Bismarck's Descendant Met With Chilly Reception at Broward Federal Courthouse.

Can't Bismarck's descendant just keep filing lawsuits against David Rockefeller/President Obama/Al Sharpton/The Pointer Sisters without continually being hassled by The Man?

(For tonight's performance, the role of "The Man" is being played by kindly deputy USMs in the Broward federal courthouse.)

After having one complaint dismissed by Judge Zloch (and his motion for in forma pauperis denied) and another dismissed by Judge Martinez and then another by Judge Cooke (but his in forma pauperis motion was granted!), it seems our erstwhile Squinky, Blinky, and Mod Nazi spy/pro se plaintiff got into a little kerfuffle while one his way to filing yet another magnum opus up in Broward federal court.

Here's the best part:

It took five (5) DUSM's to finally control DELANEY and place him under arrest as he continued to kick and throw closed fist strikes at them.

Five deputy marshalls??

And it only took two of Obama's goons to jump the poor guy as he slept fitfully on an Hawaiian beach.

It's funny I happened to be in line at the courthouse just as all this unfolded, and managed to capture the entire encounter on my smartphone (see above).

Bismarck's Drafting Skills Could Use Some Work!

Oh the poor hapless descendant of Bismarck's pro se travails in federal court continue.

First, Erica Jung's (sic) loving son got no love from Judge Martinez, even though he specifically namechecked the Pointer Sisters.

Now Judge Cooke offers the royal plaintiff some brief-writing tips.

Admittedly, some of her suggestions in terms of structure and flow are quite technical:

The complaint barely articulates an intelligible sentence and certainly fails to assert a colorable claim for relief. The 12-page document is a rambling collection of quotes, references to historical landmarks, celebrities, movies, and obscure and apocalyptic bible references. Throughout the body of the complaint, Plaintiff has underlined selected words, in no discernable pattern, to reveal what he has identified to be a “coded message.” These “messages” are nothing more than a random collection of words arranged together in incoherent paragraphs.

Hey, this guy's stealing my act!

Lawyers, Help Your Judges Out!

Listen, you're in federal court.

You are all big corporations (McArthur Dairy, Dean Foods) so you have good lawyers to represent you.

You have filed a summary judgment motion, which is a carefully-defined pleading with technical and substantive requirements and important consequences if granted.

Yet you have left Judge Cooke with the following:

Rather than articulating independent legal arguments for summary judgment, McArthur and Dean Foods elected to “incorporate by reference the arguments sets [sic] forth in the memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) and their reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22).” (Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. 6 n.4 (ECF No. 31)). Ordinarily, an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment identifies the relevant factual findings related to the issues ripe for summary disposition. Unfortunately, in this case, McCowtree has failed or otherwise refused to respond to merits of the motion, with factual contentions or otherwise, and McArthur and Dean Foods have not concisely set forth all facts which are material to the resolution of the claims. The record pleadings, specifically the Complaint, Counterclaims, and answers and affirmative defenses thereto, provide even less clarity as they raise numerous issues of material fact.

Come on folks, don't you want the Judge to rule in your favor?

Ancillary Rothstein Proceedings Churn On.

TDBankorder

The latest Rothstein news comes from Judge Cooke, who denied TD Bank's motion to stay a civil suit pending before her on the grounds that TD's former Regional Vice President, Frank Spinosa, is about to be indicted and therefore TD can't mount an effective defense:

TD Bank seeks a stay of this civil action pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against Frank Spinosa, its former Regional Vice President. The Government has not indicted Mr. Spinosa. Shortly before the close of fact discovery in this case, TD Bank deposed Plaintiff’s corporate representative, and several of its partners and agents. Two of Plaintiff’s deponents testified about an alleged September 25, 2009 meeting and an alleged August 17, 2009 phone call where Mr. Spinosa made false representations to Plaintiff. The crux of TD Bank’s Motion is that these are new allegations, and that it cannot defend itself against them because Mr. Spinosa has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, TD Bank seeks a stay of these civil proceedings.

Judge Cooke doesn't buy it:

In light of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s deponents’ testimony that Mr. Spinosa made misrepresentations in an August 17, 2009 phone call and in a September 25, 2009 meeting can hardly be characterized as “new allegations.” This case should not be stayed merely because TD Bank waited until just before close of fact discovery to take the deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative, agents, and partners. That Mr. Spinosa would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege is also not new information. Mr. Spinosa invoked the privilege on June 10, 2010 and December 3, 2010, in two other cases, and he invoked the privilege in a February 17, 2011 deposition in this case.

