Yes, they would hope I would lose my composure, wouldn't they? So far, it has been the defendants and their counsel that have been losing their composure. Schwab's attorney started name-calling before the Court of Appeal, in fact, if you can believe that from a top attorney.
Here's what he wrote:
This is a case brought by a self-proclaimed "day trader"...Since the day trader had entered into a written agreement...The day trader than filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus.
That was not very wise. I drafted and filed a writ petition seeking reversal of the arbitration orders. I did so after my attorneys were relieved. The Court of Appeal then directed Cyber/Schwab to file an opposition, specifically to "address all issues raised by the petition." The Court also warned the defendants that a peremptory writ could be issued in the first instance. Now counsel should have called me by either name, "Plaintiff" or "Petitioner," but calling me some speculator playing games in Court was a very poor strategic tactical move. Very, very few writ petitions are granted. Most are summarily denied without any opposition being requested. So the Court saw possible merit in my petitions. For counsel to then start attacking me in the opening paragraph was a mistake, because in so doing by definition it also insulted the Court, who took my brief seriously.
Now, showing even more desperation, the Brokerage Defendants are trying to have me sanctioned, have filed a motion to strike under various codes - except there's a problem there: to strike something that something must be a part of the Court record. What they're trying to strike is not a part of the record. They claim that I, who have no formal legal qualification whatsoever, am attempting to harass and confuse them. Believe it or not.
Obviously, the discussion here is a lot different than that in Court. Let me repost some briefs I have filed so that you'll clearly see that no one is losing their cool. In Court, it will be the facts, the law applied to those facts, and then hopefully a persuasive case built from the ground up, logically and seamlessly. The defendants will - and already have - try to cloud the issues, confuse the jury. My job is to make it all as clear as possible. |
