aNewDomain — As you may know, I’m suing the Los Angeles Times. I’m the plaintiff. I’m the one who was wronged. The Times should be defending themselves from my accusations that they fired and libeled me as a favor to a police chief.
But this is America.
Deep-pocketed defendants like the Times — owned by a corporation with the weird name Tronc and a market capitalization in excess of $400 million — are taking advantage of America’s collapsing court system to turn justice on its head. In worn-out Trump-era America, the corruption and confusion that used to be associated with the developing world has been normalized.
If you’re a big business like Tronc, you may be the defendant on paper but you have all the advantages in court. Your money allows you to put the plaintiff on the defense. You’re equal in the eyes of the law — theoretically.
But it doesn’t feel like justice when the victim has to defend himself from the criminal. It’s like that song “Lola,” in which the Kinks sang “girls will be boys and girls will be boys:”
The courts system is a mixed up, muddled up, shook-up world.
A shook-up world
States like California passed anti-SLAPP laws to defend individuals with modest incomes (like me) against deep-pocked plaintiffs (like the Times) that file frivolous lawsuits to intimidate and harass their critics. After an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the case freezes until a judge decides whether the case is meritorious.
If the judge says it’s frivolous, it’s dismissed and the poor individual defendant gets his or her attorney’s fees paid by the deep-pocked corporation plaintiff.
After I sued it for defamation and wrongful termination, the Times filed three “anti-SLAPP” motions against me. So if the judge decides I don’t have a good case, this middle-class individual plaintiff will have to pay deep-pocketed defendant Tronc’s legal fees.
And the Troncies want at least $300,000.
Talk about topsy-turvy! The legislature should fix this law but they won’t because there’s zero political movement in that direction.
Articles about anti-SLAPP feature nothing but praise.
Could I be the only journalist to criticize anti-SLAPP laws in a public forum?
Pro per is no way to live
Back to my case, I should say there were three motions. I lost one of them on June 21 against the individual Times employees and executives involved in libeling me. I plan to appeal. Unfortunately, though, that loss prompted a parting of ways with my attorneys.
As a result of them dumping me, I spent a month representing myself pro se — or pro per, as they call it in pro per).
I now have new lawyers –and we’re waiting to hear how I did arguing against ace lawyer Kelli Sager’s anti-SLAPP motions for The Times and Tronc in LA Superior Court on July 14.
I probably sucked, but representing myself gave me a full-immersion crash course in just how messed up the courts really are.
Poor people have zero access
That’s the first thing I learned — that if you don’t have money, you don’t get justice. That’s true for the poor — and also the middle class.
After the June 21s debacle, a semi-retired lawyer friend advised me to file a Motion for Reconsideration, which is a request to the judge to take another look and perhaps realize that he made some mistakes. The law gives you 10 days to file.
My Motion for Reconsideration was one of numerous motions I would have to draft and file myself while pro se. It was incredibly expensive, wildly burdensome and so daunting I bet 99 percent of people without a lawyer would throw up their hands and give up.
I’m the one percent that wouldn’t.
I’m a writer. I went to an Ivy League school; I was a history major — so I’m good at research. And I used to work at a bank, where I worked on legal documents so I’m familiar with legalese. So I researched what works and doesn’t work in a Motion for Reconsideration.
So I crafted an argument. I deployed the proper tone using the right words and phrases.
No credit? No access
Most people, not having the necessary skills or educational attainment, wouldn’t stand a prayer of writing a legal brief like this motion. Mine may fail — but the judge might read it and take it seriously because it’s written correctly.
I called the court clerk to ask how to file my motion. I found her to be incredibly curt and mean. Now, I’m a New Yorker so I persisted, but I could imagine other callers being put off and forgetting the whole thing.
Schedule a date for your hearing on the court’s website, the clerk told me. Good luck! The site had an outdated interface, was loaded with arcane bureaucratic jargon and a design that’s byzantine and hard to navigate. If English is your second language, forget it.
Eventually I found the place to reserve a hearing date — where I learned about the $540 filing fee.
Payable only by credit card. No debit cards. No Amex.
Protracted litigation against a well-funded adversary like the Times/Tronc could easily require dozens of $540 filing fees. The poor need not apply. Most Americans don’t have that kind of money. And what about people who scrape up the dough but don’t have plastic?
I mean, $10 would be too much. $540 is frigging obscene.
I paid the fee, printed out the receipt as required, stapled it to the back of my multiple required copies of the motion and went to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse to file it. As I waited in Room 102 to have my motions stamped by a clerk, I studied the many working-class people waiting in the same line.
Here too, there is no consideration for the people. The clerk’s office is open Monday to Friday 8:30 to 4:30. Most people work during those hours. Gotta file something? You have to take time off. Parking? Expensive and far away.
I have a dream.
I dream of a court system dedicated to equal justice before the law — where anyone can file a motion, where there are no filing fees, where the courthouse is open on weekends, where you can file motions by uploading them online and there’s free parking for citizens conducting business in the people’s house.
But Tronc wouldn’t like that system.
For aNewDomain, I’m Ted Rall.
Cover image: MotherJones.com, All Rights Reserved.