GSDCA files Motion for Contempt of TRO against the WDA - Page 1

GSDCA files Motion for Contempt of TRO against the WDA

Shared with permission from the German Shepherd Dog Club of America

On August 8^th, 2014, the GSDCA has filed the following Motion for Contempt of the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against the WDA.  Attached here are links to the actual motion and the associated exhibits!

Motion: https://www.gsdca.org/images/secured_pdf/MOTION%20for%20Contempt.pdf

Exhibit A: https://www.gsdca.org/images/secured_pdf/MOTION%20for%20Contempt%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf

Exhibit B: https://www.gsdca.org/images/secured_pdf/MOTION%20for%20Contempt%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf

Exhibit C: https://www.gsdca.org/images/secured_pdf/MOTION%20for%20Contempt%20-%20Exhibit%20C.pdf

1. Where is the motion for contempt? All you provide is the judge's original ruling granting the temporary restraining order (TRO), an affidavit from the President of the GSDCA that the WDA violated the terms of the TRO and a Letter from the President of the WDA, i.e Yee, which was published in the WDA Newsletter. Without the motion for contempt, everything else is just speculation.

2. A temporary restraining order is just that, temporary. The TRO involved the pendancy of the holding of the WUSV event, now long over. Little reason to assume it should still be in affect now.

3. But if it is still in effect, the GSDCA's attorneys are going to have to make an arguement that the article constitutes contempt. The judge is unlikely to find article ispo facto speaks for itself, i.e. res ipsa loquitur. (perhaps they have made the arguement)

4. Is the GSDCA alleging harm? Do they seek money damages? Unlikely they can show harm. Is it merely a case of the judge said 'don't do this' and Yee and or the WDA did it anyway. If so, then what result? Not much, very likely. The judge could levy a fine, but most likely would issue a caution. Again, we do not know what is in the GSDCA motion for contempt.

5. It would have been wise for the GSDCA attorneys to have filed against Yee and the WDA both jointly and severally (and perhaps they have, we don't know since we don't have a copy of the motion) since it could be argued that Yee's actions do not represent a WDA policy statement or were made with WDA approval. He may have acted ultra vires in which case he and not the organization should be held in contempt, that is if anyone is to be held in contempt. Of course, it could be found that he was representing the WDA with its approval. Without a close reading of the powers of the president, presumably specified somewhere in the WDA bylaws, it would be hard to say.

Gertrude,

 

The motion is the first link. It's a 5 page document that requests the 2,500 security bond be forefitted. If the link doesn't open when you click on it, you may need to copy and paste.

Gertrude:

I am not lawyer and do not have the legal wisdom that you apparently possess. Therefore, after reading both Christine's and Your prior posts I don't understand your opening statement. You question where the contempt complaint is and by implication you lead us, or at least me, to believe that it was not included in her references. Christine's first link offering clearly displays a document filed in court and entitled: "Defendant German Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc.'s Motion for Contempt Citation". Why then do you imply that this document that is so clearly titled "Motion for Contempt Citation" is not a or the "Motion for Contempt Citation"?

Also, as I recall, the Temporary Restraining Order applied to both parties and was to remain in effect until the court's ruling after the conclusion of the qualifier.  I haven't heard anyone mention anything about that hearing having taking place but I do recall some saying that the hearing had been postponed indefinitely. If the postponement is still in effect would the TRO not be also unless the court has specifically ordered its discontinuance? 

Please help us, or at least me, better understand your interpretation.

The link furnished by Christine for the Motion cited in her earlier post was: https://www.gsdca.org/images/saved_pdf/MOTION%20%20Contempt.pdf
 

Sorry people. I did not originally see the motion of contempt link, only exhibit A, B and C. Now that I have seen it, I should have written:

1. So we know that the motion is solely against the WDA and not Yee. Perhaps the WDA lawyers might make the argument that Yee acted ultra vires and hence should not be a party to the motion. Yee, who many say a la Louis XIV (l'etat c'est moi) is the WDA is unlikely to agree to having his attorney's argue this as then he might personally have to post the bond. And also, is there a real WDA board that would take a stand against him to defend the organization if they felt his interests and the WDA's were not identical?

2. The letter Yee wrote clearly violates the terms of the TRO if it appeared prior to the conclusion of the WUSV event.

3. The remedy asked for is the posting of a security bond, generally refundable so long as the WDA and or Yee do not repeat what they did in the Newsletter or elsewhere. Forfeited if further similar comments or actions are made by him or the WDA. It appears the GSDCA lawyers are being very generous in the remedy for which they are asking. It is at most a slap on the wrist. Of course, if the WDA is in dire financial shape as people on this site, who have knowledge that I do not, appear to believe, then what the GSDCA is asking will certainly take a bite out of the WDA's operating funds and be felt. If the WDA is not in bad financial shape, then, the remedy asked for will have little effect on the WDA other than sequestering some its funds for a while.

