ad end
WARNING! NOTHING ON THIS SITE IS MEANT TO BE LEGAL ADVICE! You should do your homework, calm down, assess the situation, then and only then hire a competent attorney to represent you. GWINNETT COUNTY DOES NOT LIKE PRO-SE LITIGANTS!
The Goal of this website is to Reduce litigation, Increase mediation , Eliminate the Guardian Ad Litem from private custody cases and Help facilitate workable joint physical and legal custody arrangements so the child may benefit from the love, direction and decision making capabilities of both parents.
FIRE your Guardian Ad Litem now!
The Guardians are usurping the authority of Judicial system. They will do an investigation and present a report based on hearsay and their value system. If a GAL is involved in your case, Your case will be decided without regard to legal basis, case law, laws governing your state, rules of evidence or proper court room procedure. GUARANTEED!
The GAL is destroying your family, irreparably harming your child's relationship with his parents, creating a resentment among the parties that will last a lifetime and robbing you and your EX blind. This is the money you were going to use to buy your child her braces, his first car or send him to college.
Women around the country are losing custody when they allege abuse that the GAL does not believe. They know that only 5% of households report abuse until divorce proceeding begin and the number jumps to 50%.If there are allegations of abuse please hire a medical professional. Do not let a GAL diminish your concerns. However, make false allegations and lose your child. Read this! If you have been falsely accused read www.falseallegations.com
If there are allegations of medical neglect warn your ex, take your child to the doctor yourself for God’s sake but never use a GAL as they are not guided by years of medical training or training in child psychology but rather emotion and agendas.
Their investigations are unguided and their decisions are arbitrary and capricious.
GAL
Court testimony is very sporadic and full of
hearsay to
mask the superficial nature of her investigation. They take their cues
from the “vibe” or “ feelings” of the parties and the Judge.
The Court System in Atlanta was specifically designed to create turmoil, acrimony and resentment between the parties. The system creates resolutions and agreements between the parties that are intentionally vague to insure future business for the system and remove billions of dollars from hard working families least able to afford it. LOCAL COST OF GAL.
There
is no doubt in my mind that Judges and Attorneys could make agreements
that are so fair and comprehensive that the possibility of future conflict
is totally eliminated.
I know , I know. Your Ex- husband treated you like an object or worse and your Ex-wife treated you like a paycheck or worse.
So
what ! Get over it! We
all have our horror stories but the truth is that you knew 50% of all
marriages end in divorce when you created your child so wake up and take
care of that child the way she deserves.
Truth:
Your child needs both of her parents!
You suck as a single parent.
Joint
Physical Custody is what she needs. Cooperate in good faith with your
ex until your child is 18. If you are the better or more responsible
parent help the other parent!
I know
the sound of your ex-spouse’s voice is like finger nails on a chalkboard
but your phone will send text messages and your computer will send email.
A small percentage of grown-ups in Gwinnett County arrange joint physical
and joint legal custody with no child support and you can too. This will
eliminate the system from your life forever.
Sample Marital Settlement
Agreement / Parenting plan.
Truth:
You are using child support as a weapon. Your child’s needs only
food, clothing, and shelter. The total cost of your child’s needs is
not $650 per month. The current guidelines are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You both must
maintain a house with food, air conditioning /heat , electricity and water
so why are you charging her child support? You know in your heart it is
really get even support or adult support. When your child is with your
ex you can work a part time job if you want extra money. He might be
working over time or a part time job to give you child support. Give him
the break he deserves.
Truth:
You are using extracurricular activities to control your ex. You
are avoiding your responsibility to parent by enrolling your child in more
than one activity at a time. Your ex should have full consultation on
extracurricular activities and the right to withdraw from any activity due
to lack of interest, lack of money or as a result of her desire to spend
quality time with your child.
Truth:
You are using final decision making status as a weapon. Your child is
entitled to a decision that is the
result of a joint decision making process or mediation.
When you can’t reach a decision after 4 hours of mediation you or your
ex can be designated as final decision maker. This process insures that
the tough decisions are thoroughly researched and debated.
Just include this mediation clause in your agreement.
Anticipate the stages
of child development and prepare in advance to cooperate in a manner
conducive to raising a mentally and physically well rounded child.
