Attempts to Make It Impossible For Pro Se to Appeal

§ 12:6. Selecting the proper procedure—Generally

There are three distinct methods of obtaining review in the Georgia appellate courts: the direct appeal, the discretionary application, and the interlocutory appeal, which includes an “interlocutory-discretionary” appeal in a matter subject to the discretionary application requirement. Probably the greatest pitfalls in Georgia appellate practice are the chasms among those three procedures. An appellant must select either a direct appeal, where one simply files a notice of appeal with the trial court; (fn1) a discretionary appeal, where one must secure the permission of the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal; (fn2) or an interlocutory or interlocutory-discretionary appeal, where one must secure permission of both the trial court and the appellate court before filing a notice of appeal. (fn3)

An appellant who selects the wrong procedure has usually made a fatal error that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal. (fn4) There is an exception: if an appellant files an application for discretionary appeal in a case that is directly appealable, the appellate court has jurisdiction and must grant the application. (fn5) The application does not substitute for the notice of appeal, however, which must be filed thereafter.(fn6)

Selecting the correct appellate procedure requires review of the following statutes:(1) the direct appeal provisions of the Appellate Practice Act at O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34; (fn7)
(2) the discretionary application provisions of that Act at O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35; (fn8)
(3) the interlocutory application provisions of that Act, for both direct and discretionary cases at O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(b) and for discretionary cases at O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(d); (fn9)
(4) the provisions for appeal in prisoner cases at O.C.G.A. § 42-12-8; (fn10)
(5) two statutes governing habeas corpus appeals at O.C.G.A. §§ 9-14-22 and 9-14-52; (fn11)
(6) the provision authorizing immediate direct appeals from orders granting or denying class certification at O.C.G.A. § 9-11-23 (g); and
(7) the provision for “entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment” at O.C.G.A. § 9-11-54. (fn12)

The provisions of the Appellate Practice Act and other statutes that establish the correct appellate procedure are subject to frequent amendment, and as the prisoner-case provisions show, may not be incorporated into that Act as good practice would suggest. A prospective appellant should be certain to check the latest version of the statutes, and to check all other statutes that may bear on the case for stray provisions on the method of review.

Unfortunately, a simple review of the statutes discussed above is not always enough. It is often difficult—and sometimes impossible—to be certain which procedure is correct. That difficulty has three fundamental sources: the arguable applicability of conflicting rules, ambiguity in the scope of the rules, and sometimes, conflicting judicial decisions.

In order to decide how to proceed, an attorney should examine the controlling statutes and the cases interpreting them. In particular, an attorney should review the list of cases subject to the discretionary appeal provision (fn13) with three questions in mind. First, whether the procedural posture of the case brings it within the discretionary appeal procedure. Second, whether the subject matter of the case brings it within the discretionary appeal procedure. Third, whether there is any reason to suspect that—on the basis of some statutory or policy argument for an expansive construction of one of the statutory categories—an appellate court might hold that a discretionary appeal is required.

If there remains any uncertainty whether to follow the direct or discretionary appeal procedure, the appellant will have to make a judgment call among three alternatives, none of which is risk-free.

First, the appellant may seek a direct appeal by filing only a notice of appeal. This choice may be preferred if the appellant is very secure of a right of direct appeal and is willing to take the risk that the court may find that the appeal should have been brought by application. This choice has the advantage of avoiding the practical problems of a discretionary application: a short time frame in which to prepare what may be the appellant’s only brief (fn14) and a remarkably short time frame for the court to consider the merits of the appeal (fn15)—with all the risks that abbreviated, non-plenary review entails in a court suffering under a heavy caseload, and no benefit from the process other than a ruling that one may file the appeal. (fn16)

Second, the appellant may file a discretionary application alone. This choice may be preferred if the appellant is less secure of a right to a direct appeal. Its odds of success can be increased by joining with it an argument that the appellant has a right of direct appeal. (fn17) Although this option suffers from all of the problems just noted, it maximizes the odds of avoiding dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