4. Most probably the TRO is still in effect based on the ruling that it remain so until a hearing on the merits, which apparently has not been held, is held. However, the judge could rule that its substantive purpose was only to restrain up to the conclusion of the event.

5. Which brings us to the question as to what was the purpose of the TRO. And that appears to be related solely to the WUSV event. If Yee's article came out before the event was held, then there is no question that the terms were substatively violated in a meaningful way. If they came out after the event was held, they still are a substantive violation but perhaps not meaningful as to the original intent of the TRO which was presumably to stop negative comments prior to the holding of the event.

6. If it is the latter, the judge may do nothing other than caution the WDA's lawyers. If it was the former, the judge would have no problem imposing such a small security bond ($2500) and might even, sua sponte, increase the amount to $10,000 or more to put some teeth into it.

7. One has to wonder why Yee, purportedly a trained lawyer and a sitting judge or magistrate, would be so careless in writing a letter with the language he chose to use. It would have been a simple matter, assuming he went to a law school where they taught legal writing, to have made the same points in such a way that they could not be attacked. The words innuendo and imply come to mind.  To give but a brief example--in a PI case, plaintiff's lawyer might want to refer to his client as the victim of a negligent act and would say, 'the victim stated'. Defendant's lawyer would never call the plaintiff a victim because of its emotive quality and would not use the word state or stated but would say 'according to plaintiff or the plaintiff alleges' which carry the implication that what the plaintiff said is not a fact and perhaps not true. Defendant's lawyer would do well to avoid a word like lie. Apparently, Yee felt no such caution or had no such training or forgot whatever training he had. Yee's lawyers must have been shaking there heads when they read what he wrote.

Thanks for clearing up the matter. I was really concerned that your earlier post was the product of an intended "Homerization" of reality.. I think I may have just created a new word but I suspect most folks know what I intended it to mean.

I found the re-pringing of the article very interesting. It was first printed before the restraining order and then printed again after WUSV trial.

 

 

 Before AND after.   Seems like flaunting to me.

Mr. Yee does seem to be quite the figure to confront. His credentials as a Judge seem to work for his favor in support, if not in actual application.

I was there at the WUSV as a total newbie. I have no preconceptions on these type of events, but I surely know I could have done better with public relations and getting the seats filled. It was a beautiful venue with a loud sound of echo's reverberating in the emptiness.

Gertrude,

In an earlier post you made this reference “One has to wonder why Yee, purportedly a trained lawyer and a sitting judge or magistrate”.  Over the years I to have heard the Mr. Yee is a judge.  In November of 2012 and in April of this year I did some extensive searching in the California court system, and specifically in the Los Angeles area to find evidence of Mr. Yee as a judge.

On no California court site could I find Mr. Yee listed as a judge.  I did however find a program offered in Los Angeles county called the “Temporary Judge Program”.  I sent them an email inquiring about Mr. Yee and their program.  Here are the 2 emails I received back.  One on Nov 5, 2012:

From:	Sheryl D. Elliott-Jensen <SDElliott-Jensen@LASuperiorCourt.org>
To:	cmandela
Cc:	Amy Blust <ABlust@LASuperiorCourt.org>
Subject:	Daniel Yee
Date:	Mon, Nov 5, 2012 6:04 pm

---

Dear Ms. Mandela:

Your inquiry was forwarded to the Temporary Judge Committee and they provided the following response:

Daniel Yee is a certified temporary judge, which is a volunteer attorney position and does not entitle him to use the title of (temporary) judge outside of the courtroom.  Further, he has no employment relationship with the court.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned and your inquiry will be forwarded to the Temporary Judge Committee for response.

Sheryl D. Elliott-Jensen,

Management Secretary

Temporary Judge Program

Los Angeles Superior Court

111 North Hill Street, Room 620E

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213) 974-6170

 

The second email was from June 3, 2014

From:	Nicole Heeseman <NHeesema@LASuperiorCourt.org>
To:	cmandela
Subject:	Temporary Judges at Los Angeles Superior Court
Date:	Tue, Jun 3, 2014 6:35 pm

---

Ms. Mandela,

I understand you submitted an inquiry re Daniel J. Yee. 

Mr. Yee is a certified temporary judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Below is the link to the Court's information about temporary judges:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/TemporaryJudgeProgram/UI/

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,

Nicole

Nicole Heeseman

Managing Research Attorney/

Temporary Judge Administrator

Los Angeles Superior Court
111 N. Hill St., Rm. 209

Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-4624
(213) 217-4943 (fax)

A statement of particular interest is contained in the first email, “Daniel Yee is a certified temporary judge, which is a volunteer attorney position and does not entitle him to use the title of (temporary) judge outside of the courtroom.  Further, he has no employment relationship with the court.”