged at the outset of the case. Effective December 1, 2018, the MIDP will be amended to provide that answers are due under the time periods established by Rule 12(a).  Rule 12(a)(4) provides that answers need not be filed while a Rule 12 motion is pending.  As a result, answers no longer will be required — and the MIDP response period will not be triggered — while a motion is pending under Rule 12(b)(6) or any other provision of Rule 12.  Under Rule 12(a)(4), even if a motion to dismiss is filed, the Court retains authority to order an answer and/or permit the parties to make Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and commence discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District is making this change in response to comments suggesting that the early-answer requirement of the MIDP imposed unnecessary costs on parties who ultimately succeed on Rule 12 motions.  Making the change midway through the MIDP will also allow the FJC to evaluate both approaches to mandatory disclosures. The Standing Order Governing Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project and related documents will be amended to reflect this change. Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP) https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?jYyawIFLXKMJrmXzxFk8lw== This message was sent by the United States Courts

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message

ReplyReply allForward

this is for when you’re pro se and screw up a bit.

The courts should help you out, at least a bit.

Due process issue unique to pro se litigants is what role the Rules of Civil Procedure should play. The Rules attempt to define a fair method of procedure, but an unrepresented litigant kindly asks for exceptions because when applied the method of procedure needs to be learned. In effect, courts liberally interpret the Rules to the benefit of pro se litigants. As described above, this is supported by Rule 1, which states that courts should consider the goals of fairness, speed, and cost, and Rule 94, which allows the rules to be relaxed or dispensed with when necessary. Since the plaintiff is attempting proper procedure in good faith, I ask the court to grant this leave to file a proper objection found in prior judgment. However, the Rules also place a premium on uniform treatment. The Alaska Supreme Court has noted that the Rules were promulgated for the “specific purpose of giving fair and reasonable notice to all parties of the appropriate procedural standards that should be uniformly applied when any party, including a pro se litigant, seeks relief in [civil litigation].” Reconciling the preference for efficiency and fairness with the preference for uniformity creates problems when applying the Rules to pro se litigants. Another source of difficulty stems from the diverse population of pro se litigants. For the represented litigant, the judge can rely upon a set of expectations of what the attorney will know. With a pro se litigant, on the other hand, the judge is likely unaware of how much legal knowledge any particular pro se litigant has. Thus, it is unclear what degree of leniency is necessary to permit a fair result for a particular unrepresented party. For this reason the court must allow pro se litigant to correct his prior pleadings.

Non lawyers do not have the same know how as lawyers and are left Technically Challenged:

Even though the pro se litigant took on the court procedure by himself, the plaintiff is not to be held to the same standard as a lawyer. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. The plaintiff just would like a fair shake at reaching justice since abused by the court.  Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)

“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.” Since the prior error was not intentional, and no party would be prejudiced, this court should grant the relief requested.  Just because Plaintiff is pro se, no punishment come to the plaintiff for that reason alone. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.”

From Joanne;

I hope this helps some pro se litigants.

I have some more articles on pro se leniency on this blog.

Note from the reporter, she says that she herself has watched judges behave badly also.

I have to tell you, most law school grads don’t know how to write one either, so if you are pro se, don’t fret this.

The stages of litigation, for your background info are this 1) file and prepare complaint; 2) draft up written discovery to your opponent(s) which will be interrogatories (fancy word for questions), requests for documents and requests to admit; 3) get back answers (if you don’t, you have to file a motion to compel and maybe a rule to show cause); 4)  depositions of fact witnesses (you will likely need a lawyer for this, get one cheap and limit his or her representation to just your depns); 5) experts.  hire a expert if needed or helpful.  they will produce a report.  your opponent will likely then get an expert.  if there are depositions, get a lawyer, just for those, you will likely not know how to make objections and preserve testimony for trial, plus lawyers know how to ask the really incisive (annoying) questions; then you have to do your trial prep and 6) hire a lawyer for trial.