Third, the appellant may file both a direct appeal and a discretionary application. Past versions of this book recommended this choice, following the advice of some appellate judges. (fn18) The appellate courts recognized that appellants often sought to appeal both by direct appeal and application out of an abundance of caution, (fn19) and they expressed a willingness to consider the proper appeal and dismiss the redundant one (fn20) or to consolidate them. (fn21) They specifically held that a denial of an application for discretionary review was not an adjudication of the merits of a direct appeal filed in the same case, at least if the denial was based on the fact that discretionary review would be redundant. (fn22) Past versions of this book therefore recommended seeking to appeal by both routes as an inelegant but “not dangerous” solution to uncertainty, but this assessment should be reconsidered in view of current appellate practice. Both courts now regard their review of applications for discretionary appeal as error-correcting and hold that, if the trial court appears to have committed reversible error, they must grant the application. (fn23) Consistently, they regard denials of discretionary applications as res judicata of the absence of reversible error, (fn24) thus establishing the law of the case. (fn25) It is unclear whether the current and earlier cases can be harmonized by holding that denials of applications will preclude a direct appeal when the denial is based on a review of the merits, but not if it is based on a non-merits issue such as redundancy. However that may be, a practitioner who tries to appeal by both routes will encounter all of the practical problems associated with discretionary appeals noted above, and in addition, may lose the time and expense of a direct appeal that will be rejected because a denial of a discretionary appeal precludes further review.

In one respect, seeking review by both routes may be more dangerous than seeking review by application alone: the authority of the appellate court to grant an application when the appellant has a right of direct appeal under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(j) seems premised upon filing a timely application “without also filing a timely notice of appeal,” which may limit the jurisdictional relief that this subsection provides. On the other hand, the same text may amount to legislative recognition and validation of the practice of seeking to appeal by both routes. Such validation would stand as an obstacle to according res judicata effect to the denial of an application as against a timely direct appeal, but the effect of the ruling as res judicata may have constitutional status as the law of the case. (fn26) If this analysis is correct, seeking review by both routes may be the worst option, having the disadvantages of both of the other options without all of their advantages.