You Must ! Support each other in discipline,
restrictions, and expectations for school performance. Quit trying to win
your child with gifts and promises and commit to raising your child as
your child and not your friend. Your child must know the same environment
exist in both households.
Myth: When couples cannot agree or cooperate about matters like how the children should be raised, a judge must decide according to “the best interest of the child.”
Fact: It is not the business of government officials to supervise the raising of other people’s children. The entire point of a marriage and family is for mothers and fathers to cooperate and compromise for the sake of children and provide an example to those children of precisely these principles, without which no family can operate. Allowing one parent to surrender both parents’ decision-making rights over the children to government officials because of “disagreement” — without any infraction by the other (who may “disagree” only about losing his or her children) — negates the very principle of private family life and invites collusion between the divorcing parent and state officials.
Judges and civil servants are not disinterested. When we give government officials the power to make decisions about the best interest of other people’s children, it may well become the best interest of the officials. Allowing them to control the private lives of citizens’ who have committed no legal infraction simply by invoking “disagreement” gives them an incentive to reward the parent that is being the most disagreeable. That is precisely the reason for the runaway divorce epidemic.
Unfortunately, a recent development in Georgia Divorce & Family Law is the appointment of Guardian Ad Litem's to cases involving PRIVATE Child Custody. Essentially, a guardian ad litem works with both parents as well as their divorce attorneys to look out for the best interest of the children. In the past these GALs were used to perform a vital function in the juvenile court system representing abused or neglected children.
Now it has become more mainstream to appoint a GAL in a private custody dispute if one or both or the parties request it. It can become a war of he said she said, cross accusations and innuendos designed to discredit the other parent in the eyes of the GAL and the only winner is the GAL after you pay her fees.
Among the things a guardian ad litem will look into are the background information on the parents to determine work schedules, family background, mental disorders, child’s mental or medical heath issues, educational needs and and general customs and practices of the parents and make a determination based on her feelings.
In making an overall determination, a guardian ad litem is able to look into specific cases in a way that an Divorce Judge never could - visit the families in their homes, visit the children in the schools, etc , however this " investigation" could cost the parties thousands of dollars that could be spent on the child’s braces or college fund instead.
Make no mistake about it your ex-spouse’s attorney hired the GAL that previously “determined” cases based his or her value system that happens to be in alignment with the agenda or value system as your ex be it Catholic vs Protestant, home school vs public school, sports vs academic, disciplinarian vs time out, mediation vs final decision maker, etc.
His attorney might have hired the GAL in an effort to win the war of attrition resulting in the less monied parent giving up.
Generally, a Georgia Divorce & Family Law Judge will take into account the suggestions of the Guardian Ad Litem and will weigh their investigation and determination very seriously in making a judgment. No judge is ever bound by the findings of a guardian ad litem, but generally, a guardian ad litem, appointed by the court, can gain a unique "perspective" on a family’s inner-dynamics, and a judge in all likelihood will take that information into account very seriously and rule as the GAL suggest 80% of the time.
.
www.tajmyshack.com/
You should
know that the only reason the Court has appointed a GAL is that you and
your ex can not agree on the who should have custody of your child. This
gives the SYSTEM THIEVES
a perfect excuse to bilk you and your ex out of thousands. The GAL
is only interested in escalating her fees and does not care what your
child wants. The only way to get rid of this parasite is to remove the
disagreement between the parties.
This might mean that you have to drop your
counterclaim. The Court does not like to change custody unless a material
chaetermine the "best interest of
the child". If you drop your counterclaim and amend your answer to
show that no change has occurred or that the other parent refused to work
with you in good faith to resolve the issue you have a great chance of
retaining custody
because the burden of proving a change occurred is on the
Plaintiff.
MINNESOTA RULES OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROCEDURE
Removal or Suspension of Guardian Ad Litem From Particular Case
Subd. 1. A guardian ad litem appointed to serve in a particular case may be removed or suspended from the case only by order of the presiding judge. Removal or suspension may be upon initiation of the presiding judge or after hearing upon the motion of a party pursuant to subd. 2 of this Rule.
Subd. 2. A party to the case who wishes to seek the removal or suspension of a guardian ad litem for cause must proceed by written motion before the judge presiding over the case. A motion to remove or suspend a guardian ad litem for cause shall be served upon the parties and the guardian ad litem and filed.
