Marianne Luban

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by j. fenious, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. j. fenious

    j. fenious Guest

    "Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On 31 Mar 2004 16:53:00 GMT, ospam (MarianneLuban)
    > in sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
    >
    > >>Subject: Re: Marianne Luban
    > >>From: "Steve Marcus"
    > >>Date: 3/31/2004 2:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
    > >>Message-id: <Vkxac.29077$oH2.20157@lakeread01>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>"MarianneLuban" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> >Subject: Re: Marianne Luban
    > >>> >From: Never anonymous Bud
    > >>> >Date: 3/30/2004 8:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
    > >>> >Message-id: <>
    > >>> >
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> >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/constitution/constitution.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/glossary/legal/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.
    j. fenious, Apr 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. j. fenious

    Marianne Luban

    j. fenious, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    561
    Mick Sterbs
    Apr 1, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page