(res judicata) Answer to the 2nd Amended Complaint

Haig Berberian’s lawyers file Haig Berberian’s Answer to my Second Amended Complaint, mysteriously raising res judicata as his 13th Affirmative Defense on Friday the 13th of July 1984.1, 2, 3

1 Res judicata is Latin for “a thing adjudged.” Common synonyms for this doctrine are accommodated, adjudication, adjusted, agreed, arranged, brought to termination, came to determination, concluded, decided, decision, decree, determination, judgment, negotiated, and resolved. Legally speaking, res judicata means that a legal or equitable matter before the court, involving the same parties, has already been decided on its merits by another court having competent jurisdiction and is conclusive as to all debatable items that were litigated or could have been litigated in that suit. (The judgment cannot be based on a procedural error such as a failure to serve the defendant with legal process) Such decision on the merits is binding and conclusive upon all other courts of concurrent power. Under the companion rule of “collateral estoppel” (also raised as a defense by opposing counsel in my case), the plaintiff is not allowed to file a second lawsuit for money damages using a different cause of action, and involving the same parties, based on any issue of fact common to both suits that had been litigated and determined in the first suit. (Boy, I get around, don’t I) The application of res judicata [claim preclusion] and “collateral estoppel” [issue preclusion] produces finality for the parties and their privies, the case is over, and the decision is binding on all causes of action, claims, and issues determined in the lawsuit. Question: Why didn’t my attorneys ask opposing counsel to prove it? Answer: Because the res judicata and the “collateral estoppel” decrees (that were raised by opposing counsel, the nature of which were known to my counsel, but not to me) are and were a big fat secret, the foundation of the hidden agenda referenced throughout this website, clandestinely permeating this entire legal matter (and “psychodrama”) from top to bottom, front and back, side to side, inside and out. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that my attorneys proceeded with my case as though res judicata and “collateral estoppel” were determining their progression. But then again, perhaps they had simply just swigged and swilled just a bit too much Gallo v. Gallo wine and became immobilized.
2 A mysterious res judicata was also raised at about the same time in another legal case involving some of the same Modesto players, that case being, E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co. One such common player was the “Honorable” E. Dean Price, a corrupt former lawyer for Haig Berberian. “Judigotta Price” would rule in the winery’s favor, judging that Joseph Gallo was barred from countersuing his older brothers, Ernest and Julio, in a related matter concerning the original ownership of the winery. The younger brother should legally have been an equal partner. But the legacy of that issue, astoundingly unbeknownst to Joseph, had, a long time past, mysteriously, already been adjudicated. Well, whaddayaknow-res judicata.
3 Haig Berberian’s lawyers raised res judicata knowing that my attorneys would not inquire about it in any way, shape or form. Opposing counsel and mine were in agreement. Haig’s lawyers were probably bound by law to raise this defense doctrine and both sides used it as an end run around and behind me. And in this regard, every single judge who sat on the case after this defense was raised, looked the other way. “Mum’s the word.” I was not to know about res judicata. And this afforded both sides the opportunity to continue playing footsie, “This Little Piggy Went to Market,” and doing the nasty with each other.

 Click here to view the Answer