0Judge, Georgia Court of Appeals. Member of the Atlanta and DeKalb Bars.
a1Member of the Augusta Bar.
a2Member of the Macon Bar Association.
a3Judicial Staff Attorney. Member of the DeKalb Bar.
a4Member, State Bar of Georgia.
a5Assistant District Attorney, Middle Judicial District.
1 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34.
2 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35.
3 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(b).
4 State v. International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc., 788 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 2016) (quoting this work); Bedford v. Bedford, 246 Ga. 780, 273 S.E.2d 167 (1980) (direct appeal dismissed because appeal by application required); Rogers v. Department of Human Resources, 195 Ga. App. 118, 392 S.E.2d 713 (1990) (appeal dismissed for failure to include a certificate of immediate review). But see Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 510 S.E.2d 810 (1999), in which the Supreme Court exercised its inherent authority to decide a case because the procedural route for such cases had been unsettled; Augusta-Richmond County v. Lee, 277 Ga. 483, 592 S.E.2d 71 (2004) (“We initially dismissed the County’s direct appeal because its underlying subject matter is appropriate for a discretionary appeal, despite the fact that generally an order granting mandamus relief can be directly appealed under O.C.G.A. 5-6-34(a)(6). We granted the County’s motion for reconsideration, however, because we have previously accepted direct appeals involving the County and the same ordinance in three almost identical cases.”); Andrews v. State, 276 Ga. App. 428, 623 S.E.2d 247 (2005) (holding, as a matter of first impression that, a defendant who is adjudicated guilty and sentenced after the trial court finds he violated a drug court contract made pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-13-2(a) is not entitled to a direct appeal, but also holding that this ruling would apply only to appeals “filed after the date of this opinion,” because “the Code is unclear on this issue, there has been no case law directly addressing this issue until now, and the State failed to file a motion to dismiss the direct appeal or even challenge this Court’s jurisdiction, it would be manifestly unfair for this Court, sua sponte, to dismiss Andrews’ direct appeal”); and Waldrip v. Head, 272 Ga. 572, 532 S.E.2d 380 (2000), in which the Supreme Court exercised its inherent authority to dispense with the requirement of a certificate of immediate review in “cases that involve an issue of concern, gravity, and importance to the public and no timely opportunity for appellate review.”
5 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(j). Subsection (j) overturns a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that an appellate court has no jurisdiction if a discretionary application is filed in cases where a direct appeal is the required procedure. E.g., In re S.N.S., 182 Ga. App. 803, 357 S.E.2d 127 (1987).
6 See § 13:15 infra.
7 See §§ 12:8 to 12:9 infra.
8 See §§ 13:1 to 13:9 infra.
9 See §§ 15:1 to 15:2 infra.
10 See § 13:1 infra.
11 See § 13:1 infra.
12 See § 10:13 supra.
13 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a).
14 See § 13:14 infra.
15 See § 13:15 infra.
16 See § 13:15 infra.
17 O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(j). See, e.g., Avren v. Garten, 289 Ga. 186, 710 S.E.2d 130 (2011); Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730, 755 S.E.2d 760 (2014).
18 “[R]emember that you always can file your appeal according to each of the procedures and let the court dismiss the appeal that is inappropriate.” Pope, Recent Developments in Appellate Practice, 2 No. 1, Calendar Call 43, 46 (Spring, 1995). See also Dean v. State, 177 Ga. App. 123, 338 S.E.2d 711 (1985) (Beasley, J., dissenting).
19 Clinton Leasing Corp. v. Patterson, 209 Ga. App. 336, 433 S.E.2d 422 (1993); Chatham County Hosp. Authority v. Mack, 185 Ga. App. 13, 363 S.E.2d 264 (1987).
20 Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 263 Ga. 498, 499, 435 S.E.2d 914 (1993) (overruled on other grounds by, Lee v. Green Land Co., Inc., 272 Ga. 107, 527 S.E.2d 204 (2000)); Clinton Leasing Corp. v. Patterson, 209 Ga. App. 336, 433 S.E.2d 422 (1993).
21 North Fulton Medical Center, Inc. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 125, 126, 453 S.E.2d 463 (1995).In some cases, where the appellant filed both an application for discretionary appeal and a notice of appeal, where the appellate court dismissed the application, and where the appellate court later determined that the application procedure was the correct procedure after all, the appellate courts have perceived no jurisdictional impediment to “treat[ing] its appellate pleadings as if filed pursuant to an application for discretionary review, and grant[ing] the application.” Fulton County v. Congregation of Anshei Chesed, 275 Ga. 856, 572 S.E.2d 530 (2002). Accord Cooper v. Unified Government of Athens Clarke County, 275 Ga. 433, 569 S.E.2d 855 (2002).
22 Berger & Washburne Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Commercial Ins. Brokers, Inc., 204 Ga. App. 146, 418 S.E.2d 640 (1992). Cf. Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294, 271 S.E.2d 199 (1980).
23 See § 13:11 infra.
24 PHF II Buckhead LLC v. Dinku, 315 Ga. App. 76, 726 S.E.2d 569 (2012). The court did not discuss the authorities cited earlier in this paragraph.See the further discussion in § 13:11 infra.
25 See § 21:10 infra.
26 Ga. Const. Art. VI, § VI, ¶VI and Art. VI, § V, ¶III.
§ 12:6.Selecting the proper procedure—Generally, Ga. Appellate Practice § 12:6

GA Supreme Cuts the Cases They Must Decide

Ga. Appellate Practice § 12:4Georgia Appellate Practice With Forms November 2016 Update Christopher J. McFaddena0, Charles R. Shepparda1, Charles M. Cork IIIa2, George W. K. Snyder, Jr.a3, David A. Webstera4, Kelly A. Jenkinsa5 Chapter 12. Overview of the Appellate Process§ 12:4. Selecting the proper court—Particular types of cases Before the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of […]

via GA BlackRobe Mafia Strikes Again! This time, they cut the cases they have to rule on more than 50%. Ask yourself, just what does GA Supreme Court do? — The BlackRobed Mafia


Seen on Arlin Report

Published: March 5, 2017

Big Brother Spying – Public Domain

The mainstream media is all in an uproar over Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama personally ordered the phones in Trump Tower to be “wiretapped” just before the election. But nobody should really be surprised that the government was listening to Donald Trump’s phone calls. After all, the truth is that they systematically collect the content of all forms of digital communication, and this has been going on for many years. During Obama’s presidency, nobody really got too upset when it was revealed that the Obama administration was spying on friendly foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), nobody got too upset when it was revealed that the Obama administration was spying on journalists, and nobody got too upset when it was revealed that the NSA was grabbing baby photos and nude selfies off of the Internet. But now that Trump has gotten extremely angry because the government was listening to his calls, maybe something will finally be done about all of this unconstitutional surveillance.

