|
|
| The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions |
 |
|
Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:29 PM EDT
|
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Office of the Clerk, has sent a letter reminding the individual wishing to appeal the order denying him the right to intervene in the SCO v. Novell case that there is a $450 fee to be paid to the US District Court within 30 days, or an application filed to proceed in forma pauperis, and giving futher instructions on how to avoid having the appeal tossed. They've seen this before, I expect, and likely they have a form letter. Here's the docket entry:
08/06/2008 547 - USCA Case Number Case Appealed to Tenth Case Number 08-4154 for 545 Notice of Appeal filed by Jonathan Lee Riches. (jmr) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
In the interests of time, I'll leave off the header and skip to the meat, because I know some of you are interested in how the appeals process works, and this is part of the answer:
******************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
[address, phone, clerks]
August 06, 2008
...
The court has docketed the appeal in this case.
Attorneys for parties must complete and file an entry of appearance form within 10 days from the date of this letter. Pro se parties must complete and file the form within 30 days from the date of this letter. See 10th Cir. R. 46.1. Appellant's failure to enter an appearance may cause the appeal to be dismissed. An appellee who fails to enter an appearance may cause the appeal to be dismissed. An appellee who fails to enter an appearance may not receive notice or service of orders.
Prisoners must pay the full amount of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). The court must assess, and have the warden collect, partial filing fees. There are other requirements of prisoners under the act. They include providing a certified copy of the prisoner's trust fund statement for the preceding six months, and consenting to the collection of the funds from the prisoner's account by the custodian.
Prisoners are reminded that to invoke the prison mailbox rule they must immediately file a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of the deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 358 F. 3e 732 (2004), revised and superseded, 371 F. 3d 713 (10th Cir. 2004), reh'g denied en banc, 387 F. 3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 624, (U.S. Nov 29, 2004).
The $5.00 filing fee and $450.00 docket fee were not paid to the district clerk when the notice of appeal was filed as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(e). Unless the fees are paid to the district clerk or an application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is made to the district court, within 30 days of the date of this letter, this appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See 10th Cir. R. 3.3(B).
Please contact this office if you have questions.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Clerk of the Court
cc: Brent O. Hatch
David E. Melaugh
EAS/na
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: gakulev on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
futher --> further
---
Gakulev
May the source be with you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
Off topic threads here.
---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DiarRIAA. What you suffer when you can't stomach another of their lawsuits n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- I'm going to have to agree with that.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- I wonder what I've been using for the last 10 years ? - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- Aren't there at last two sides to any story - Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 02:06 AM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: Naich on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 03:57 AM EDT
- Kernel hype - Authored by: nitrogen on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 04:07 AM EDT
- Financial Times: "Desktop Linux still DOA" - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Why I quit: Linux is burdened with enterprise [crud] that makes it run poorly on desktop PCs - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- Why I quit: Linux is burdened with enterprise [crud] that makes it run poorly on desktop PCs - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- I didn't so much quit as find something better to do - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- Financial Times: Are the wrong people to be throwing stones at Desktop Linux - Authored by: davidf on Friday, August 08 2008 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- Yes, Linux is dead. - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Saturday, August 09 2008 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Patent Troll? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Did SCO have an informant at IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- (Sigh) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Did SCO have an informant at IBM? - Authored by: otzenpunk on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- Had SCO thought his claims were at all relevant, wouldn't they have called him as witness? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- Did SCO have an informant at IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- "AIX PS/2" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- "AIX PS/2" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Allegations - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- IBM PARC??? - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Did SCO have an informant at IBM? - Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Spongebob and Patrick: A life of crime - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 02:50 AM EDT
- 80GB == nothing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Did SCO have an informant at IBM? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- 1st para - plain ranting - Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- [OT] Microsoft a sponsor of Open Source Census - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- Can anyone explain this to me. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 04:17 AM EDT
- Off TopicBack to Debian: Freespire returns to Debian Roots - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Microsoft innovation LOL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 09:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
This reads like "Oh, you again. Right, we'll just be following procedures to
the letter then, and we're not required to warn you if you've made a mistake.
Oh, and just to make sure you can't say you didn't know, here's all the
procedures you'll have to follow and all the hoops you'll have to jump through.
Thank you have a nice day NEXT!" :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| Comments on articles put in the News Picks column (right side of Home
page). ---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
I was just thinking...
(Yes, I know, "Always a dangerous thing.")
...Boise Schiller has been paid to go through the motions right up through the
appeals process. If they do not go through the appeals, then presumably (unless
there's disgorgement) they get to keep these fees.
Can we donate the appeal fee, if it's only $400, and force Boise Schiller to
actually go through with the work on the appeal? And will they then be forced
to disgorge all those fees anyways? Would that be punishment on BSF, or am I
just overthinking the issue?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
He appears to have never read the story:
The boy who cried wolf!
If
he keeps up this pattern with all the courts, eventually no court will accept
his case without some serious attorney examination into it's validity.
I
gathered from the stories that he's reasonably young and still has quite a bit
of life outside his jail time to live. If he's ever in a position where he
needs the court to actually take on a case "In Forma Pauperis" he may very well
end up wishing he'd never played at this little game of his.
What's sad
about that is basically his willingness to deliberately harm his own future.
I've always found it a bit sad when someone rebels for no reason and the only
thing they ever truly accomplish is harming themselves.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
The Devil's
Dictionary has a nice definition of Forma Pauperis:
Forma
Pauperis
[Latin] In the character of a
poor person — a method by which a litigant without money for lawyers is
considerately permitted to lose his case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jpvlsmv on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
When you're talking about paying a lawyer. Or rather, when you're talking about
preliminary bills to a bankrupt company?
I wonder how much SCO's various legal teams will be able to suck out from under
the bankruptcy court for receiving this mail.
I figure it's gotta take at least a couple of hour to open the envelope and read
all those pages of the docket, not to mention the dozens of conference calls to
make sure that the right strategies are in place for the next reorganization
plan, in light of this new "interested party"...
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
..
This is a biolerplate letter. The clerk gets many appeals and many appeals from
the incarcerated. Prisoner litigants get some breaks. It is not unusual for
courts to send them instructions and warnings as they grant them extensions, or
give them second chances or another deadline. THey do this despite knowing the
overwhelming number of such suits are eventually dismissed or abandoned. Often
they are manifestly frivolous or without merit. Everyone knows what is going to
happen, but it plays out. The very rare case succeeds and the courts want to be
humane. The biggest disadvantage is not having a lawyer. That alone says a lot
about the value of the case.
There are laws that give those in jail some advantages to make up for their
difficult state. In some jurisdictions the time in jail tolls the statute of
limitations. An inmate can sue someone years after an event and the normal SOL
if the SOL did not exceed his free time.
~webster~
"The earth is my treadmill." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Any chance that Jonathan Lee Riches can cause a delay in the proceedings? If
so, I can see SCO paying the fee.
To paraphrase Ghostbusters: SCO: No delay too small. No lawyer's fee too big.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Who wants to bet that he'll actually file the in forma pauperis application
while managing to accuse cheese, the Virgin Mary, Quantum Mechanics, Fred
Astere, Methodism, Onanism, Absurdism, the color purple, and various electronics
manufacturers of conspiracy against him?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