In Washington a GAL can be fired for the following reasons:
1. Violated the Rules of Professional Conduct; 2. Misrepresented his or her qualifications to serve as a guardian ad litem; 3. Not met the annual training requirements set forth in the Registry requirements; 4. Breached the confidentiality of the parties; 5. Falsified information in a report to the Court or in testimony before the Court; 6. Failed to report abuse of a child; 7. Communicated with the a judge/commissioner ex-parte, except as allowed by (such as an emergency restraining order); 8. Purported to represent the Court in a public form without prior approval of the Presiding Judge; 9. Violated state or local laws, rules, or this policy in the person’s capacity as guardian ad litem; 10. Taken or failed to take any other action which would reasonably place the suitability of the person to serve as guardian ad litem in question; 11. Failed to keep information confidential from non- parties or disclosed protected information to a party; 12. Intentionally lied or presented information in a false light to the Court, another party or a third party; 13. Failed to report abuse of a child as required by RCW 26.44; 14. Talked about a case for which the guardian ad litem was appointed to the media or public without the permission of all parties and/or the Court
Guardian ad litem — Ex parte communications — Removal. |
A guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate shall not engage in ex parte communications with any judicial officer involved in the matter for which he or she is appointed during the pendency of the proceeding, except as permitted by court rule or statute for ex parte motions. Ex parte motions shall be heard in open court on the record. The record may be preserved in a manner deemed appropriate by the county where the matter is heard. The court, upon its own motion, or upon the motion of a party, may consider the removal of any guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate who violates this section from any pending case or from any court-authorized registry, and if so removed may require forfeiture of any fees for professional services on the pending case.
Case from California
*Due to the differences in formatting between conventional word processors and the language of the Internet, HTML, formatting of the original brief has been slightly changed, so that the brief will be comprehensible in the various Internet browsers. The names of the clients in this brief have been replaced by the descriptors "CLIENT ..."
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1997
by her Permanent Conservator, and Guardian ad Litem,
CLIENT HUSBAND/FATHER; and CLIENT DAUGHTER, a minor,
by CLIENT HUSBAND/FATHER, her Guardian ad Litem
Petitioners
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Ninth Circuit
LAW FIRM
R. Wayne Patterson
Attorneys for Petitioners
i
ii
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED........................................................................................................................................
i
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
.................................................................................................................1
OPINIONS BELOW
...................................................................................................................................................1
JURISDICTION..........................................................................................................................................................
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
....................................................................................................................................3
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
.................................................................................................................7
I. The Ninth Circuit's Ruling Denies Any Meaningful Appellate
Review Of A Settlement Entered Into By
A Guardian Ad Litem On Behalf of An Incompetent or Infant
........................................................................................7
II. District Court's Removal Has A Chilling Effect On The American
Legal System And Is In Violation
Of Both Federal Rules Of Evidence And Its Own Rule
..................................................................................................9
III. Alleged Acts, Omissions And Statements Of Counsel During
Settlement Discussions .............................................11
IV. Even If Acts, Omissions And Statements Made During Settlement
Discussions WereAdmissible,
District Court Abused Its Discretion, Because No Basis To Conclude That
Said Acts,
Omissions And Statements Of Counsel Evince Irreconcilable Conflict Of
Interest .........................................................16
A. Refusal To Consider Settlement In Form Of Annuity Does Not Evince
Conflict Of Interest ......................................16
B. Consideration Of Attorney's Fees In Evaluation of Settlement Offer
Does Not Evince Conflict Of Interest................ 20
V. Rationale Of District Court Violates Federal And State Law
....................................................................................23
iii
VI. Petitioners Have Been Deprived Of Their Right To Appellate Review of The District Court's Ruling .........................25
VII. No Settlement Distribution To Be Undone If Reversed ..........................................................................................26
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................27
NOTICE OF RELATED APPELLATE CASE ............................................................................................................31
iv
Federal Cases
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. The Wilderness Society
(1975) 21 U.S. 240 ................................................22
Amchem Products, Inc. v Windsor (1997) ___ US ___, 117 S.Ct.