Before I discuss how the government is systematically monitoring all of us, first let’s talk about Trump. Back on January 11th, the Guardian reported that before the election the FBI applied for a warrant two separate times to monitor the communications of members of Trump’s political team…

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
The warrant was needed to get access to the digital communications of those individuals and to use those communications in a criminal investigation. As is the case with all other Americans, the digital communications of those individuals were already being gathered on a systematic basis, and the FBI wanted to dig in to those communications to see if anything illegal was going on.

For more evidence that the FBI was looking into the digital communications of members of Trump’s team, you can check out an excellent interview with Mark Levin on Fox News.

Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey made headlines all over the country on Sunday when he admitted that it was probably true that there was ongoing surveillance of Trump and his team…

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Sunday said that President Trump is likely correct that there was surveillance on Trump Tower for intelligence purposes, but incorrect in accusing former President Barack Obama of ordering the wiretapping.

“I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general — at the Justice Department,” Mukasey told ABC’s “This Week.”
But once again, it is vital to understand that nothing special was done to any of their phones. The truth is that government spooks can listen to any of our phones any time that they would like, and in a classified briefing to Congress the NSA even admitted “that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls“…

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Most Americans simply do not realize that the content of every single call that they make is recorded and stored indefinitely. Once in a while this even gets mentioned on the mainstream news. For example, the following is a from a transcript of an exchange that took place when Erin Burnett of CNN interviewed former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente…

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.
When asked about this systematic collection of material, the former chief technology officer of the CIA once made the following statement: “We fundamentally try to collect everything and hang onto it forever.”

So you should never do anything on the phone or on the Internet that you would not want to be made public.

And no, I am not exaggerating whatsoever.

If you doubt what I am saying, just consider the following example…

And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq’s Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, “Hey, check this out… there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out.” Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. “It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy.’”
Every intimate conversation that you have ever had on the telephone in recent years is stored in a government server somewhere.

And the same thing is true regarding pretty much everything that you have done on the Internet in recent years. According to the Washington Post, the federal government is “tapping directly into the central servers” of nine top Internet companies…

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.

The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
So don’t do anything on the Internet that you would not like the government to see, because they are watching.

Many of the very large technology companies that are involved in this data collection effort are probably very familiar to you. Here is more from the article quoted above…

The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”
And as I mentioned above, the government is systematically scooping up and recording baby photos, selfies, medical records and a whole host of other data without our permission. The following comes from CNN…

Heaps of baby photos, fitness selfies, medical records and resumes are among thousands of private communications scooped up and stored by NSA spy programs.

That’s according to new disclosures based on documents Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, gave to The Washington Post — disclosures that show just how easy it is for Americans’ private conversations to be swept into the spy agency’s traps.

Snowden provided the Post with what it said were 160,000 intercepted conversations, including e-mails, instant messages, photographs, social network posts and other documents. The trove included messages exchanged from 2009 through 2012, and some were hundreds of pages long.
To store this vast amount of information, the NSA has constructed the largest data center on the entire planet in Utah.

It has about a million square feet of storage space, it cost approximately two billion dollars to construct, and it takes about 40 million dollars a year to pay the energy bill for this ridiculously oversized facility.

And according to Fox News, this data center has the capability of storing 5 zettabytes of data…

The NSA says the Utah Data Center is a facility for the intelligence community that will have a major focus on cyber security. The agency will neither confirm nor deny specifics. Some published reports suggest it could hold 5 zettabytes of data. (Just one zettabyte is the equivalent of about 62 billion stacked iPhones 5′s– that stretches past the moon.
Sadly, they aren’t exactly respectful of our data once they have gathered it. It has been reported that “nude photographs picked up of people in ‘sexually compromising’ situations are routinely passed around“, and it has also been reported that the NSA even has the ability to remotely activate the cameras and microphones on your digital devices.

We have become a “Big Brother society” where literally nobody is safe from government surveillance.

