Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Laporte

The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun's motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).

Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte

From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:

MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. YUE: You know --

THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it's still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on -- the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins's ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I'm not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.

MR. WAKEFIELD: I'll have to confess that I haven't studied the Sturgell decision,...

...

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the -- Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YUE: -- from that case.

THE COURT: All right. Again, it's going to be up to -- I just raised that question briefly, but that's really an issue right now that's not before me, it's before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.

THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”

THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me



That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”

THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me


That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)

If pro se did not know the case law Taylor v. Sturgell, the judge would be happy rling against pro se. However, the defent attorny did not knoe the case law, the judge remanded him.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”

THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me



That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)

That was so sham-ful: full of sham. Did defendants hire the judge?

The pro se clearly pwned the lawyer, he knew the case, and the dumb lawyer never heard of it. A classic pwnage in court movies. Instead of ordering the lawyer to go back to law school for a reading session, the judge quickly cut the pro se off at his key argument.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That was so sham-ful: full of sham. Did defendants hire the judge?

The pro se clearly pwned the lawyer, he knew the case, and the dumb lawyer never heard of it. A classic pwnage in court movies. Instead of ordering the lawyer to go back to law school for a reading session, the judge quickly cut the pro se off at his key argument.

Judge and lawyers are in membership, pro se are not. This is judicial cronism. The law is no long a law.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun's motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).

Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte

From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:

MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. YUE: You know --

THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it's still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on -- the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins's ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I'm not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.

MR. WAKEFIELD: I'll have to confess that I haven't studied the Sturgell decision,...

...

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the -- Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YUE: -- from that case.

THE COURT: All right. Again, it's going to be up to -- I just raised that question briefly, but that's really an issue right now that's not before me, it's before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.

The Taylor v. Sturgell decision just came out in June, it is expected that the defense lawyer not knowing the case. But the court of appeal would know, so the judge was making arguments for defendants' appeal. You can see that from her later statement that "it's before ... the Ninth Circuit". From that statement, she basically stated that the Taylor v. Sturgell case was only relevant on appeal, but then why did she make those lengthy statements on that case?

The judge was obviously attempting to find arguments for defendants for an appeal, or in other words, trying to aid the defendants' in an appeal. Defendants are Sun Microsystems, the maker of Java software, big company.

What was unexpected was that the pro se guy somehow knew the case, and basically said that the Taylor v.Sturgell case disapproved the doctrine of virtual representation -- the exact holding of case.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Judge and lawyers are in membership, pro se are not. This is judicial cronism. The law is no long a law.

It took $100 grand to buy off a federal judge, see

Federal Judge Is Focus of Bribe Inquiry - New York Times

Federal District Judge Robert F. Collins asked for 100K bribes

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It took $100 grand to buy off a federal judge, see

Federal Judge Is Focus of Bribe Inquiry - New York Times

Federal District Judge Robert F. Collins asked for 100K bribes

The guy have no chance. Sun have billions. Judges do not take bribes if MS is fighting Sun. But small guy fighting big compnay is perfect oppurtunity for the judges. I do not surprize if judges always rule against the guy. Even they don't ask bribes now, they made favours to Sun, Sun can pay them in future, like give a job to judge's children. It is all under the table stuff. FBI can't detect.

I bet $100 if Sun don't make argument, it still win.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun's motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).

Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte

From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:

MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. YUE: You know --

THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it's still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on -- the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins's ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I'm not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.

MR. WAKEFIELD: I'll have to confess that I haven't studied the Sturgell decision,...

...

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the -- Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YUE: -- from that case.

THE COURT: All right. Again, it's going to be up to -- I just raised that question briefly, but that's really an issue right now that's not before me, it's before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.

The hearing was a sham because the judge didn't really have any interest hearing from the pro se. She already chose sides.