180 year old Supreme Court Ruling Results in Non-Access to the Justice
T
he CEO of CWF Flooring, Inc., James Maksimuk of Palmdale, CA has filed a Writ of Certiorari, Case No. 19-493 with the U.S. Supreme Court questioning the Constitutionality of laws requiring corporations to hire legal counsel when appearing in court. Link to original transcript here: https://sporttiles.pro/court-transcripts.pdf.
Mr. Maksimuk is asking the Supreme Court to apply the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Equal Protection Clause (1868) and apply Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) which statesThe Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. so Mr. Maksimuk can refute alleged violations of a trademark without hiring a lawyer / so the corporate defendant can self-represent itself in court.
During the trademark violation case against Mr. Maksimuk at the District Court hearing in Utah the judge, Hon. Bruce Jenkins stated to the corporate defendant
THE COURT Yeah. You're welcome to observe, but you're not going to be able to participate. Three times you have been told that an entity can't represent itself.
MR. MAKSIMUK Do I have any opportunity to refute that, Your Honor?
THE COURT No. You sit there. You listen.
THE COURT Sit down. I don't want to have to have the marshal have you sit down
Consequently, the defendant lost the case and was ordered to pay the legal fees of the Plaintiff. District Court defendant never had his day in court.
The legal requirement for corporations to be represented by legal counsel started in about 1840 when Martin Van Buren was president in Commercial & RR Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, Richard & Col, 39 U.S. 60 (1840) decided because, as such a corporation cannot appear but by attorney
This 180 year old ruling has not been amended. Mr. Maksimuk is asking the Supreme Court to throw out this outdated ruling so to conform with the Equal Protection Clause which states nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The requirement for corporations to hire legal counsel has impacted small corporation who can't afford the expense of lawyers. Consequently, small corporations-on a common basis- have been issued unfavorable Default Judgments.
In Arizona's courts and other proceedings, the specters of legal fees or default judgments sink small business litigants before they even start. Hon. David B. Gass, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona stated in his Petition to the Supreme Court of Arizona to Amend Rule 31 of the AZ Supreme Court dated Jan. 08, 2018.
That this judicial disparity, rather non-access to the courts, have been acknowledged by the State of Arizona but ignored by the US Government. To address this non-access to the courts AZ has proposed amending Rule 31 of the AZ Supreme Court that will provide corporations to self-represent without legal counsel in courtrooms in Arizona. This amendment to Rule 31 is supported by
1. Hon. David B. Gass, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
2. Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chair, Atty Regulation Advisory Committee, Phoenix, AZ
3. Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, State of Arizona.
4. Glenn Hamer, President & CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
5. Atty. Paul V. Avelar (AZ Bar No. 023078) Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice Arizona Office.
✔️ 180 year old Supreme Court Ruling Results in Non-Access to the Justice
💕 Found this article helpful? Spread the word and support us!