Tweet
Motion Filed: Obama Defenders Shakedown Linda Jordan For Challenging Obama Identity Fraud
Birther Report
2/7/2013
Excerpt:
Motion Filed: Obama Defenders Shakedown Linda Jordan For Challenging Obama Identity Fraud; Overbilled Nearly $10,000
As reported here Linda Jordan was sanctioned nearly $13,000 for challenging Obama's identity document fraud and placement on the ballot in Washington state. Linda hired former Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders from the Goodstein Law Group to fight the outrageous fees levied against her. Attorney Sanders filed on behalf of Linda a motion to modify the ruling and provided the Washington State Supreme Court with proof the state of Washington overcharged Linda Jordan nearly $10,000.
Excerpt via the Motion to Modify:
Ms. Jordan details in her prior affidavit her unsuccessful efforts to obtain legal counsel and that an award of over $12,000 against her “would be an extreme financial hardship for me and it does seem unreasonable.” Jordan Declaration Objection 6. She makes little more than $500 per month caring for a senior citizen. Her husband is a school teacher. Although the court has previously determined her legal arguments were not well taken there is no claim she acted in bad faith or will malicious intent. Any award against her should be compensatory, not punitive.
A. Actual attorney fees charged the agency must be beginning point of analysis
Attorney fee awards are generally calculated by the lodestar method wherein the court first determines the reasonable number of hours spent to secure the result, excluding wasteful or duplicative hours. Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632 (1998). The court then determines the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate at the time he rendered the services and multiplies the two to arrive at a total award. Ibid. at 434
That is not, however, what happened here. Although the original motion requested reimbursement of fees actually incurred by the Secretary of State; nowhere does the declaration detailing the request claim the requested fees were actually incurred by the Secretary. To the contrary, the requested hourly rate is not even claimed to be the actual hourly rate. Rather it is a fictitious one derived from an internal document prepared by the AG’s Operations Committee purported to approximate a “reasonable market rate” in the private sector without regard to the actual rate charged the agency. See Even Declaration December 10, ex. C
Noting the failure to disclose the actual attorney fees billed the agency, your undersigned called Mr. Even who acknowledged his fee request was not based on the actual amount billed. He stated the agency was billed $525.03 for Ms. Zipp’s 7 hours and $2,887.37 for his 45.8 hours, for a total of $3,412.40, not the $12,675 awarded by the clerk. He also said other services not documented in his declaration were billed at $87.33 and $420.66 to the agency and $32.78 was not billed by error.
This is a significant omission from the attorney fee request as it is the necessary beginning point to determine a reasonable attorney fee award against Ms. Jordan. Scott Fetzer v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 156, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993); Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632 (1998) Adjusted historical rates are improper in non-civil rights litigation, “[r]ather the award is reimbursement to the client for fees already paid.” Fisher Properties v. Arden Mayfair, Inc. 115 Wn.2d 364, 378, 798 P.2d 799 (1990)
Since the burden of proving the reasonableness of attorney fees is upon the attorney requesting the fees, Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 433-34, it follows that this critical omission from the attorney fee application is fatal to carrying that burden. Because of the State’s strong interest in allowing its citizens the “broadest constitutionally permissible access to our courts,” the courts must “zealously circumscribe the scope of advocate activity which will be reimbursed…” Scott Fetzer, 122 Wn.2d at 152-153 but the state is here not seeking reimbursement; it is seeking a punitive windfall at the expense of a pro se litigant. This the law does not permit.
B. Number of hours unreasonable
An award of nearly $13,000 to successfully defend a claimed frivolous suit is on its face unreasonable. [...]
MOTION TO MODIFY CONTINUED ... HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124407022
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...own-linda.html
Birther Report
2/7/2013
Excerpt:
Motion Filed: Obama Defenders Shakedown Linda Jordan For Challenging Obama Identity Fraud; Overbilled Nearly $10,000
As reported here Linda Jordan was sanctioned nearly $13,000 for challenging Obama's identity document fraud and placement on the ballot in Washington state. Linda hired former Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders from the Goodstein Law Group to fight the outrageous fees levied against her. Attorney Sanders filed on behalf of Linda a motion to modify the ruling and provided the Washington State Supreme Court with proof the state of Washington overcharged Linda Jordan nearly $10,000.
Excerpt via the Motion to Modify:
Ms. Jordan details in her prior affidavit her unsuccessful efforts to obtain legal counsel and that an award of over $12,000 against her “would be an extreme financial hardship for me and it does seem unreasonable.” Jordan Declaration Objection 6. She makes little more than $500 per month caring for a senior citizen. Her husband is a school teacher. Although the court has previously determined her legal arguments were not well taken there is no claim she acted in bad faith or will malicious intent. Any award against her should be compensatory, not punitive.
A. Actual attorney fees charged the agency must be beginning point of analysis
Attorney fee awards are generally calculated by the lodestar method wherein the court first determines the reasonable number of hours spent to secure the result, excluding wasteful or duplicative hours. Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632 (1998). The court then determines the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate at the time he rendered the services and multiplies the two to arrive at a total award. Ibid. at 434
That is not, however, what happened here. Although the original motion requested reimbursement of fees actually incurred by the Secretary of State; nowhere does the declaration detailing the request claim the requested fees were actually incurred by the Secretary. To the contrary, the requested hourly rate is not even claimed to be the actual hourly rate. Rather it is a fictitious one derived from an internal document prepared by the AG’s Operations Committee purported to approximate a “reasonable market rate” in the private sector without regard to the actual rate charged the agency. See Even Declaration December 10, ex. C
Noting the failure to disclose the actual attorney fees billed the agency, your undersigned called Mr. Even who acknowledged his fee request was not based on the actual amount billed. He stated the agency was billed $525.03 for Ms. Zipp’s 7 hours and $2,887.37 for his 45.8 hours, for a total of $3,412.40, not the $12,675 awarded by the clerk. He also said other services not documented in his declaration were billed at $87.33 and $420.66 to the agency and $32.78 was not billed by error.
This is a significant omission from the attorney fee request as it is the necessary beginning point to determine a reasonable attorney fee award against Ms. Jordan. Scott Fetzer v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 156, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993); Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632 (1998) Adjusted historical rates are improper in non-civil rights litigation, “[r]ather the award is reimbursement to the client for fees already paid.” Fisher Properties v. Arden Mayfair, Inc. 115 Wn.2d 364, 378, 798 P.2d 799 (1990)
Since the burden of proving the reasonableness of attorney fees is upon the attorney requesting the fees, Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 433-34, it follows that this critical omission from the attorney fee application is fatal to carrying that burden. Because of the State’s strong interest in allowing its citizens the “broadest constitutionally permissible access to our courts,” the courts must “zealously circumscribe the scope of advocate activity which will be reimbursed…” Scott Fetzer, 122 Wn.2d at 152-153 but the state is here not seeking reimbursement; it is seeking a punitive windfall at the expense of a pro se litigant. This the law does not permit.
B. Number of hours unreasonable
An award of nearly $13,000 to successfully defend a claimed frivolous suit is on its face unreasonable. [...]
MOTION TO MODIFY CONTINUED ... HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124407022
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...own-linda.html