One survey that was conducted by Pew Research found that 64 percent of all investigative journalists believe that the government is spying on them. And in her book entitled “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington“, former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson claimed that she actually has evidence that government spooks remotely activated her personal computer numerous times, monitored her keystrokes and even buried incriminating documents on her hard drive.

For years this kind of unconstitutional surveillance has been talked about, but no action has ever been taken to try to stop it.

But now that the president of the United States himself has been a victim, perhaps something will finally be done.


Originally posted on tomfernandez28’s Blog:×480.jpg By Penny Starr A photo published on the Politico website shows House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2010 — a direct contradiction to her telling reporters at the website she had not met with the diplomat. After tweeting on Friday morning that…

via President Trump Demands Investigation After Nancy Pelosi Lies About 2010 Meeting With Russian Ambassador — Centinel2012

December 21, 2016 Dead Orca Found Off B.C.’s Sunshine Coast

Dead orca found off B.C.’s Sunshine Coast
Department of Fisheries, Vancouver Aquarium, to perform necropsy on whale

By Justin McElroy, CBC News Posted: Dec 21, 2016 4:04 PM PT Last Updated: Dec 21, 2016 7:45 PM PT
Officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans inspect a dead orca near Sechelt, B.C., on Dec. 21, 2016.

Officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans inspect a dead orca near Sechelt, B.C., on Dec. 21, 2016. (Graham Moore)
Related Stories

B.C. killer whales’ endangered status challenged
Can feeding B.C.’s orcas help save them? Anglers aim to find out
Salmon fishing closures needed to save killer whales, says report
Baby boom for West Coast orcas in 2015
Researchers worried orca population will flatline with female deaths

A deceased adult Orca was found floating off the shore of Sechelt, B.C., on Wednesday.

The Vancouver Aquarium confirmed that members with its Marine Mammal Research Program are en route to Sechelt to work with the DFO in performing a necropsy.

“We’ve got the whale now on the beach, and we’re actually in the middle of the necropsy,” said Paul Cottrell, the DFO’s marine mammal coordinator.

Southern resident orca matriarch missing, possibly dead
2nd humpback death in 2 weeks worries experts, farmed salmon industry
Orca satellite tagging halted after dart found in dead whale

The whale was originally spotted on Tuesday night, said Cottrell, but it wasn’t until this afternoon that it could be safely secured and brought to shore.

He credited the Coast Guard and Sechelt First Nation for being quickly available to assist with the recovery.

“The people we were able to get here quickly is amazing, and a testament to how dedicated they are,” he said.

“Every day that goes by you lose information in terms of tissues and pathologies. So it’s good that we acted fast in determining the cause of death for this animal.”
Part of the J pod family

Cottrell said the whale was J-34, a male born in 1998.

Also known as Double Stuf, J-34 was part of the pod that experienced a baby boom in 2015, with eight calves born in total.

It’s one of three pods that make up the southern resident killer whale population, and it is comprised of approximately 80 members.

Canada listed the southern resident killer whale as endangered under the Species At Risk Act in 2003.

“It’s a real unfortunate event, given the endangered status of the population,” said Cottrell.

Theft of Credit for Written Documents: Tonia Simmonsia Has Been Taking Credit on Scribd For Documents I Wrote!

I have around 180 documents I have written, posted on a website, in order to assist pro se litigants looking for examples of how to write specific documents.  The website is:

I had posted the documents there, and have hoped that people would find them useful.  Over the years, I have been contacted by several people, who had read the documents.  Some of the people commented how helpful the documents were, in assisting them write their own court documents.  That pleases me greatly.

The last couple of years, I found that one particular person had been stealing my documents.  They will change just the style of the case.   In other words, they will change the Plaintiff and defendant.  The following pages, did not even bother to change the names there though.  So, pretty easy to know it is my document.  The other thing about it is, most people have particular phrases, or just write a certain way.  Not to hard to find their own documents.

This person stole this document: Fulton County Wrongful Foreclosure 1


I had contacted in the past about it, but they told me, that since it is considered a “public document” (because it was filed into the public court record), that they can do nothing about the theft of my document.  Now this  Tonia Simmonsia has stolen even more documents.  I hope it makes her feel good, or she gets off on it somehow.  It makes me mad as hell!