2231 ...................................................................23
Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v.
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California (1993)
508 U.S. 602................................................8
Forney v. Apfel (1998) ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1984
................................................................................................25
Gedders v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 80
.............................................................................................................10
Hull by Hull v United States (10th Cir 1992) 971 F2d 1499,
cert den'd 507 US 1030 ...............................................18
Key Tronic v. United States (1994) 511 U.S. 809
.......................................................................................................21
Linebarger v U.S. (N.D. Cal 1996) 927 F Supp 1280
..................................................................................................17
Mace v Van Ru Credit Corp. (1997) 109 F3d 338
......................................................................................................23
Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v Rambo (1997) ___ US ___, 117
S.Ct. 1953, 138 L.Ed. 327 .......................................18
Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75
...............................................................................................................................9
Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v.
Local 112, United Brotherhood of Carpenters And Joiners of America
(1982) 456 U.S. 717 .................................22
Federal Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1291
...........................................................................................................................................................25
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)
........................................................................................................................................................5
28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq
.................................................................................................................................................5
28 U.S.C. §1254(1)
.........................................................................................................................................................2
33 USC §§ 914(a),(b)
....................................................................................................................................................18
42 U.S.C. §1396 et seq
..................................................................................................................................................27
v
Rule 408 ................................................................................................................................................................10, 11
Local Rules of The United States District Court, Central District Of California
Rule 23.9 ...............................................................................................................................................................10, 11
California Statutes
California Welfare & Institutions Code, § 14000 et seq ...........................................................................................27
California Code of Regulations
Title 22 .......................................................................................................................................................................27
vi
OPINIONS BELOW
JURISDICTION
2
1comatose due to admitted negligence of defendant United States
of America
2newborn daughter of CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER,
whose birth occurred moments before the admitted negligence of health care
providers, employed by defendant United States of America.
3pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2678, form of the agreement was
customary in the profession, as approved by the State Bar of California,
and consistent with the American rule for attorney's fees
3
4
5
6
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I. The Ninth Circuit's Ruling Denies Any Meaningful Appellate Review Of A Settlement Entered Into By A Guardian Ad Litem On Behalf of An Incompetent or Infant
7
review, because it was "voluntarily entered into," then the appointed representative for any such incompetent is conclusively presumed to be competent and to have acted properly. The mere statement of such proposition demonstrates its absurdity. Such a holding presents a finite probability that inadequate settlements, if not actual mischief, will be perpetrated on such incompetent parties.
"[J]ustice," indeed, "must satisfy the appearance of justice, and this stringent rule may sometimes bar trial [even] by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties." Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. [1980] 446 U.S.[ 238], at 243, 100 S.Ct., at 1613. Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California (1993) 508 U.S. 602, 618
8
[T]he need for forceful and vigorous advocacy to ensure that rights
are not forgone and that substantial legal and factual arguments are not
passed over is of paramount importance in our adversary system of
justice, whether at the trial or the appellate stage. Penson v.
Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 76. If our adversary system is to function according to design, we must
assume that an attorney will observe his responsibilities to the legal
system, as well as to his client. I find it difficult to conceive of any
circumstances that 9
All settlement proceedings shall be confidential and no statement
made therein shall be admissible in any proceeding in the case, unless
the parties otherwise agree.
11
It has become abundantly clear that plaintiff CLIENT
HUSBAND/FATHER, as an individual, has an irreconcilable conflict
of interest in his representation of his wife CLIENT
WIFE/MOTHER and daughter CLIENT DAUGHTER.
