Friday, September 24, 2010
Anti-War Activists TERRORIZED by FBI
Feels kinda like the 60's all over again - Except back then, we had more PRO BONO Civil Rights Lawyers. Its all about Big Corporations and the Big-Bucks now; http://twincities.indymedia.org/
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Jubic v. Jubic and McAllister / On Appeal
Works in Progress STATEMENT OF FACTS
I will be commencing work upon this soon. I am waiting for a copy of the trial transcripts but meanwhile I can write out the statement of facts. its getting down to that time when I can put it off no longer.
I will be commencing work upon this soon. I am waiting for a copy of the trial transcripts but meanwhile I can write out the statement of facts. its getting down to that time when I can put it off no longer.
A Fine Example of the American Just-Us System
Well after hubby got crusified in supreme court having had to represent himself cause his private lawyer went and got himself permanently disbarred (for reasons unrelated to this case) and after many requests for assignment of counsel were denied,.....his case was thrown out basically for two reasons;
(1) failure to acertain an exact amount of damages
(hubby was suing for an unspecifed amount based on the fact that an accounting was denied to him by the partners. It was hoped that the trial court would have ordered an accounting but the court determined that hubby was not entitled to an accounting because he was not a "partner" in the venture, but instead was a tenant-in-common.
(2) Not a partner: what the court failed to realize that in New York Partnerhsip law it is stated that if tenants in common engage in the venture soley for commerical purposes, then the tenancy in common is to be treated as a partnerhsip.....
So now we are on appeal to the appellate div 3rd dept and since we are broke and in fact still in a chapter 13 BK, hubby moved for permission to appeal as a poor person for the purposes of getting fees wavied that are necessary for prosecution of his appeal. And this is the strangest decision I have ever heard of coming out of any court: Hubbies motion to appeal as a poor person was denied, BUT, the judge went on to say that the ($250.00) filing fee would be waived....so we were thinking, well, at least we got the filing fee waived, and asking, what expenses are we going to have to pay in order to perfect the appeal. One call to the court clerk cleared up that mystery. Now we have to come up with $1,800 to pay the cost of having the trial record transcribed.
(1) failure to acertain an exact amount of damages
(hubby was suing for an unspecifed amount based on the fact that an accounting was denied to him by the partners. It was hoped that the trial court would have ordered an accounting but the court determined that hubby was not entitled to an accounting because he was not a "partner" in the venture, but instead was a tenant-in-common.
(2) Not a partner: what the court failed to realize that in New York Partnerhsip law it is stated that if tenants in common engage in the venture soley for commerical purposes, then the tenancy in common is to be treated as a partnerhsip.....
So now we are on appeal to the appellate div 3rd dept and since we are broke and in fact still in a chapter 13 BK, hubby moved for permission to appeal as a poor person for the purposes of getting fees wavied that are necessary for prosecution of his appeal. And this is the strangest decision I have ever heard of coming out of any court: Hubbies motion to appeal as a poor person was denied, BUT, the judge went on to say that the ($250.00) filing fee would be waived....so we were thinking, well, at least we got the filing fee waived, and asking, what expenses are we going to have to pay in order to perfect the appeal. One call to the court clerk cleared up that mystery. Now we have to come up with $1,800 to pay the cost of having the trial record transcribed.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Jubic v. Jubic, et al; Response to Replies
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
GEORGE J. JUBIC,
Appellant, RESPONSE TO RESPONDANTS REPLY
V. Docket # 510140
ROBERT JUBIC and ROBERT McALLISTER,
Respondents
I George Jubic, aka George M. Jubic, Jr., am the appellant in the above mentioned case and
1. On or about July 23, 2010 I did submit to this court an application to proceed on appeal as a poor person from a decision and order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer County dated May 17, 2010, a copy of said Order was included with the application.
2. A copy of the application was forwarded by regular mail to the attorney for defendants Mr. Michael Mansion, as well as a copy sent to the office of the Rensselaer County Attorney.
3. By letter dated _____________________, this court acknowledged receipt of said application and issued a return date of August 23, 2010.
4. On or about the 18th day of august, 2010, I did receive a reply in opposition from Jill A. Kehn, an attorney assigned to represent the Rensselaer County Attorneys office, and on or about that same time I did also receive a reply in opposition from the attorney for the defendants, Mr. Michael Mansion.