At one point, I had gone into scribd, and set some of the documents for purchase only.  I didn’t care about making money on the documents, I was trying to figure out how to keep this by Tonia Simmonsia from stealing my documents, and getting credit for having written them herself.  What kind of asshole does such a thing?  Then, I realized, that setting the documents for purchase, would not allow the people that I posted the documents for, to review and learn from the documents.

What kind of person does these things, and what do they get out of doing it?

Why the Assignment from FDIC to Chase from Failed Bank WaMu, is a Fictional Document

My argument against Chase’s fictionial assignment from failed bank WaMu.  I researched the issue, and I assure you that all caselaw is impeccable.  So, if you have had Chase claiming that they got your loan from FDIC, or that FDIC assigned the loan to them, your argument is below.  In GA you cannot challenge the assignment, but many states you can.  Don’t let them steal without a fight:

photo storage

Defendants knew, or should have known that the FDIC does not execute assignments for any loans received from defunct banks, even though the fictional Transfer and Assignment of Deed to Secure Debt, showed:  “This assignment is made without recourse, representation or warranty, expressed or implied, by the FDIC in its corporate capacity or as Receiver.  This Assignment is intended to further memorialize the transfer that occurred by operation of law on September 25, 2008 as authorized by Section 11(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. §1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II)”.


The FDIC does not assign loans from failed banks.   JPMorgan Chase for example, has successfully argued this point over and over again.  Case after case ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase in that argument.[1]

[1] “Federally, the FDIC, as receiver of Washington Mutual Bank, was empowered to transfer the Bank’s assets without an assignment. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) (receiver may “transfer any asset or liability…associated with any trust business) without any approval, assignment,…”); FTBK Investor II v. Mercy Holding, 36 Misc.3d 1219(A), 2012 WL 3064864 at *5 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. July 24, 2012) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) and rejecting borrowers’ argument “that the note had to have been individually negotiated and physically indorsed to Chase [by the FDIC] through an allonge”).Id. at 845.In Beka Realty, LLC, 2013 WL 5629590, plaintiff challenged the foreclosure of his mortgage, arguing that the foreclosure was void because there was no recorded assignment of the mortgage from WAMU to Chase. Id. at *2. The court held that the FDIC, as WAMU’s receiver, was permitted to “transfer any asset or liability” of WAMU “without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer.” Id. (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II)).  Newman v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CIV. 14-2944 MJD/JSM, 2015 WL 321442, at *7 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2015); see also Roberts v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Nos. 09–cv–07855 and 09–cv07879, 2011 WL 4479455, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Mar.11, 2011) (taking judicial notice of the PAA and collecting cases in which other courts also took judicial notice of the PAA and its provisions); Yetiv v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, No. 4:11–cv–01250, 2012 WL 112597, at *4 n. 1 (S.D.Tex. Jan.11, 2012) (same); Stehrenberger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-CV-874, 2012 WL 5389682, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2012)

Soros Gives $61 Million to Media Groups Promoting Clinton

Soros Gives $61 Million to Media Groups Promoting Clinton’s Liberal Agenda

As U.S. citizens prepare to select the next president, one liberal donor spent more than $103 million on media over the last 14 years to promote his own progressive agenda.

Liberal billionaire George Soros pledged to give at least $25 million to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes, according to Politico. And emails exposed by WikiLeaks showed Clinton staffers  going out of their way to “make Soros happy” before the 2016 campaign even started.

But that’s just a small slice of the pie. Media groups in the U.S. promoting the same liberal platform as Clinton got more than twice as much Soros money.

Between 2000 and 2014, Soros pumped an astonishing $103,236,632 into media groups that circulate his liberal, anti-capitalist messages throughout the United States and abroad. Of that total, $61 million from Soros went to nine liberal media outlets In the United States which openly support the same liberal agenda as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

As the presidential election progressed, Soros’ media allies have raised their voices in unison in favor of liberal policies touted by Clinton. In 2016 alone, they helped provide illegal immigrants with “relief from deportation,” encouraged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to “call out the CIA” for the “overclassification” of emails on her personal server, written how-tos on wealth redistribution “without the guillotine,” given labor unions tips on how to “win and wield” more power, and supported the Fight for $15 movement, calling California and New York’s new $15 minimum wage a “huge victory.”

