Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?

[triumphguy2]

Good morning,
The case of Lodi v. Lodi (1981), 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal.Rptr. 116, http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Docum ... v_Lodi.pdf where the plaintiff sued himself for termination of a charitable trust and 'cancellation' of his birth certificate, has resided in the California reporters as a joke for 30 years. However, I was re-reading it this morning (slow Monday) and wondered if it was an early example of the redemption argument. The plaintiff sued himself, alleging he was the 'reversioner' of a trust which was established at his birth and had been under the control of the defendant. He sought to terminate the trust and take control of the corpus; he also wanted to cancel his birth certificate. He served his documents on the IRS and the court of appeal speculated he was trying to establish a default judgment that might give him some sort of tax benefit. However, it certainly sounds like an early version of redemption. The briefs (both 'parties' filed a brief on appeal) have long since been consigned to the archives and the complaint itself would take a trip to Shasta county to unearth, but I wonder it the rest of you agree that it sounds like a redemption argument.

[Gregg]

We have considered whether respondent/defendant/
beneficiary should be awarded his costs of suit on appeal,
which he could thereafter recover from himself.
However, we believe the equities are better served by requiring
each party to bear his own costs on appeal.

Now that's funny.

[The Observer]

Hmmmm, can David Merrill vs. David Van Pelt be far behind? Perhaps suing himself is the real answer to his continuing vain saga in search of sovereignty.

[Pottapaug1938]

Hmmmm, can David Merrill vs. David Van Pelt be far behind? Perhaps suing himself is the real answer to his continuing vain saga in search of sovereignty.

I would be willing to redeem lawful money and pay to see that case argued in court.

[Cpt Banjo]

Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again...

[notorial dissent]

Hmmmm, can David Merrill vs. David Van Pelt be far behind? Perhaps suing himself is the real answer to his continuing vain saga in search of sovereignty.

I think that maybe the motor scooter would have rights as a defamed party, and could maybe enter the suit as a third party intervenor and recover damages for defamation and ongoing humiliation resulting from the ongoing unwilling association with Merrill. The funny part is that I think the motor scooter would have a valid case.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hmmmm, can David Merrill vs. David Van Pelt be far behind? Perhaps suing himself is the real answer to his continuing vain saga in search of sovereignty.

I think that maybe the motor scooter would have rights as a defamed party, and could maybe enter the suit as a third party intervenor and recover damages for defamation and ongoing humiliation resulting from the ongoing unwilling association with Merrill. The funny part is that I think the motor scooter would have a valid case.

Plus the motor scooter would have one of the largest pro bono legal teams ever seen in a US court for a case of this type.

[fortinbras]

Also see:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/04/t ... elves.html