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.
Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
-
- Conde de Quatloo
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
- Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
Now that's funny.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.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7521
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
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 could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6120
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
I would be willing to redeem lawful money and pay to see that case argued in court.The Observer wrote: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.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again...
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
-
- A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
- Posts: 13806
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
The Observer wrote: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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
-
- Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
- Posts: 3756
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
- Location: Quatloos Immigration Control
Re: Lodi v. Lodi not a joke?
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.notorial dissent wrote:The Observer wrote: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.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
-
- Princeps Wooloosia
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm