Thursday, December 18, 2008

Las Cruces Judge Needs Lesson in Law

Hot News frum Big-Mouth Broad Casting; Teacher gets extreme animal cruelty charges dismissed

Here is the thing. This judge felt like the defendants right to a speedy trial was violated, so he dismissed the charges,BUT, is also stated that part of the delay was attributable to the defense so there is no basis for such a claim. Basic Law 101, so what is the problem with this judge? Could the defendant be a pal of his, perhaps his own kids teacher? Who knows. To dismiss the charges on the phoney claim is an insult to the system and to the law, and everyone involved in it;

Sun-News report
Article Launched: 12/16/2008 04:06:26 PM MST

LAS CRUCES — A state district judge Tuesday dismissed the charges against a Las Cruces teacher facing multiple counts of extreme animal cruelty, saying too much time had elapsed in bringing the case to trial.

Jack Catlan, 57, a speech pathologist at Picacho Middle School, was indicted in February on two felony counts of extreme cruelty to animals and 20 misdemeanor charges of cruelty to animals.

"The judge felt that there was a speedy trial violation," said Susan Riedel, chief deputy district attorney. "The judge felt that there was just too much passage of time."

Riedel noted that trial dates for Catlan were previously set for June and then November but the case was delayed in part to defense motions.

On June 28, 2007, the sheriff's department spent 10 hours removing 125 animals from Catlan's property in the 500 block of Fairacres Drive in the community of Doña Ana.

Earlier that month, Catlan's neighbors contacted officials about the number of animals on the property. A search warrant was served on Catlan, but he refused to allow deputies on his property, holding them at bay for more than three hours.

A rooster, two goats, five ducks, 25 chickens, 33 dogs, and 59 cats were eventually seized.

Officials reported some animals suffered from neglect, including dogs with visible soars and matted and tightly twisted fur. One female dog had a perforated uterus from over breeding, authorities said.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Notice of Motion for Joinder of Parties

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Country of Rensselaer


Jubic v. Jubic and McAllister

To: Clerk

I____________________, wife of the above named plaintiff and an interested party in this case, do herein give notice of a Motion to be made in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rensselaer, located at the Courthouse at 80 Second St., Troy, NY, on the ____________day of ___________, 2009, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, for a joinder of parties, and for any other further relief the court may deem just and proper.


Christine A Jubic, Pro Se
118 River Rd.1st. Fl
Johnsonville, NY 12094

CC: Mr. Micahel Mansion,
Attorney for Defendants


Friday, December 5, 2008

Hubbies Reply to Defendants Request to Depose

Dont he write a nice letter?

From: George J. Jubic
aka George M. Jubic, Jr., Plaintiff
118 River Rd.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791

Date: December 4, 2008

To: Michael P. Mansion
Attorney for the Defendants
1528 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12205

Re: Jubic v. Jubic and McAllister
Supreme Court Rensselaer Co.
Index # 214085

Dear Mr. Mansion,

As you know, I am the plaintiff in the above mentioned proceeding, and am writing to let you know that I will not be attending the deposition you have scheduled for me on Dec. 11, 2008.

I have discovered that the defendants you represent are in non-compliance of a Request for Discovery and Inspection made long before the case was stayed.

On Nov. 8, 2005, the defendants, by and through their then attorney, Mr. Arthur Frost, did submit to my then attorney Mr James L Coffin, a Notice for Discovery and Demand for Inspection.

While I do not have the exact dates because Mr Coffin never did return the records to me as requested numerous times, to the best of my knowledge and belief I do believe that we did reply in a timely manner and satisfactorily as no objections or further inquiries were made.

After having complied with the defendants request for discovery, Mr Coffin did in turn submit to Mr Frost our own Notice and Demand for discovery and inspection, and I do have the approximate date of that request as being made on or about March 31, 2006. Months went by and no reply to our request for discovery was made.

Just as Mr Coffin was planning to file a motion to compel, the case was stayed pending resolution of a related matter in the bankruptcy court, as you should know.

While it was agreed between myself and Mr Coffin that he would also represent me in the bankruptcy proceeding, ...when it came time for court dates and appearances Mr Coffin turned up missing. After several weeks of attempting to contact him through telephone calls and emails, it was apparent that something was wrong. Inquires were made to the New York State Bar Association as to his whereabouts and I was informed by the Association that Mr Coffin had been permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of New York, and that in fact he was (at that time) currently imprisoned!

I feel that in all fairness, having complied with the defendants discovery requests, that it is important to resolve the issue of the defendants failure to reply to my discovery request previously made to them. Once the defendants comply with said request I will gladly submit to being deposed or examined by you or anybody else, after which I will be ready to file a note of issue and proceed to trial as directed by the judge at our last (Nov. 12th, 2008) hearing.

Thanking you in advance for any consideration you may give this matter.


George J. Jubic, aka George M. Jubic, Jr.

CC: Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Rensselaer County Courthouse
80 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180

Monday, December 1, 2008

Joinders, Defined & Explained

Joinder of Parties For two or more persons to join together as coplaintiffs or codefendants in a lawsuit, they generally must share similar rights or liabilities. At common law a person could not be added as a plaintiff unless that person, jointly with the other plaintiffs, was entitled to the whole recovery. A person could not be added as a defendant unless that person, jointly with the other defendants, was liable for the entire demand. To be more efficient, reduce costs, and reduce litigation, the modern Practice of Law does not proceed on the same principles.