5. I am submitting this response to the replies in opposition on the grounds that both Ms. Kehn and Mr. Mansion have mis-construed the application as being something that it is not, as well as to clear up some other false, erroneous and/or otherwise mis-leading statements contained in their respective replies that I believe will only confuse or cloud the issue.
THE REPLY FROM MS KEHN OF THE RENSSELAER CO. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
6. In the reply from Ms Kehn of the Rensselaer Co. Attorneys Office, it is stated, in relevant part, that “Mr. Jubic is seeking counsel for an appeal of a final order of the Rensselear County Supreme Court dismissing his causes of action for an accounting of partnership funds, dissolution of partnership property, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud and unjust enrichment.” (See Respondent Kehns reply, paragraph 3)
7. The first error in Ms Kehan reply is that I DO NOT seek appointment of counsel for the purpose of appeal. The sole purpose of my application to this court for permission to appeal as a poor person is for a waiver of the fees. It is my intention to perfect the appeal in my capacity as a pro se litigant.
8. In her reply, Ms Kehan states, in relevant part, …”in addition, the issue of assigned counsel was also reviewed by the trial court. In its Order & Decision dated June 16, 2009, the court denied the appellants request for the assignment of counsel on the grounds that the appellant failed to demonstrate the merits of his case.” (See Kehan reply, para. 5)
9. While it is true I did make application to the trail court for assignment of counsel after my private attorney had been permanently dis-barred, to the best of my recollection and belief the application for assignment of trial counsel was denied on the basis of the courts stated belief that it lacked the authority to assign counsel in this case, being that no “personal freedoms” were involved.
10. Ms Kehns also opposed my application to proceed on appeal as a poor person on the grounds, as so stated, in relevant part,….”The onus is placed upon the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of his designation as a poor person. He has failed to meet that burden (para 7) and in asking that my application be denied. Ms Kehn also added that …“In the absence of the applicants clear demonstration of his poverty ……this court should deny the application.“ (para 8)
11. While Ms Kehn suggests that I have failed in my burden to prove my indigency, I would ask the court to make note of the fact that I submitted my application for permission to proceed as a poor person on the documents provided to me by this court, and have honestly answered all of the questions therein pertaining to my financial condition. I also indicated in those same forms provided to me by this court, that I am currently in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy which also supports my claim of indigency.
MR. MANSION, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS REPLY
12. Upon a reading of the reply from Mr. Mansion, the attorney for the Defendants, it is clear that Mr. Mansion also mis-construes my application for permission to appeal as a poor person as an application for assignment of counsel on appeal (see Mansion reply para 6)
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons as mention above, both the replies in opposition to my application for permission to appeal to this court as a poor person should be disregarded, as I pray this court to grant me poor person status for the sole purpose of waiving the filing fees, and for any other further relief this court may deem just and / or necessary.
Dated__________________ ______________________________
George J. Jubic, Appellant, Pro Se
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753-7791
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I George J. Jubic, do hereby swear in lieu of Notary and under threat of penalty for perjury, that I have on this 1st day of September, 2010, duly fax over a copy of this Response to Respondents Replies to the following concerned parties:
Clerk of the Court , Supreme Ct. Appellate Div.3rd. Dept. at fax # (518) 471-4750
Mr. Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants at fax # ___________________
Ms. Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney at fax # (518) 270-2954
And have also sent hard copies out this same day to the same concerned parties at these addresses:
Clerk of the Court Michael P Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1523 Central Ave.
Albany, NY ___________
Supreme Court Appellate Division 1528 Central Av.
3rd Dept. Box 7288 Albany, NY 12205
Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney
Ned Pattison Gov’t Center
1600 Seventh Ave.
Troy, NY 12180
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
GEORGE J. JUBIC,
Appellant, RESPONSE TO RESPONDANTS REPLY
V. Docket # 510140
ROBERT JUBIC and ROBERT McALLISTER,
Respondents
I George Jubic, aka George M. Jubic, Jr., am the appellant in the above mentioned case and
1. On or about July 23, 2010 I did submit to this court an application to proceed on appeal as a poor person from a decision and order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer County dated May 17, 2010, a copy of said Order was included with the application.
