DOCSLIB.ORG

Audita Querela a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2000-2021, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2021 Edition Audita Querela A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 Section 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela .......................................................... 4 Table 1: Housing Court Case Decisions .................................................................... 8 Table 2: Other Unreported Decisions (Audita Querela) .............................................. 12 Figure 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela ....................................................... 16 Table 3: Federal Criminal Connecticut Case ............................................................. 19 Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit [email protected] Audita Querela - 1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and currency of any resource cited in this research guide. View our other research guides at http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project. The online versions are for informational purposes only. References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these databases. Remote access is not available. Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm Audita Querela - 2 Introduction A Guide to Resources in the Law Library “Audita querela is a limited and extraordinary legal remedy, based on equity, to inhibit the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising subsequent to the judgment. .The broad issue becomes not comparative inconvenience but comparative hardship. .Courts have a longstanding general power of equity to afford relief against unreasonable conduct even when the activity is otherwise lawful. .Equity is a system of positive jurisprudence founded on established principles and adaptable to new circumstances not remediable at law.” Westfarms Associates v. Kathy-John's, Inc., Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Housing Session, No. SPH 851130901 733 (March 17, 1986) (1986 Conn. Super. Lexis 51) (1986 WL 400555). “The history of the writ of audita querela in Connecticut reveals its limited applicability to civil judgments.” State v. Alegrand, 130 Conn. App. 652, 666, 23 A.3d 1250, 1258 (2011). “. .the writ of audita querela was found to be for use in civil matters when enforcement of a judgment would be contrary to the ends of justice due to matters that have arisen since its rendition.” State v. Cotto, 111 Conn. App. 818, 820, 960 A.2d 1113, 1114 (2008). “The court found that the defendant was not credible and therefore denied the plaintiff’s request to enjoin the eviction. Where the trial court is the arbiter of credibility, this court does not disturb findings on the basis of the credibility of witnesses.” Ruiz v. Gatling, 73 Conn. App. 574, 576, 808 A.2d 710, 711 (2002). “Reference to the writ is made most frequently in cases where payment has been made after the judgment or where subsequent protection of the bankruptcy court has been invoked.” Cohen v. MBA Financial Corp., Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, No. CV 950379585 (July 2, 1999) (25 Conn. L. Rptr. 3) (1999 Conn. Super. Lexis 1770) (1999 WL 509814). “There is no Practice Book rule regarding Writs of Audita Querela. There is no statute authorizing Writs of Audita Querela. Writs of Audita Querela are common law. They precede the first appellate statute in Connecticut passed in 1882. There is no statutory right of appeal from a Writ of Audita Querela. Housing Authority v. Melanson, 23 Conn. App. 519, 521 (1990); Lashgari v. Lashgari, 197 Conn. 200- 201 (fn. 7) (1985).” Wheeler v. Jones, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford- Norwalk at Norwalk, Housing Session, No. SPNO-9412 16795 (July 31, 1995) (1995 Conn. Super. Lexis 2273) (1995 WL 476573). “Because the writ of audita querela is regularly filed in the housing courts of Connecticut, judges there have had occasion to develop the doctrine further.” East Hartford Housing Authority v. Kendrick, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford- New Britain at Hartford, No. SPH 9406-76333 (December 6, 1994) (1994 Conn. Super. Lexis 3393) (1994 WL 740792). Audita Querela - 3 Section 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela A Guide to Resources in the Law Library SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the application of the writ of audita querela. DEFINITIONS: “The ancient writ of audita querela has been defined as ‘a writ issued to afford a remedy to a defendant against whom judgment had been rendered, but who had new matter in defense (e.g., a release) arising, or at least raisable for the first time, after judgment.’” Ames v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 206 Conn. 16, 20, 536 A.2d 563, 565 (1988). See also: Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014, p. 156-7; Connecticut Landlord and Tenant Law with Forms, 3rd ed., by Noble Allen, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2021, § 8-8:4. “Audita querela is a remedy granted in favor of one against whom execution has issued on a judgment, the enforcement of which would be contrary to justice because of (1) matters arising subsequent to its rendition, or (2) prior existing defenses that were not available to the judgment debtor in the original action, or (3) the judgment creditor's fraudulent conduct or circumstances over which the judgment debtor had no control. Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d Ed. 1969).” Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon, 40 Conn. App. 30, 32, 668 A.2d 737, 739 (1995). “A writ of audita querela is a post-judgment motion designed to postpone or prevent enforcement of a judgment because of equitable considerations. Norman Associates v. Vann, SPH 8302- 17843 (1983) #437, Citing 2 Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure, Sec. 209 (2d Ed.) Audita querela is an extraordinary remedy arising in equity to prevent the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising subsequent to the judgment. Westfarms Associates v. Kathy-John's Inc., SPH 8511- 30901 (1986) #733, Citing Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure, Sec. 209. The issue for the Court is that of comparative hardship.” Lee v. Connor, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, No. SPWA-8905-07283 (October 17, 1990) (2 Conn. L. Rptr. 716) (1990 Conn. Super. Lexis 1582) (1990 WL 261923). FORMS: Connecticut Summary Process Manual, by Paul J. Marzinotto, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2002. Form 8.14. Writ of Audita Querela, p.98 15A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Annotated, Judgments, Thomson West, 2016 (Also available on Westlaw). Audita Querela - 4 § 440. Petition or application – For writ of audita querela – Following levy of execution § 441. Petition or application – For writ of audita querela – Claim paid before entry of judgment § 442. Writ of audita querela – To sheriff or constable – Summons § 443. Writ of audita querela – Statutory form RECORDS & Connecticut Supreme Court Records and Briefs, December 1987. BRIEFS: Ames v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 206 Conn. 16, 536 A.2d 563 (1988). Figure 1. Includes: Application for Writ of Audita Querela (with certification and order) CASES: Orange Palladium, LLC v. Ready, 144 Conn. App. 283, 72 A.3d 1191 (2013). “The defendant further argues that the trial court Once you have improperly denied its application for a writ of audita querela. We identified useful cases, it is decline to review this claim because the precise legal basis for important to update the writ was not distinctly raised at trial.” the cases before you rely on them. TD Banknorth, N.A. v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Updating case law means checking to Connecticut, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 536, 547-548, 37 A.3d 766, see if the cases are 773 (2012). “The defendant also argues that the court erred by still good law. You failing to consider his pleadings as a writ of audita querela. The can contact your defendant did not file a writ of audita querela with the trial court, local law librarian to learn about the and therefore this argument is not properly before us. .A writ tools available to of audita querela is filed with the court that rendered the you to update judgment complained of. .Because the defendant did not cases. distinctly raise the claim of audita querela in the trial court, we need not address here the vitality of that writ in this case.” State v. Alegrand, 130 Conn. App. 652, 669-670, 23 A.3d 1250, 1260 (2011). “There is no Connecticut precedent to authorize the civil writ of audita querela in the criminal context, and we decline to authorize it for the first time here. We recognize that there is a split of authority in the federal courts as to how audita querela might be used; however, we must look to the source of our own jurisdiction as a court system established under the Connecticut constitution and Connecticut statutes. The writ of audita querela remains nothing more than a more specific form of equitable relief and remains a remedy for civil judgments.” Anthony Julian Railroad Construction Company, Inc. v. Mary Ellen Drive Associates, 50 Conn. App. 289, 294-295, 717 A.2d 294, 297 (1998). “This case provides an appropriate context for the application of this common law writ. Here, matters have arisen subsequent to the entry of the judgment that render it inequitable to allow the plaintiff to execute on the defendant's property. These subsequent events consist of a negotiated settlement with two of the defendants in this action after the judgment of strict foreclosure was rendered, along with the release of the mechanic's lien, which is the sole means of recovery that was pleaded by the plaintiff in this action.
Recommended publications
  • TEMPORAL ASPECTS of the FINALITY of JUDGMENTS the SIGNIFICANCE of FEDERAL RULE 60(B) a Prime Function of Legal Systems Is the Settling of Controversies

