Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Marianne Luban

Reply
Thread Tools

Marianne Luban

 
 
j. fenious
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2004
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 31 Mar 2004 16:53:00 GMT, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)ospam (MarianneLuban)
> in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Marianne Luban
> >>From: "Steve Marcus" (E-Mail Removed)
> >>Date: 3/31/2004 2:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <Vkxac.29077$oH2.20157@lakeread01>
> >>
> >>
> >>"MarianneLuban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> >Subject: Re: Marianne Luban
> >>> >From: Never anonymous Bud (E-Mail Removed)
> >>> >Date: 3/30/2004 8:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>> >Message-id: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >It just goes to show the stupidity of the legal system.
> >>> >
> >>> >One States Court claims invalid jurisdiction,
> >>> >but ALSO 'reverses' that other States judgment.
> >>> >
> >>> >Nonsensical.
> >>>
> >>> No, Buddy boy. It doesn't work that way.
> >>> One court *vacates* the judgment of another court for lack of in personam
> >>> jurisdiction over the defendant. It doesn't *reverse* the judgment of
> >>another
> >>> state. However, once the parties fully litigate the jurisdictional
> >>> question--that's it. It cannot be litigated again. Anywhere. Not even
> >>in
> >>> the originating state.
> >>
> >>That's simply wrong. You are confused (probably hopelessly) about the
> >>doctrine of res judicata, and the difference between the concept of
> >>enforcing a judgment obtained in State X in the courts of State Y as opposed
> >>to attempting to secure a judgment in State X, failing (that is losing a
> >>lawsuit on the merits as opposed to a procedural technicality), and then
> >>attempting to relitigate the merits in another court (whether in the same
> >>State or another State).
> >>
> >>See:
> >>
> >>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleiv.html
> >>
> >>Which links the "full faith and credit clause" (Article IV) of the
> >>Constitution of the United States. See the part re judicial proceedings?
> >>How is it that Minnesota didn't give "full faith and credit to the Alabama
> >>judgment? Simple. Minnesota held that there was no jurisdiction over one
> >>of the parties, (a decision based upon lack of personal jurisdiction being a
> >>technicality, not a decision on the merits). But that doesn't bind, let's
> >>say Vermont, from giving "full faith and credit" to the Alabama judgment;
> >>how could it, since one could equally set up a paradox by arguing that the "
> >>full faith and credit" clause could bind Vermont to agree with both
> >>Minnesota and Alabama.
> >>
> >>No, Ms. Luban. Res judicata precludes a party to a lawsuit, who loses on
> >>the merits, from relitigating the identical issues. If Ms.
> >>Griffis-Greenberg had lost in Alabama, she could not have taken her case to
> >>Minnesota and tried it there all over again. But in the situation that you
> >>describe, she has a judgment, and absent a **Federal** holding that the
> >>judgment cannot be enforced, it _is_ enforceable in every state in the
> >>Union, unless that State holds it unenforceable on a jurisdictional matter,
> >>which has the effect of saying that "in this State, it isn't a real judgment
> >>at all since the court of the other State lacked jurisdiction."
> >>

> >
> >
> >>It is hardly suprising that one's "home court", as it were, ultimately
> >>issued a protectionist decision for one of its citizens. It happens all the
> >>time. Absent a Federal decision on the merits, it just means that in the
> >>injunction in unenforceable in Minnesota. And in case you aren't clear, a
> >>refusal by the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari is generally
> >>regarded as not necessarily implying agreement with the position of either
> >>party.
> >>
> >>See, as one example:
> >>
> >>http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa...certiorari.htm
> >>
> >>If you wish to discuss the matter further (with anyone, I've no real
> >>interest in discussing it with you except to get the matter the heck out of
> >>sci.archaeology where it does not belong), take it to misc.legal. moderated
> >>(misc.legal is a zoo and no discussion there should be credited with any
> >>degree of accuracy).
> >>
> >>> That is why, if Griffis decided to enforce the
> >>> injunction in the state where I now live, my defense would still be the
> >>same as
> >>> before--lack of in personam jurisdiction at the time the injunction was
> >>> issued--and the doctrine of res judicata would collaterally estop Griffis
> >>from
> >>> going any further. Her injunction is worthless. She cannot get a new and
> >>> different ruling on the jurisdictional merits of the case.
> >>
> >>Simply wrong. See above