This conflict arises because, CLIENT
HUSBAND/FATHER is interested in a recovery, the dominant feature
of which is a lump sum of money payable to him in both his individual
and representative capacities, while CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER's
lifetime medical care needs and her daughter CLIENT
DAUGHTER's future needs may be better served by a medical trust
and annuity which would guarantee that CLIENT
WIFE/MOTHER's medical needs will be provided and the costs paid
for the duration of her life. Through his retained counsel, Lawyer, CLIENT HUSBAND/FATHER has repeatedly stated
that his interest is in a cash settlement which may or may not prove
adequate to meet CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER's
medical needs for the rest of her life. (Removal Motion, page 3, lines
13-25, hereinafter, "3:13-25"). Through counsel, the parties had several conversations regarding
settlement. For the purpose of these discussions, the United States has
accepted in its near entirety, plaintiffs' rehabilitationist/lifecare
expert's 12
testimony regarding the nature, extent and costs of CLIENT
WIFE/MOTHER's future medical care. Moreover, despite disagreement
with plaintiffs concerning CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER's
ultimate life expectancy, defense counsel has informed plaintiffs'
counsel, that she was prepared to recommend a settlement that would
provide for CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER's medical
care for the rest of her life, no matter how long that might be. During
these discussions, Lawyer expressed concern
that the cost of such a plan, and the "upfront" cash to fund
the plan, was somehow not sufficient for his analysis or to fund his
anticipated attorney's fees. Declaration of Julie Zatz at ¶5. (Removal
Motion, 4:25- 5:11) 13
FN 1: Under the FTCA, counsel may be entitled to as much as twenty
five per cent of any judgment or settlement. 28 U.S.C. § 2678.
Accordingly, Lawyer's apparent interest in
increasing the "upfront" cost of any settlement is to increase
his ultimate fee. (Removal Motion, 5:n1) . . . .CLIENT HUSBAND/FATHER, through Lawyer,
has repeatedly shown his refusal to act in his wife and daughter's best
interest. For example, CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER has
hired the same attorney (Lawyer) to
represent him in his personal capacity, as well as in his representative
capacity. Therefore, the type of recovery (or settlement) that is in the
optimum interests of the parties is, or can be, in direct conflict —
which has already been manifest in this case. 14
This severe and irreconcilable conflict of interest has been
exemplified through Lawyer's conduct of the
settlement negotiations. During the settlement conference and prior
thereto, Lawyer has declined to discuss
defendant's proposal that would ensure CLIENT
WIFE/MOTHER receive continued treatment and care for the rest of
her life, however long that time may be. Declaration of Julie
Zatz at ¶6. Instead, Mr. Friedman insists on a lump sum payment and had
candidly admitted that payment of a large sum is necessary to ensure
payment of his attorney's fees and that, in the future, these funds
could run out, leaving CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER destitute.
[Declaration of Julie Zatz at ¶6.] (Removal Motion, 11:10-12:2] The foregoing is the entirety of the "evidence" and argument
upon which defendant United States of America based its assertion that
plaintiffs had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with their Guardian ad
litem and the Guardian's counsel. 15
A. Refusal To Consider Settlement In Form Of Annuity Does Not
Evince Conflict Of Interest 16
17
18
(1) petitioner CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER:
"may be better served by a medical trust and an annuity which would
guarantee [payments] . . . for the duration of [CLIENT
WIFE/MOTHER's] life." (Emphasis added) (Removal Motion,
3:19-22) Not only were these statements misleading, but they were disingenuous,
because the ultimate "settlement" provided no compensation to
the comatose mother, petitioner CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER,
transferring the entirety of the responsibility for her care and treatment
to the State of California. Despite the plaintive tone of the Assistant
United States Attorney that the counsel and Guardian ad litem did not have
the best interests of petitioners at heart, where in the
"settlement" did respondent United States provide the
"lifetime" support that its Assistant United States Attorney
promised in her papers? 19
B. Consideration Of Attorney's Fees In Evaluation of Settlement
Offer Does Not Evince Conflict Of Interest.
Under the longstanding "American rule," attorney's fees
generally are not a recoverable cost of litigation absent explicit
congressional authorization. Key Tronic v. United States
(1994) 511 U.S. 809, 809. 21
which support the American Rule argue against placing exclusive
reliance on the need to provide full compensation. [Emphasis Added] Summit
Valley Industries, Inc. v. Local 112, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
And Joiners of America (1982) 456 U.S. 717, 724 the interests of individuals in conducting separate lawsuits may be
so strong as to call for denial of a class action. . . . The policy at
the very core of the class action mechanism is to . . . provide the incentive
. . . worth 22
someone's (usually an attorney's) labor. (Emphasis added) Amchem
Products, Inc. v Windsor (1997) ___ US ___, 117 S.Ct. 2231,
2246, citing Mace v Van Ru Credit Corp. (1997) 109 F3d
338, 344 V. Rationale Of District Court Violates Federal
And State Law 23
VI. Petitioners Have Been Deprived Of Their Right
To Appellate Review of The District Court's Ruling 25
VII. No Settlement Distribution To Be Undone If
Reversed 26
CONCLUSION 27
Law Firm, 29
Law Firm,
This Court has consistently upheld the right to vigorous advocacy:
10
III. Alleged Acts, Omissions And Statements Of Counsel During
Settlement Discussions
On July 1, 1996, a settlement conference of approximately 35 minute
duration was held in this matter before the Honorable David V. Kenyon.