Soros directly donated to at least 141 media groups, including multimedia outlets, nonprofits, schools, “watch dogs,” legal groups, and journalism societies in the U.S. and internationally. Donations from Soros ranged from $5,000 to $32 million.

Through those recipients, Soros’s reach extends even further. Groups like New America Media and Media Development Investment Fund, for example, are themselves made up of hundreds of other, smaller media outlets who are indirectly influenced by Soros’ money.

Of the 141 groups supported by Soros, 14 have received more than $1 million apiece. At least nine of those 14 organizations used the money to engage in liberal advocacy, pushing liberal policies supported by both Soros and Clinton. Those nine groups collectively received more than $61 million.

Liberal Media Outlets Choose Election Advocacy Over Unbiased Reporting

The news media are supposed to provide “an impartial, accurate approach” to news, and “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

However, nine Soros-funded media groups revealed a decided tilt in favor of liberals and Clinton, and opposition to both Trump and conservative political positions.

The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), is an online, radio and podcast news outlet which claims to be “nationally respected for setting the highest journalistic standards.” It’s also a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist. Between 2000 and 2014, Soros gave the group $3,285,600.

But in spite of its claims of journalistic “standards,” CIR singled out Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for its attacks on Feb. 1, 2016. They published a series of critical articles ranging from profiling Trump donors and supporters, tolamenting that Trump supporters hate political correctness. CIR’s senior digital producer also painstakingly compiled 15 separate Trump soundbites into “The Trump Game” to “Get inside his head.” For each soundbite, readers voted for one of three reactions: “Cheer,” “Meh,” or “Boo.”

The group did not run a similar series of attacks on Hillary Clinton. Instead, CIR rarely mentioned her. One of the only mentions of Clinton came was in a Feb. 10, article which said she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (who was still in the race at the time) were “sparring over female supporters.” The article said that appealing to non-white voters seemed to be Clinton’s “strong suit.”

Unlike many Soros-funded media outlets The American Prospect magazine doesn’t attempt to hide its liberal advocacy. Its goal “to advance liberal and progressive goals” is proudly emblazoned in the About Us section. That promise, along with $1,380,000 from Soros, mark The American Prospect as a reliable source for left-wing perspective.

The American Prospect began 2016 by asking, “Can Democrats Channel America’s Discontent?” It also called Trump “something new and ominous in American political life,” and accused the Republican convention of probably being “white nationalist.”

The Columbia Journalism Review, which has an intimate relationship with Soros, is so blinded by its own liberal bias, it actually advised journalists to gloss over elements of Clinton’s email scandal in February 2016.

“Let’s stop treating the contents of the email like they are huge national security secrets that imperiled the nation just because US intelligence agencies said so,” CJR pleaded. The article then recommended the media criticize the CIA for “overclassification” and “still being embroiled in multiple FOIA lawsuits” instead of discussing Clinton’s misuse of her private email server.

Most outlets, however, promote Clinton more subtly. The most common way Soros-funded media groups have supported Clinton’s campaign is by avoiding her name, but praising her policies.

By supporting things like lenient immigration policy, stronger labor unions, and taxing the rich, these nine Soros-funded media outlets were able to covertly support Clinton — Soros’ pick for president.

PLEAE NOTE: I Am Being Forced Against My Better Judgment, to Change the Site from ProLegal Svcs. To Something Else

Unauthorized Practice of Law in Georgia


(Georgia Capitol Building)

As a Virtual Freelance Legal Assistant, I often worry about pro se litigants, as we have been there ourselves, and even though we have and do work with attorneys on a constant, we realize what it is like to be involved in our case, and no one to ask questions of. When we were first involved in our own case, as a pro se litigant, I would have given almost anything just to have someone I could ask questions to.

For some reason, the Bars of the numerous states, at some time, decided that they have a monopoly on the law. Hell, recently I was told by an investigator of the State of Georgia Bar, that the name I was using for my company, (ProLegal Svcs.) could no longer be used. He told me:
1) that he is not an attorney, and
2) anything with Legal Services in it for a name, I could not use.