Permissive Joinder According to modern law, a person who has no material interest in the subject of the litigation or in the relief demanded is not a proper party and may not be part of the legal action. A proper party is one who may be joined in the action but whose failure to do so does not prevent the court from hearing the case and settling the controversy. A proper party may be added to a lawsuit through a process called permissive joinder.

The statutes that govern permissive joinder generally provide that plaintiffs may unite in one action if they claim a right to relief for injuries arising from the same occurrence or transaction. Likewise, persons may join as defendants in an action if assertions made against them claim a right to relief for damages emerging from the same transaction or occurrence.

Compulsory Joinder If a court is being asked to decide the rights of a person who is not named as a party to the lawsuit, that party must be joined in the lawsuit or else the court may not hear the case. Such persons are deemed indispensable or necessary parties, and they may be added as parties to the lawsuit through a process termed compulsory joinder. For reasons of Equity and convenience, it is often best for the court not to proceed if an indispensable party is absent and cannot be joined. In some circumstances, however, a court may still hear a matter if an indispensable party is absent, but its judgment can affect only the interests of the parties before it.

To determine whether a person is an indispensable party, the court must carefully examine the facts of the case, the relief sought, and the nature and extent of the absent person's interest in the controversy raised in the lawsuit. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and many state rules give courts flexible guidelines for this determination. These rules provide that the court should look to various pragmatic factors and determine whether it is better to dismiss the action owing to the absence of a party, or to proceed without that party. Specifically, the court should consider whether complete relief could still be accorded the parties who are present, whether the absence of the particular party impairs that party's ability to protect an interest, or whether the absence will leave a party that is present subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple obligations. If the court decides, based on principles of equity and good conscience, that it is best to dismiss the action rather than hear it without the absent party joining the lawsuit, then the absent party is an indispensable party and the case is said to be dismissed for nonjoinder. For example, if one party to a contract asks the court to determine his rights under the contract, and the other party to the contract is absent and cannot be joined, then the court will refuse to hear the case because the other party is indispensable to determining rights under the contract.

Joinder of ActionUnder certain circumstances a plaintiff may join several causes of action, or claims for relief, in one complaint, declaration, or petition, even though each could have been the basis for a separate lawsuit. This procedure is not the same as the common one in which a plaintiff relies on more than one theory of recovery or mode of redress to correct a single wrong.

To determine if the plaintiff is joining separate causes of action, as opposed to merely pursuing more than one means of redress, some courts look to whether the plaintiff is seeking to enforce more than one distinct primary right or whether the complaint addresses more than one subject of controversy. Other courts look to whether the claims emanate from a single occurrence or transaction. If the court's inquiry shows that a plaintiff is attempting to join several causes of action into one lawsuit, the court must look to the applicable court rules and statutes to determine if such a joining is permissible.

Modern statutes and rules of practice governing joinder of causes of action vary by jurisdiction. In general, however, they are liberal and encourage joinder when it promotes efficiency in the justice system. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may join in one suit as many claims as she or he has against an opposing party. Some state rules are similarly broad. Many states provide that the court, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, may consolidate similarly related cases.

Joinder is not always favored by modern rules of court and statutes. Some statutes will not permit the joinder of causes of action that require different places of trial. Also, the various joinder statutes generally provide that inconsistent causes of action—that is, ones that disprove or defeat each other—cannot be joined in the same lawsuit. For example, a plaintiff may not in a single suit rely on a contract as valid and also treat the same contract as rescinded. However, contract and tort actions may be combined in one suit when they arise out of the same occurrence or transaction and are not inconsistent.

Misjoinder Misjoinder is an objection that may be made when a plaintiff joins separate causes of action that cannot be joined according to the applicable law. Some states require the plaintiff to decide which of the misjoined claims he or she wants to pursue. Other states allow the court to sever the misjoined claims into separate actions.

Joinder of IssueAt common law joinder of issue occurs when one party pleads that an allegation is true and the opposing party denies it, such that both parties are accepting that the particular issue is in dispute.

Further readings
Oakley, John B. 2001. "Joinder and Jurisdiction in the Federal District Courts: The State of the Union of Rules and Statutes." Tennessee Law Review 69 (fall): 35–64.

Zwolinski, Rachel Lynne. 2002. "Joinder and Severance." Georgetown Law Journal 90 (May): 1373–94.

Civil Procedure.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


joinder n. the joining together of several lawsuits or several parties all in one lawsuit, provided that the legal issues and the factual situation are the same for all plaintiffs and defendants. Joinder requires 1) that one of the parties to one of the lawsuits make a motion to join the suits and the parties in a single case; 2) notice must be made to all parties; 3) there must be a hearing before a judge to show why joinder will not cause prejudice (hurt) to any of the parties to the existing lawsuits; and 4) an order of the judge permitting joinder. Joinder may be mandatory if a person necessary to a fair result was not included in the original lawsuit, or it may be permissive if joining the cases together is only a matter of convenience or economy. (See: mandatory joinder, misjoinder)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.