    TEMPORAL ASPECTS of the FINALITY of JUDGMENTS the SIGNIFICANCE of FEDERAL RULE 60(B) a Prime Function of Legal Systems Is the Settling of Controversies

    THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW and has punctured the illusions held by some 67 that the Webb law gave export associations a blanket exemption from the Sherman Act. Above all, however, the Alkasso case suggests the possibility that the exemption granted by the Webb Act may prove to be meaningless if the Act's provisos are properly enforced. TEMPORAL ASPECTS OF THE FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FEDERAL RULE 60(b) A prime function of legal systems is the settling of controversies. Settling implies ending, and ending implies finality. Ordinarily, then, when final judg- ment is entered in a cause, all that remains is execution, the transmuting of law into force. But there is yet another prime function of law, and that is to do justice be- tween parties. judgment settles controversies; but the settlement may not necessarily be the most just. Common-sense notions of justice would seem to require that decisions be changed when they do not correspond with prevalent notions of right. The law has gradually been dvolving techniques to allow the victims of in- correct "final" judgments to secure relief in court. The process has been long and slow. The desire for absolute finality is strong, and satisfies both aesthetic and administrative needs. Techniques of appeal and rehearing allow correction of lower court misapplication of law. The development of techniques for work- ing substantial justice has been more difficult in cases where defects of fact rather than of law exist in the judgment, and the time for appeal or rehearing has passed. At common law a judgment could be set aside during the same term of court at which it was entered., Ordinarily, a judgment could not subsequently be set aside.
  • Case 3:16-Cv-00716-VLB Document 56 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 7

    Case 3:16-Cv-00716-VLB Document 56 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 7

    Case 3:16-cv-00716-VLB Document 56 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JACQUELINE CURRY and RYAN CURRY, : : Plaintiffs, : CIVIL CASE NUMBER: : v. : 3:16-cv-716 (VLB) : DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. : and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a : AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, : January 9, 2017 : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REMANDING CASE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. 28], PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT. 41], DEFENDANTS’ CONSENT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY [DKT. 42], AND THE PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE [Dkt. 55] I. Introduction Plaintiffs Jacqueline and Ryan Curry brought the instant action seeking relief from a judgment of strict foreclosure entered in the Connecticut Superior Court. [Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 1-2]. Pending before this Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 28], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 41], Defendants’ Consent Motion to Stay Discovery [Dkt. 42], and the parties’ Joint Request for Status Conference [Dkt. 55]. For the reasons that follow, the Court remands the case back to the Superior Court and DENIES all pending motions as moot. II. Background Plaintiffs live in a home at 1216 West Main Street in Meriden, Connecticut. [Compl. ¶ 1]. The mortgage on this home is held by Defendant Deutsche Bank 1 Case 3:16-cv-00716-VLB Document 56 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 7 National Trust Co. (“Deutsche Bank”) and is serviced by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a America’s Servicing Company (“Wells Fargo”). Between July 31, 2012 and April 17, 2015, Deutsche Bank sought and received four successive judgments of strict foreclosure from the Connecticut Superior Court.
  • United States District Court District of Connecticut

    United States District Court District of Connecticut

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MEGAN MCLOUGHLIN, et al., : o/b/o others similarly situated, : Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:08-cv-00944(VLB) v. : : PEOPLE’S UNITED BANK, INC. and : August 31, 2009 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, INC., : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Docs. ##55, 56] This case arises out of the loss of electronic banking data that was managed by The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Inc. ("BNY Mellon"), sued herein as Bank of New York Mellon, Incorporated. The lost electronic information included banking data about customers of People's United Bank Incorporated. ("PUB"). The named Plaintiffs consist of individuals who have or had accounts with PUB. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on their own behalf and on behalf of persons similarly situated: individuals with compromised banking information as a result of the Defendants’ loss of personal banking data. The Plaintiffs initially brought this action in Connecticut Superior Court, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The defendant banks removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) on June 24, 2008 [Doc. #1]. On January 2, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class 1 action complaint [Doc. #53], whereupon the Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and, in the alternative for lack of standing. [Docs. ## 55, 56]. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
  • Closing Functions Pursuant to Public Act 19-88