So if giving legal advice is illegal, when one is not an attorney, how can an investigator for the GA Bar, who is not an attorney, give me legal advice about what I can and cannot use in a company name? That is double standard. Like you can’t do it, because I said so, and I can do it, even if it is illegal.

Yea right, let’s take that real seriously.

Anyway, someone had paid me to do research for them. I didn’t know what they were going to do with the research. None of my business, right? Well the lady, who did not have a lawsuit filed anywhere, as a pro se litigant, filed a quiet title action in the county where she lives. They have “Pro Se Forms” there. I guess everyone who plans to proceed pro se in that county has to fill out a form. I kind of think that violates one’s rights, but nevertheless… The form asked if anyone assisted her, and did she pay anyone for assistance, and would she be willing to pay someone to assist her.

upload pic

Since I had done research prior to her filing the case, she put “Yes” and that she had paid me “x” amount of dollars. Which she had paid me for the research. She put my company name, and my name, address and phone number on the form. She didn’t know that someone was going to decide that I had engaged in unauthorized practice of law because of that. I hadn’t given her legal advice,I hadn’t told her anything really. She asked me to do legal research on quiet titles, I did, I gave her the research, she paid me, and we went our separate ways.

About a week later, I got a call from the GA Bar Investigator. Apparently, the Pro Se Form has several different reasons. One is to see why you didn’t hire an attorney, and other, is so that the Superior Court in GA can turn into the Bar, anyone who you put on the form that had assisted you for any reason.
The Investigator called me up on a Thursday afternoon. I called him back, because I was not in when he called. I had missed him, at a little after 3PM.

The next day, the Invetigator called me back. We had, what I thought, had been a rather pleasant conversation. He told me about the company name, and I reluctantly agreed to no longer use the name. But after all, I purchased the domain name for a reason. The other company name that I use, is J&J Freelance Paralegal ( Guess that I am glad he didn’t know about that name, or he would have most likely told me that I couldn’t use that one either. Hell, I have had a website under that name for close to ten years.
At the end of the conversation, the Investigator told me that he sees that I had not practiced law illegally, but that he was going to send me a cease and desist order and some information. The next day, a Saturday, the mailman blew for us to come out. The Investigator had sent me a large ring notebook full of cases where the GA Bar had prosecuted numerous people for unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”). Most of these people had long rap sheets for anything from theft, to drugs, to UPL.

Clearly, I couldn’t be in the same category as those people. It was kind of hard to take the whole thing seriously after reading some of the cases. I don’t have a rap sheet, I haven’t been arrested before, for anything.

The following Monday, I recieved a packet in the Mail from the Investigator. Within the package, was three (3) of the same AFfidavit of Cease and Desist. The affidavit admits that I am guilty of unauthorized practice of law, that I understand what Georgia Code Section states about the law, and that I will no longer violate the law. Of course, a break down of the statutes on UPL was included.

I had never done the things that were in the statute, or in the Affidavit, and especially not within the notebook for people with rap sheets. Sure UPL is a misdemeanor, but I had not violated the law, and the Invesigator’s letter said to sign tow of the the Affidavits of guilt in front of a Notary, have the Notary notarize the two Affidavits of Guilt, and mail them back to him.

So, it is a misdemeanor to give legal advice, if you are not an attorney. I was contacted by an Investigator for the Bar, who told me outright, that he is not an attorney. This investigator gave me legal advice, (to change the name of my company, and that I need to cease and desist), yet he was not an attoney, he told me that he wasn’t. no less than three (3) times, he told me that he wasn’t an attorney. So, he is now guilty of UPL; where as I have never been guilty of UPL.

The hypocracy of the whole thing, is ridiculous! I had two (2) attorneys that I know, that work in different lawfirms and different offices, read the Affidavit and tell me the same thing. The GA Bar is trying to get me to admit to guilt. That is ludicrous! Rather than give me a warning ticket, like they do when you get pulled over, and the cop really don’t have anything on you, but knows that you were most likely speeding, or something, the Bar wants me to sign and have notarized an Affidavit of Cease and Desist, admitting guilt for something I am not guilty of.

Be careful out there yall. Anyone, at anytime, can be accused of giving legal advice to someone. Never, never tell someone what the law says, that is giving legal advice. And for God’s sake, don’t type a legal document for someone, thatis UPL.