This will keep things cheap unless you can find a contingency fee lawyer.  But due to corruption in the courts, your chances of getting that are slim to none. This is because you will need an honest lawyer that can’t be paid off.  Many lawyers can be paid off (sad to say).  And your lawyer must be honest enuf they won’t every bribe anyone. So that means your opponent in the current environment will be at a disadvantage because in our current system, we don’t test for psychopaths with a PET brain scan, so your opponent will bribe, but you and your lawyer will not.  So you will often be pro se fighting a difficult system.  But we have to do it to clean up the current system. Take everything to a jury trial. Do not settle or you are just a hypocrite too.

At the first stage of the trial, and after depositions and discovery is all returned, you may wish to file a Summary Judgment Motion and/or Judgment on the Pleadings.  You can really file both, and they’re pretty much the same.  That’s two bites at the apple.  Many lawyers do not do this, but you can.

What you are saying is that your opponent found no credible evidence of anything and you are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

How to write  Summary Judgment Motion:

1.  Write an introductory paragraph.  This will say what litigant is filing it (name and if you are plaintiff or defendant or a cross claimant, etc.) and your best reasons (use 3 to 5) of why you are entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of Law.
2.  Next is your “Statement of Facts”.  You do this in the following format:  “1. on X date, this happened.  2. on Y date this happened.”  You might want to include the procedure in the portion of your Motion, or you might want to do a separate “Statement of Procedure” to bring your judge up to date.  Remember you write these pleadings for an appellate judge or a new judge.  Don’t skip over facts because you think “the judge knows my case, s/he knows me”. Forget that nonsense.  The judge has 20 other cases per day, they are elderly and likely have short term memory loss and bad eyes.  Tell your story. Don’t skip this important part.  Your judge can be diagnosed with cancer or heart disease any day. Write like you are writing for the appellate court or a new judge every time you file a Motion.
3. Motions are supposed to be in short, concise numbered paragraphs. They are short (3 to 5 pages).  Put your details and case law in a Brief to accompany the motion.  If the judge or court has a page limit, be sure to stick to that.  But most judges get tired of reading after 15 pages, so 15 pages of great concise writing is a laudable goal.
4. Tell the court why you are entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law. Look at the complaint.  Do they have all the required elements of each cause of action to go to trial.  Look at your case law.  They should have pulled 2 to 3 cases at the time you prepared your complaint to find the elements for each tort.  Find cases that say they are missing one or more elements.
5. MOST IMPORTANT.  A clear list of undisputed facts that will entitled you to summary judgment.  You can put this as an exhibit.  Make your opponent dispute this.  All you need is just ONE disputed material fact to get before your jury.  So look at the depositions and affidavits filed. Come up with your own affidavits to dispute some facts.

I have seen some really terrible SJM motions.  You have to be clear about what is undisputed. SJM’s are not favored; jury trials are.  Or at least in theory.

If you are defending a SJM, come up with disputed facts and put them in an affidavit or declaration.

Whatever court you are in (federal, state, etc.) read the rules before submitting any pleading. There are generally specific rules for Summary Judgment Motions. Read them carefully before filing your pleading.  Law is all about following rules.  Someone with a weak argument can easily win over good case law with no compliance with rules.  No compliance with rules can easily tick off a judge into oblivion and win your case.  Remember, judges are often perfectionist entities who went to law school with tons of reading and tons of deadlines and case law. they want you to be conservative about this and perfect in your pleadings.

In Illinois, always file verified pleadings.  Once one pleading is verified, your opponent must also verify pleadings.  If they don’t, ask to strike or dismiss the pleading.

Always do a Notice of Filing, a Certificate of Service and Verification at the end of your pleadings.

Good Luck

Email me if you have questions and I will be glad to do a general blog post in response.

Joanne

One common question I get, is why won’t the states attorneys, police, FBI, etc. do anything about the fact that the probate court system is a large criminal enterprise where the elderly or disabled are targeted for a paid up home, cars, bank accounts, etc.  Then they are guardianized, often without notice, service, they want to fight the gship, but they either get no attorney, or the attorney is tied into the system. Then the house is sold and everything is sold, and the elderly person is forced into a nursing home, drugged with psych drugs (which are illegal and not FDA approved for the elderly) and massive attorney’s fees, courtroom vendor fees (case managers, etc.) are charged against the estate.  When that is quickly depleted, then food and water is with held and the senior quickly perishes. The body is quickly cremated to destroy all trace of chemicals and lack of food in the stomach for days.

