Riana Buffin and
Patterson, et al.,
This City and
County of San Francisco and the State of California,
Was the O.J. Simpson Murder Trial an example of
so-called “Equal Justice Under Law?”
Should Trial Lawyers Take a Closer Look at Buffin and
Patterson v. The City and County of San Francisco?
Does the “...wealth-based” Trial Lawyer’s “scheme”
systems of justice?”
Opinion Editorial and Questions by Rex Venator,
December 28, 2015
So Washington D.C. lawyers moved a San
Francisco district (benched by lawyers) court to declare San Francisco’s bail
(determined by lawyers) schedule a “wealth-based
scheme detention (that) unconstitutionally
imprisons arrestees based on their wealth-status thereby creating two systems
of justice: one for the rich another for people who are poor” thereby
forming the basis to request injunctive relief to be decided by, well, lawyers.
I find the argument, as a simple bounty
hunter, quixotic, paradoxical, and, if one merely gazes a year or two past
tomorrow, is this not a serious threat to TRIAL
Access to legal representation and bail
are each available to newly arrested people, but making an argument that poor
people can’t raise bail overlooks the fact that poor people also cannot afford
an O.J. Simpson like “dream team” to
the extent that one has to wonder if there really is so-called “Equal Justice Under Law” when it comes
to securing competent legal representation.
For example, a young adult male just
starting out in the world and with no assets “catches a case” and is assigned a government public defender;
however, his coconspirator’s parents are rich and retain the second defendant a
$650.00 an hour lawyer. Now apply the
argument the D.C. lawyers made about bail creating “two classes” of defendants to this example and it isn’t difficult
to imagine or even witness firsthand how “two
classes” of people are made.
Where exactly is “Equal Justice Under Law” when there are two classes of people: one
class that can afford expensive lawyers and the other class that has no
money and therefore cannot, irrespective if we are talking about criminal law
or civil law with private bail being a private civil matter injected into an
ongoing criminal matter with bail being set by judges who are lawyers.
I’m asking because I am not highly
educated, nor have I had any formal legal training, so I’ll rephrase my
If the bail schedule is a wealth-based
scheme then isn’t it also true that trial lawyers, who set their own hourly
rates based on skills, experience, a proven track record of success, or, maybe
just a prestigious address, more of a wealth-based scheme—like the D.C.
Stated differently, if lawyers all agree
that high bail is unfair to poor people then perhaps it is time to do away with
private trial lawyers who set their own fees and then let the government
determine what all lawyers can charge all peoples in all matters for legal
representation so that everyone is treated equally under the law if we are to
follow the shortsighted arguments of the D.C. Lawyers, yes?
Most people in criminal and civil
trouble cannot afford a “dream team” of the best legal minds in the United States, and if we make it so then it
stands to reason that “dream teams” will no longer exist because the best legal minds may be disinclined to become
trial lawyers because trial lawyers decided that bail schedules, set by judges,
are not fair; hence, we may have what is called a “clashing of logics” offered up by lawyers that will predictably
have an insidious eroding affect on lawyers if California lawyers agree with
the D.C. lawyers?
Does the wealth-based trial lawyer
scheme create two systems of justice?
I’m a simple man and am asking because I don’t know; indeed, maybe a
trial lawyer could help me find an answer, but I shouldn’t be made to pay more
than I can afford because that would unfairly create two classes of people, yes?
My final question is this: are trial lawyers
a different class of people than bail people with the former charging people
whatever they want while the latter charge what lawyers (judges) tell them they
can charge to all people notwithstanding if people in need of bail are rich or
poor? Wait. A trial lawyer is unlikely to take a case
from a poor person that has no class action potential, but a bail agent will post
a bond for a poor person—so exactly which system is a “wealth-based scheme?”
I’m sure the lawyers involved will be
fair to all and not expect to get rich through this process of deciding whether
or not one so-called scheme is actually reflective of an incontrovertibly
wealth-based scheme designed for wealthy folks to afford “dream teams” right?
Yeah, my head hurts too ~ Rex, Tracy, California.
Democrats for Life of America do not endorse Republicans?
is the current policy of Democrats for Life of America never to formally
endorse or provide institutional backing to any candidate who is not both a
Democrat and pro-life. To do so would be to blunt our prophetic voice within
the Democratic big tent and remove our reason for being.”
ORDER by Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Setting Teleconference. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2015)
want me to issue an order to all of the judges of San Francisco telling them
all of their orders are unconstitutional?”
is fundamentally unclear to me the legal theory under which you are proceeding.”
don't have the judges in this suit, and frankly, I don't think you can sue
legal theory seems ambiguous and unformed."
understand what you're hoping to achieve, but you still have to do the legal
analysis, and pontificating at the mike is not legal analysis."
hear your argument, but when you have statements in your claim like the CCSF
operates the Sheriff's Department, county jail and Superior Court, it clearly
suggests to me you don't understand how it works. The Superior Court is a
constitutional branch of the California government. It gives me no confidence
in your ability to have articulated something that may be successful."
U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
WELCHEN v. HARRIS
GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, Plaintiff, v. KAMALA HARRIS and
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
February 4, 2016.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District
“This matter is before the Court pursuant
to Plaintiff Gary Welchen's (‘Plaintiff’) motion for temporary restraining
order. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is
“Plaintiff asserts that the bail scheme
in Sacramento is unconstitutional because it is a ‘wealth-based detention
scheme that penalizes all indigent arrestees.’ (ECF No. 2 at 3.) Plaintiff has
filed the instant case as a class action and moves this Court for a temporary
restraining order ‘prohibiting Defendants' wealth-based detention scheme and
requiring that pretrial release or detention decisions be based on factors
other than wealth-status.’ (ECF No. 2 at 2.)”
“At the outset, the Court notes that
Plaintiff's briefing is replete with one-liner platitudes concerning equal
justice and wealth status. However, the briefing fails to address the other
factors that the state court considers in deciding whether bail should be
applied. In essence, Plaintiff's briefing makes overarching legal conclusions,
but fails to provide this Court with facts that would enable the Court to grant
the relief sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's failure is more notable in this
situation where Plaintiff is asking this Court to upset the status quo. See
Martin, 740 F. 2d at 675 (‘a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes
well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be
extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.’) Furthermore, the
case law cited by Plaintiff is not binding on this Court, nor does the
information before this Court provide enough detail to determine whether the
bail systems that other districts have found to be unconstitutional are similar
to that which is utilized in Sacramento. As such, this Court cannot find that
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this case, and this factor
weighs in favor of denying injunctive relief.”
“Because Plaintiff has failed to show a
likelihood of success or irreparable harm, the Court need not address the other
two Winter factors since Plaintiff cannot succeed under Winter or the Ninth
Circuit's sliding scale approach. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Alliance for the
Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135 (Winter requires a plaintiff to make a showing
on all of the Winter factors); see also Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072
(9th Cir. 2012) (sliding scale approach requires a likelihood of irreparable
injury to the plaintiff).”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court
finds that injunctive relief at this juncture of the litigation is not
appropriate. As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
No. 2) is hereby DENIED.”
IS SO ORDERED.
Copyright 2015 - 2016 www.adventuretrades.com - A Subsidiary of Bailspeak, All Rights Reserved