    Closing Functions Pursuant to Public Act 19-88

    CLOSING FUNCTIONS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC ACT 19-88 ACTIVITY PART OF CONDUCTING THE MEMO REFERENCE CLOSING (YES OR NO) Title Searching NO C.(1) Preparation of Closing NO C.(3) Documents which do not transfer title / affect legal rights Preparation of Closing YES: Connecticut Attorney must at C.(3) Documents which DO least actively supervise the drafting of transfer title / affect these documents legal rights Presiding Over the YES: Connecticut Attorney must C.(4) Signing at the Closing conduct and /or arrange for the meeting where documents are executed Attorney Presence at YES: Connecticut attorney must be C.(4)(c) Closing present and available when documents are executed Disbursement of Funds YES: Connecticut Attorney must at C.(5) least oversee and supervise Recording of NO C.(6)(a) and (b) Documents FAQS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC ACT 19-88 ACTIVITY PROHIBITED OR MEMO REFERENCE PERMITTED May Paralegals/Notaries PERMITTED: Connecticut C.(4)(b) Notarize Documents Attorney must be present and available Witness Only Closings PROHIBITED C.(4)(d) Mail-Away Closings PERMITTED C.(4)(e) (Including Remote Execution of Sale Documents) Senate Bill 320/Public Act 19-88 Memorandum Executive Summary Many people have approached the Connecticut Bar Association regarding Public Act 19- 88, “An Act Concerning Real Estate Closings,” (the “Act”) and the Act’s effect on certain practices that have occurred in residential real estate purchase and sale transactions and refinances. The Real Property Section of the Connecticut Bar Association concludes that given the language of the Act, a Connecticut admitted attorney must be meaningfully involved in conducting a real estate closing as set forth herein.1 Introduction Effective October 1, 2019, Connecticut law requires that attorneys admitted in Connecticut in good standing conduct real estate closings.
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

    In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL ACTION ) No. 11-20085-01-KHV v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION RODNEY MCINTOSH, ) No. 17-2596-KHV ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On June 18, 2013, the Court sentenced defendant to 144 months in prison. On August 5, 2016, the Court overruled defendant’s motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #242). On September 23, 2016, the Court overruled defendant’s motion to reconsider. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #252). Defendant appealed. On January 24, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. See Order Denying Certificate Of Appealability And Dismissing The Appeal (Doc. #259). On April 17, 2017, the Court dismissed defendant’s motion to set aside his convictions. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #261). On June 15, 2017, the Court overruled defendant’s motion to reconsider. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #270). On August 22, 2017, the Court dismissed defendant’s Motion Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (6) (Doc. #277), which the Court also construed as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and overruled defendant’s Motion For An Investigation For Obstruction Of Justice Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 535 (Doc. #276) and defendant’s Motion To Reconsider Pursuant To Fed. Rule Of Civil Procedure 59 (Doc. #278). This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion To Reconsider Pursuant To Fed.
  • A Review on Golding: Looking Back on 30 Years of Golding Review in the Criminal Context

    A Review on Golding: Looking Back on 30 Years of Golding Review in the Criminal Context

    A Review on Golding: Looking Back on 30 Years of Golding Review in the Criminal Context March 30, 2020 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. CT Bar Association New Britain, CT CT Bar Institute, Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (General) NY: 2.0 CLE Credits (AOP) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 105 Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism As a lawyer I must strive to make our system of justice work fairly and Where consistent with my client's interests, I will communicate with efficiently. In order to carry out that responsibility, not only will I comply opposing counsel in an effort to avoid litigation and to resolve litigation with the letter and spirit of the disciplinary standards applicable to all that has actually commenced; lawyers, but I will also conduct myself in accordance with the following Principles of Professionalism when dealing with my client, opposing I will withdraw voluntarily claims or defense when it becomes apparent parties, their counsel, the courts and the general public. that they do not have merit or are superfluous; Civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of professionalism and should not I will not file frivolous motions; be equated with weakness; I will endeavor to be courteous and civil, both in oral and in written I will make every effort to agree with other counsel, as early as possible,
  • July 28, 2011 Villeneuve V. State of Connecticut

