Be Notified of New Postings
Law Reform Network
I am far from being the only victim of this arrogant and incompetent judge – who was publicly admonished by the California Commission on Judicial Performance in 2004.
If the Judicial Council kept a list of “vexatious judges” (as they do of so-called “vexatious litigants”) Judge Letteau would be at the top. When a pro se litigant loses 5 cases (in a 7 year period) – this is considered “vexatious” under Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Sec. 391 et seq.
But what about a judge who is reversed on appeal this many times?
Isn’t deciding a case wrongly far more serious than just losing a case as a pro se litigant?
By this standard Judge Letteau is certainly a “vexatious judge”.
Within just a 26 month period from December 2001 to Feb 2004 Judge Letteau was reversed on appeal in no less than 10 cases.
According to an excellent article in Harper’s Magazine (April 2009) – Infinite Debt by Thomas Geoghegan – the key to our current financial meltdown and economic crisis can be summed up in one word:
Most analyses of the economic crisis focus on the housing meltdown and/or the lack of proper bank regulation. These are true – but not the whole truth.
Geoghehan goes to the heart of the matter and points the finger of blame for our current financial and economic crisis on the dismantling of usury laws which resulted from the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Marquette National Bank v. First Omaha Service Corp (national banks may charge the interest at the rate set by the state “where the bank is located” regardless of the laws in the state where the bank is actually lending money).
“We dismantled the most ancient of human laws, the law against usury, which had existed in some form in every civilization from the time of the Babylonian Empire to the end of Jimmy Carter’s term.”
Geoghegan traces how “with the collapse of anti-usury laws, we have also seen the deregulation of virtually everything else bankers do” and how our economy has since become based – not on manufacturing innovations but – on banking innovations (e.g. derivatives, etc) resulting in economic deterioration.
According to one authority (see http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm )
regarding usury “[a]mong its most visible and vocal critics have been the religious institutions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. To this list may be added ancient Western philosophers and politicians, as well as various modern socio-economic reformers.”.
Could our society’s violation of this “moral law” be the cause of our current economic crisis?
The following self-explanatory email correspondance is between myself and the SEC regarding the SEC web page at
The SEC makes the presumption (which I think is not correct) that day trading stocks is inherently riskier than actually “investing” in stocks. Continue reading
[First published 2005 – republished Dec 8 2014]
American trust law should be reformed. The “trust” constitutes a form of property ownership which is antithetical to American concepts of private property. The goals of the trust for the most part can be accomplished by other means which are less complex, less subject to varying interpretations, and therefore, less of a windfall for the lawyer industry. And, in the case of spendthrift trusts – which are of questionable consitutionality and contrary to public policy – there is a more pressing need for change.
[First published Mar 2, 2004 – republished here Dec 8, 2014]
This is a comment sent by email to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, regarding Proposed Fed.R.App.Proc. 32.1 (which would permit citation of unpublished opinions).
FRAP[First published Oct 16, 2003 (before FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1) – republished here Dec 8, 2014]
The 9th Circuit’s non-publication rule (Circuit Rule 36-3) undermines the Doctrine of Precedent – the very foundation of Anglo-American law. In a published case, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled it constitutional – assuring the public not to worry about its being abused. Yet he, himself, abused the rule in two unpublished cases. A rule he sets forth as law in one opinion is completely contradicted by his own ruling in another, nearly identical, case (article revised 2-9-04).
“Depository libraries shall make Government publications available for the free use of the general public, . . .” (44 US Code Sec. 1911). Private law school libraries receive many thousands of dollars worth of publications for free – at taxpayers’ expense. In 1998 I tried to use the Southwestern School of Law library but was turned away at the door. The library is for students only – no public access. Click the link below to see my correspondence (personal information redacted) regarding this issue.