2. A copy of the application was forwarded by regular mail to the attorney for defendants Mr. Michael Mansion, as well as a copy sent to the office of the Rensselaer County Attorney.
3. By letter dated _____________________, this court acknowledged receipt of said application and issued a return date of August 23, 2010.
4. On or about the 18th day of august, 2010, I did receive a reply in opposition from Jill A. Kehn, an attorney assigned to represent the Rensselaer County Attorneys office, and on or about that same time I did also receive a reply in opposition from the attorney for the defendants, Mr. Michael Mansion.
5. I am submitting this response to the replies in opposition on the grounds that both Ms. Kehn and Mr. Mansion have mis-construed the application as being something that it is not, as well as to clear up some other false, erroneous and/or otherwise mis-leading statements contained in their respective replies that I believe will only confuse or cloud the issue.
THE REPLY FROM MS KEHN OF THE RENSSELAER CO. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
6. In the reply from Ms Kehn of the Rensselaer Co. Attorneys Office, it is stated, in relevant part, that “Mr. Jubic is seeking counsel for an appeal of a final order of the Rensselear County Supreme Court dismissing his causes of action for an accounting of partnership funds, dissolution of partnership property, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud and unjust enrichment.” (See Respondent Kehns reply, paragraph 3)
7. The first error in Ms Kehan reply is that I DO NOT seek appointment of counsel for the purpose of appeal. The sole purpose of my application to this court for permission to appeal as a poor person is for a waiver of the fees. It is my intention to perfect the appeal in my capacity as a pro se litigant.
8. In her reply, Ms Kehan states, in relevant part, …”in addition, the issue of assigned counsel was also reviewed by the trial court. In its Order & Decision dated June 16, 2009, the court denied the appellants request for the assignment of counsel on the grounds that the appellant failed to demonstrate the merits of his case.” (See Kehan reply, para. 5)
9. While it is true I did make application to the trail court for assignment of counsel after my private attorney had been permanently dis-barred, to the best of my recollection and belief the application for assignment of trial counsel was denied on the basis of the courts stated belief that it lacked the authority to assign counsel in this case, being that no “personal freedoms” were involved.
10. Ms Kehns also opposed my application to proceed on appeal as a poor person on the grounds, as so stated, in relevant part,….”The onus is placed upon the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of his designation as a poor person. He has failed to meet that burden (para 7) and in asking that my application be denied. Ms Kehn also added that …“In the absence of the applicants clear demonstration of his poverty ……this court should deny the application.“ (para 8)
11. While Ms Kehn suggests that I have failed in my burden to prove my indigency, I would ask the court to make note of the fact that I submitted my application for permission to proceed as a poor person on the documents provided to me by this court, and have honestly answered all of the questions therein pertaining to my financial condition. I also indicated in those same forms provided to me by this court, that I am currently in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy which also supports my claim of indigency.
MR. MANSION, ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS REPLY
12. Upon a reading of the reply from Mr. Mansion, the attorney for the Defendants, it is clear that Mr. Mansion also mis-construes my application for permission to appeal as a poor person as an application for assignment of counsel on appeal (see Mansion reply para 6)
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons as mention above, both the replies in opposition to my application for permission to appeal to this court as a poor person should be disregarded, as I pray this court to grant me poor person status for the sole purpose of waiving the filing fees, and for any other further relief this court may deem just and / or necessary.
Dated__________________ ______________________________
George J. Jubic, Appellant, Pro Se
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753-7791
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I George J. Jubic, do hereby swear in lieu of Notary and under threat of penalty for perjury, that I have on this 1st day of September, 2010, duly fax over a copy of this Response to Respondents Replies to the following concerned parties:
Clerk of the Court , Supreme Ct. Appellate Div.3rd. Dept. at fax # (518) 471-4750
Mr. Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants at fax # ___________________
Ms. Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney at fax # (518) 270-2954
And have also sent hard copies out this same day to the same concerned parties at these addresses:
Clerk of the Court Michael P Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1523 Central Ave.
Albany, NY ___________
Supreme Court Appellate Division 1528 Central Av.
3rd Dept. Box 7288 Albany, NY 12205
Jill A. Kehn, Rensselaer Co. Attorney
Ned Pattison Gov’t Center
1600 Seventh Ave.
Troy, NY 12180
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