[Declaration of Julie Zatz] at ¶¶2,6. During this entire conference, Lawyer failed to inquire as to what type of settlement counsel was
prepared to recommend. Lawyer again
insisted that a settlement along the lines described above would not
present a high enough "upfront" cost to the United States to
fund his fees. [Declaration of Julie Zatz at ¶6. In response to Judge
Kenyon's comments to the effect that he may have a conflict of interest, Lawyer asserted that he was entitled to be
concerned about his attorneys' fees. [Declaration of Julie Zatz] at ¶7.
[FN 1] (Removal Motion, 5:12-22)
Additionally, CLIENT HUSBAND/FATHER has a
conflict of interest with CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER and CLIENT DAUGHTER because all three parties
are competing for limited settlement funds. (Emphasis Added) (Removal
Motion, 12:3-5)
(2) the Assistant United States Attorney "was prepared to recommend
a settlement that would provide for CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER's
medical care for the rest of her life, no matter how long that might
be." (Removal Motion, 5:5-7)
(3) respondent United States of America had made a "proposal that
would ensure CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER receive
continued treatment and care for the rest of her life, however long
that time may be." (Removal Motion, 11:21-23)
20
Even assuming that attorney's fees are necessary to achieve full
compensation, this justification alone is not sufficient to create an
exception to the American Rule in the absence of express congressional
authority. See F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber
Co., supra, at 128-129, 94 S.Ct., at 2164- 2165. In F.D. Rich, this
Court rejected the argument that attorney's fees should be awarded under
the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, as amended, 80 Stat. 1139, 40 U.S.C. S
270a et seq., because the Act provided for recovery of "sums justly
due," 40 U.S.C. S 270b(a), and, unless fees were awarded, the
legislative intent in favor of full compensation would be frustrated.
417 U.S., at 128, 94 S.Ct., at 2164. In squarely rejecting this claim,
we found it to be nothing more than a "restate[ment] of one of the
oft-repeated criticisms of the American Rule." Ibid. Although this
Court acknowledged that "there is some force to the argument
that a party who must bear the cost of his attorneys' fees out of his
recovery is not made whole," we concluded that the
countervailing considerations
We do not purport to assess the merits or demerits of the 'American
Rule' with respect to the allowance of attorneys' fees. It has been
criticized in recent years, [footnote omitted] and courts have been
urged to find exceptions to it. [footnote omitted] It is also apparent
from our national experience that the encouragement of private action to
implement public policy has been viewed as desireable in a variety of
circumstances. But the rule followed in our courts with respect to
attorneys' fees has survived. It is deeply rooted in our history and in
congressional policy; and it is not for us to invade the legislature's
province by redistributing litigation costs in the manner suggested by
respondents and followed by the Court of Appeals. [footnote omitted] Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company v. The Wilderness Society (1975) 421
U.S. 240, 270
24
_____________________
4The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from
all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . .
except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. . . .
California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal Act), California
Welfare & Institutions Code, § 14000 et seq; Title
22, California Code of Regulations, the state program enacted
pursuant to the federal Medicaid Act (Title XIX of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396 et seq) to provide health
care services to recipients of public assistance and others. Therefore,
reversal of Judge Hatter's removal of the original Guardian ad litem
and counsel will not require accounting of monies already received.
28
Dated: August 21, 1998
Respectfully submitted,
by:
R. Wayne Patterson
Attorneys for Petitioners
CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER and CLIENT
DAUGHTER
Dated: August 21, 1998
Respectfully submitted,
by:
R. Wayne Patterson
Attorneys for Petitioners
CLIENT WIFE/MOTHER and CLIENT
DAUGHTER