    July 28, 2011 Villeneuve V. State of Connecticut

    11-11 To Be Argued By: WILLIAM A. COLLIER ======================================== FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Docket No. 11-11 MARK E. VILLENEUVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, -vs- STATE OF CONNECTICUT, SALVATORE DIPIANO, RICHARD FLORENTINE, FRANCES DERA, PATRICIA KING, MEMBERS OF THE WINDHAM GRIEVANCE PANEL, JULIA AURIGEMMA, JUDGE, (For continuation of Caption, See Inside Cover) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ======================================== REDACTED BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ERNESTI MATTEI ======================================== DAVID B. FEIN United States Attorney District of Connecticut WILLIAM A. COLLIER ROBERT M. SPECTOR (of counsel) Assistant United States Attorneys R IC H A R D B LU M E N TH A L, BA R B A RA M . Q U I N N , J U D G E , A N D R E W N O R T O N , C O N N EC TIC U T STA TEW ID E G R IEV A N C E COMMITTEE, MICHAEL FEDELE, MARK DUBOIS, ERNESTI J. MATTEI, OFFICIAL CAPACITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities. iii Statement of Jurisdiction. viii Statement of Issue Presented for Review. xi Preliminary Statement. 2 Statement of the Case.. 3 Statement of Facts and Proceedings Relevant to this Appeal. 4 I. State Administrative and Judicial Proceedings. 4 II. Plaintiff’s Federal Suit. 8 Summary of Argument.. 11 Argument. 12 I. Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(3) and 8.4(4) Are Constitutional On Their Face.. 12 A. Relevant facts. 12 B. Governing law and standard of review. 12 1. Grievance procedure.
  • Federal Prisoner Applies for Writ of Audita Querela To

    Federal Prisoner Applies for Writ of Audita Querela To

    HEADNOTE: 1987 NARCOTICS CONVICTION - NO MARYLAND SENTENCE BEING SERVED - FEDERAL PRISONER APPLIES FOR WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA TO HAVE MARYLAND SENTENCE VACATED - WHAT IS AUDITA QUERELA? - AUDITA QUERELA IN MARYLAND - A TALE FROM THE CRYPT - A POSSIBLE METAMORPHOSIS IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT - A FEDERAL CORRECTION OF COURSE - A FALSE LIGHT ON THE SHORE - REQUIESCAT IN PACE - A WRIT BY ANY OTHER NAME - AN AFFIRMANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2066 September Term, 2000 _____________________________________ BARRY MILES v. STATE OF MARYLAND _____________________________________ Murphy, C.J. Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (retired, specially assigned) Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (retired, specially assigned), JJ. _____________________________________ Opinion by Moylan, J. _____________________________________ Filed: November 30, 2001 The subject of this appeal is the Writ of Audita Querela. The pro se appellant, Barry Miles, attempts to mount a belated attack on a fourteen-year-old narcotics conviction by resuscitating that ancient common law writ that, even in its lifetime, was an exclusively civil remedy and, even in that limited capacity, was characterized by the Court of Appeals one hundred fifty years ago as having, "both in England and in this country, ... fallen almost entirely into disuse." Job v. Walker, 3 Md. 129, 132 (1852). In Maryland, indeed, it could not even qualify as falling into disuse, having never been used in the first place. "[W]e know of no instance in Maryland where it has ever been resorted to." Id. Nor has it "ever been [successfully] resorted to" in the one hundred forty-nine years since 1852. Measured from our birth as an independent state, therefore, the "fall into disuse" is now three times as irretrievably deep as it was in 1852.
  • 1- United States District Court Eastern District Of

    1- United States District Court Eastern District Of

    2:59-cr-37873-LPZ-VMM Doc # 25 Filed 12/06/10 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 154 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KENNETH M. WOJNICZ, Petitioner, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 59-37873 v. DISTRICT JUDGE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN Respondent. _______________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY “AMENDED PETITION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EXTRAORDINARY WRIT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1651(a)” I. Introduction This case comes before the court on petitioner’s Amended Petition and Memorandum in support of Extraordinary Writ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (D/E #18), in which petitioner seeks to set aside a 1960 conviction for Unlawful Possession of Firearms. Petitioner seeks either a writ of audita querela or a writ of coram nobis. The government filed a response in opposition to the amended petition (D/E #23). For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that the amended petition (D/E #18) be DENIED and that this case be closed. II. Background In light of the fact that petitioner is attacking a conviction obtained in 1960, it is unsurprising that the factual background of this case is unclear. Petitioner does, however, -1- 2:59-cr-37873-LPZ-VMM Doc # 25 Filed 12/06/10 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 155 provide some exhibits regarding the history of this case. (Amended Petition, Exhibits A-D) According to the Information filed in federal court, petitioner unlawfully and knowingly possessed a sawed-off shotgun without having registered it on or about November 26, 1959.
  • Key Differences Between Appeals in the Second Circuit and Connecticut’S Appellate Courts