> >
> >Throughout this litigation, Griffis contended that the Full Faith and Credit
> >Clause required the courts of every other state to honor the Alabama judgment
> >that she had obtained by default. Now she contends that despite her fiercely
> >contesting the issue of personal jurisdiction all the way to the United States
> >Supreme Court, the Full Faith and Credit Clause somehow does not apply to the
> >decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. That position is unjustified.
> >
> >Griffis sought relief in the courts of Minnesota and voluntarily submitted
> >herself to the courts of this State when she entered a general appearance in
> >this State and sought to enforce the Alabama judgment here. Cf. Durfee v.
> >Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 & n.8 (1963); Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's
> >Ass'n., 283 U.S. 522, 525-26 (1931).
> >
> >Because the courts of Minnesota had jurisdiction over Griffis, she is bound by
> >the decisions of Minnesota courts on the issues presented to those courts. Cf.
> >Baldwin, 283 U.S. at 525-26 ("Public policy dictates that there be an end of
> >litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result
> >of the contest; and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled
> >as between the parties. We see no reason why this doctrine should not apply in
> >every case where one voluntarily appears, presents his case and is fully heard,
> >and why he should not, in the absence of fraud, be thereafter concluded by the
> >judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause.").
> >
> >The Minnesota Supreme Court squarely decided the issues of lack of personal
> >jurisdiction and the concomitant lack of any legal basis upon which the Alabama
> >court could have entered the judgment that Griffis sought to enforce. Griffis
> >v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002), and Order dated September 17, 2002. The
> >decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court are binding upon Griffis personally as
> >collateral estoppel and res judicata. In American Surety Company v. Baldwin,
> >287 U.S. 156, 166 (1932), the United States Supreme Court held:
> >The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to
> >other issues. . The principles of res judicata may apply, although the
> >proceeding was begun by motion. Thus, a decision in a proceeding begun by
> >motion to set aside a judgment for want of jurisdiction is . res judicata,
> >and precludes a suit to enjoin enforcement of the judgment.
> >The present case similarly is a proceeding begun by motion to set aside the
> >Alabama judgment for want of jurisdiction, although the resulting decision here
> >was to void rather than to validate the Alabama judgment. The necessary effect
> >of the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court is to preclude further attempts
> >by Griffis to enforce the Alabama judgment in any other location. Cf. Reed v.
> >Univ. of North Dakota, 589 N.W.2d 880, 885 (N.D. 1999) ("The Minnesota decision
> >is entitled to full faith and credit in North Dakota, . and res judicata
> >precludes Reed from thereafter maintaining an identical claim against UND in
> >North Dakota.").
> >The decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court are entitled to full faith and
> >credit in every other state. U.S. CONST. art. IV, 1 ("Full Faith and Credit
> >shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
> >Proceedings of every other State."); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 (1963)
> >(a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit - even as to questions of
> >jurisdiction - when the subsequent court's inquiry discloses that those
> >questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court
> >which rendered the prior judgment); Lyon Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Waddill, 625
> >N.W.2d 155, 158 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2001) ("A
> >state court judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in other states when
> >it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and
> >finally decided in the original court."); id. at 160 (California court's denial
> >of motion to dismiss proceeding to enforce default judgment obtained in
> >Minnesota was not binding in Minnesota upon subsequent motion to vacate default
> >judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, but only because issues of personal
> >jurisdiction in fact were never fully and fairly litigated in California). The
> >courts of Alabama extend full faith and credit to the decisions of the courts
> >of Minnesota. See, e.g., Ex parte Lyon Fin. Serv., Inc., 775 So.2d 181, 183
> >(Ala. 2000).
> >
> >Cross posted to misc.legal at the request of Steve Marcus.

>
> Actually, Marcus suggested it cross-posted to misc.legal.moderated, if
> you bother to read the above, not misc.legal.
>
> And this above argument was rejected by the Ramsey County District
> Court, in Minnesota, in its Final Order, I might add.
>
> Just to keep the record straight.
>
>
> --
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
>
> DISCLAIMER:
>
> Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
> is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
> isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
> out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
> state's laws and applications thereof.


Kindly keep your bullshit newsgroup soap opera out of misc.legal and get a life.

misc.legal removed from crosspost list.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mick Sterbs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2004

"j. fenious" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...

> Kindly keep your bullshit newsgroup soap opera out of misc.legal and get a

life.
>
> misc.legal removed from crosspost list.


So not only do you repost the WHOLE bloody thing in its entirety, but you do
it twice.
Well done, you are a bloody genius.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Script Java in Luban Language peterx@lubankit.org Java 20 01-13-2006 05:51 AM
Know Java, want to script a little, recommend Luban PeterX Java 0 02-22-2005 06:48 PM
Know C++, want to script a little, recommend Luban PeterX C++ 0 02-22-2005 06:44 PM
Marianne Luban j. fenious Digital Photography 0 04-01-2004 12:09 AM



Advertisments