Many ask, why aren’t these crimes prosecuted?

The reality is, that’s up to the prosecutor. Prosecutor’s have “prosecutorial discretion” which means that they are the only ones to bring criminal charges and they do this based up the evidence, how the judges respond to these types of cases with this type of evidence and how juries respond.  They have to have a criminal deft found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very, very high standard.  One reasonable doubt and the defendant must be acquitted.

In addition, if the prosecutor loses, then the defendant can sue for 42 USC 1983 deprivation of civil rights under color of authority, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and damages can be substantial, especially if someone was harmed during the arrest.

And taxpayers pay for those cases.

Many people want to reinstitute the grand jury system or people’s grand juries where 12 or more persons decide what and whom to charge.  If they do that, the people should be trained to minimize the risk of suit against the state or US.

Finally, your prosecutor is elected.  Campaign against these prosecutors who let this happen.  Force them out of office by convincing the voters he or she is not doing their job.

You could sue the prosecutor for misfeasance or malfeasance in office if they are not doing their job and going after all criminals too.

But this basically explains the problem with criminal charges in probate in a nutshell.

Please feel free to write or call this woman and tell her to stop her abuse of poor Douglas Keegan who is now fighting for his rights to be free of an abusive guardianship in Orange County Florida…. more to come.

JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP
5330 W. Devon Ave. #6 JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*
Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608
ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.com
fax 312-553-1307 JoAnne@Justice4Every1.com

November 7, 2018

Via Email heather.ramos@gray-robinson.Com

Heather Ramos
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
Post Office Box 3068 ( 328 0 2-3068 )
Orlando, Florida 32801
Tel 407-843-8880
Fax 407 -244 -5690

RE: In re Guardianship of Douglas Keegan 20 I 4-CP-002772-0.

Dear Ms. Ramos;

I am in receipt of a letter dated 4/24/18 which you sent to the putative “guardian” of Mr. Doug Keegan in which you 1) asserted cooperation in wrongfully terminating his library card; and 2) offered cooperation in a highly abusive guardianship case.

As you are aware, under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Florida you should be taking no such action against a person who 1) is clearly competent, knows the time, date, place who the President is, etc.; 2) had complained reasonably about his guardianship being a ruse and the guardianship has been extremely physically and emotionally abusive to Mr. Keegan. All these documents are of public record.

From the Rules of Prof. Conduct, preamble:

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.

This is to advise you that Mr. Keegan is under an abusive guardianship. Your taking action against an alleged Ward of the State of Florida who only wants to use a computer to contest his court case and read books is amazingly unethical, immoral and utterly reprehensible.

I am demanding at this time that you fully restore the rights of Mr. Keegan to full library access and treat him as the highly respected individual that he truly is.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/joannemdenison/

JoAnne Denison
Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
cc: http://www.marygsykes.com

Please contact me if you can get a man in an abusive gship a bicycle. He is in Orlando.  The Guardian keeps on stealing his bicycle and selling it, so if you have a good lock, that would be great.

This man is completely competent, was working as an engineer, is extremely intelligent, and got caught up in an abusive guardianship when some attorney relative got mad at him and sucked him into the Florida gship system, which we all know is very, very corrupt.

They have sold his homes for lawyer fees, his cars and anything they could get their hands on. He is always on the run.

Joanne

From James Kelly

A quote from In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 – 23 (1975). The Supreme Court:

“ In the long history of the British jurisprudence there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber, that curious institution which flourished in the late 16th and 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For those reasons and because it specialized in trying “political” defenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard for basic, individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required defendants to have counsel. The defendants answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed (See, J.Stephen, “A history of the criminal law in England”, 341-42 (1883) As Stephen commented on this procedure, “There is something especially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense” (end quote)