    Key Differences Between Appeals in the Second Circuit and Connecticut’S Appellate Courts

    Key Differences Between Appeals WIG GI N AND DANA Counsellors at Law in the Second Circuit and Connecticut’s Appellate Courts by Erika L. Amarante and Kevin M. Smith Appellate Practice Group This publication is a summary of rules and cases. Nothing in this book constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained as a result of personal consultation with an attorney. The information published here is believed to be accurate at the time of publication but is subject to change and does not purport to be a complete statement of all relevant issues. (c) 2007 Wiggin and Dana KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APPEALS IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND CONNECTICUT’S APPELLATE COURTS by ERIKA L. AMARANTE AND KEVIN M. SMITH I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 2 II. PRE-APPEAL ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 3 A. Preserving Issues for Appeal............................................................................................ 3 B. General Verdict Rule........................................................................................................ 5 C. The Meaning of “Judgment” ........................................................................................... 6 D. Post-Judgment Motions.................................................................................................... 8 E. Perfecting the Trial Court Record ...............................................................................
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X Jane Doe, ) No

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X Jane Doe, ) No

    Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------ x Jane Doe, ) No. 1:15-mc-01174-JG ) Petitioner, ) ) -against- ) ) United States of America, ) ) Respondent. ) ------------------------------------------------------ x BRIEF OF AMICA CURIAE MARGARET COLGATE LOVE Dated: October 8, 2015 Jones Day By: /s/ Todd R. Geremia OF COUNSEL: Todd R. Geremia Leigh A. Krahenbuhl 222 East 41st Street Jones Day New York, NY 10017.6702 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601.1692 Lawrence D. Rosenberg (Pro hac vice admission pending) Paul V. Lettow (Pro hac vice admission pending) 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001.2113 Attorneys for Amica Curiae Margaret Colgate Love Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 95 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 5 I. THE WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT PROVIDES A BASIS FOR RELIEVING THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CONVICTION ........................................................................ 5 A. Audita Querela Relief May Be Granted
  • Habeas Corpus Procedures and Long-Term Executive Detention

    Habeas Corpus Procedures and Long-Term Executive Detention

    File: Falkoff final for Darby Created on: 4/27/2009 2:24:00 PM Last Printed: 5/19/2009 1:10:00 PM BACK TO BASICS: HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES AND LONG-TERM EXECUTIVE DETENTION MARC D. FALKOFF † This article addresses a straightforward question: What should ha- beas corpus hearings look like for prisoners who challenge long-term detention decisions made solely in the executive branch? Prior to 9/11, we had little reason to ponder the procedural nuts and bolts of such hear- ings, since they existed only in the hypothetical. Indeed, before the “Global War on Terror” began, habeas litigation in contemporary Ameri- can courts dealt almost exclusively with collateral challenges to criminal convictions, where detention was premised on an underlying judicial determination of guilt.1 For this kind of habeas proceeding, the applica- bility of statutory and judicially-crafted rules was clear.2 But events have conspired to make grappling with the issue of “common law” habeas procedures unavoidable. Over the past seven years, the United States has detained, without charge or trial, both citi- zens3 and non-citizens4 on suspicion of involvement with terrorism. In a † Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University College of Law. J.D., Columbia Law School; Ph.D., Brandeis University; M.A., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; B.A., University of Pennsylvania. Since July 2004, I have represented more than a dozen Yemeni nationals being de- tained by the United States military at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. I appreciate the advice and assistance of Jon Connolly, Robert Knowles, Aaron Galloway, and John Castlen.