Hmm, not to put too fine a point on it.

Judge Cooke To Decide Important Issues of "Body Darkness Prejudice."

Folks I've been slammed today so I apologize for getting this up a little late.

Let's see, the 11th upheld certain Florida statutory caps on noneconomic damages in med/mal cases, but also certified a few issues to the Florida Supremes because -- surprise -- these issues are "unsettled":

Plaintiffs next challenge the cap under several provisions of the Florida and United States Constitutions. We first address Plaintiffs’ argument that the cap violates the United States Constitution. We then review Plaintiffs’ challenge to the cap under the Takings Clause of the Florida Constitution, Art. X, § 6, because Florida constitutional law on the matter is well settled. Florida constitutional law on the other provisions of the Florida Constitution under which Plaintiffs challenge the statutory cap, however, is unsettled. For this reason, we will certify several questions of state constitutional law to the Florida Supreme Court under its certification procedure.

(Shh, don't tell Governor Scott.)

But the more significant story, of course, is one man's quixotic fight against "body darkness prejudice" at our public parks and beaches, now undressing unfolding in Judge Cooke's courtroom.

Fight the power (and do it the way God intended)!

11th Circuit Rules Against "Peek-a-Boo" Lounge!

The 11th Circuit, with Judge Cooke sitting by designation, has ruled against a Bradenton strip club, the "Peek-a-Boo" lounge, which had challenged a ridiculous ordinance designed to take all the fun out of life:

The ordinance allows employees of sexually oriented businesses to appear “semi-nude,” id. § 2-2.5-18(b), defined as “a condition in which a person is not nude, but is showing a majority of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola and extending across the width of the breast at that point, or is showing the majority of the male or female buttocks,” id. § 2-2.5-2. Employees appearing semi-nude, however, must “remain[] at least six (6) feet from any patron or customer and on a stage that is at least eighteen (18) inches from the floor and in a room of at least one thousand (1,000) square feet.””

Seriously?

That would mean at least half the parents at any South Florida children's birthday party held near a body of water would be in violation of this ordinance.

Now that you mention it, I am in violation of this ordinance right now.

But the First Amendment was not designed to protect a majority of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola and extending across the width of the breast at that point, according to Judge Marcus, mostly because of the "secondary effects" (no, not that kind).

The district court took extensive evidence and, indeed, the County spared no expense, sending in a top investigator, Tom McCarron, to find out exactly what goes on in these clubs:

At Pandora’s Box, Mr. McCarren was able to pay a dancer for a private dance, during which the dancer removed the tape over one of her nipples and allowed Mr. McCarren to touch her breast, buttocks, and genital area. At Paper Moon, Mr. McCarren was able to pay a dancer to go into a back room with him, where she removed all clothing except her G-string and allowed Mr. McCarren to touch her breasts.

Mr. McCarren, you sir deserve a medal for your fierce and relentless pursuit of the facts.

(Or at least a nice massage -- oh wait, that's your next case!)

But in the end, it was Mr. McCarren's dedicated muckraking that made all the difference:

The bottom line (ed. note -- ha ha) is that the County has presented a substantial body of evidence to support its rationale for adopting the ordinance. Peek-a-Boo has failed even to address much of that evidence at all, and it has failed to show that the County’s rationale or this body of evidence was unreasonable.

In other words, "Peek-a-Boo" has bottomed out.

Luther Campbell Doesn't Really Care Much For Judge Cooke.

It's true we broke news of and have been actively covering the Luke Campbell case that Richard Brodsky masterfully tried before Judge Cooke, but now Uncle Luke, a columnist at the very fine Riptide, breaks his silence over the controversy and has some harsh words for Judge Cooke:

When I finally heard about the allegations, I fought to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case.

The judge refused me, ruling there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. It didn't look good for Miami's favorite uncle. So I hired Richard Brodsky, former attorney of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to defend me. At that point, I had spent a lot of money, and knew I would have to spend a lot more.

When the trial began two weeks ago, Butler was allowed to talk about her job, child, and community service. The photographer was afforded the same opportunity. But when I was on the stand, the judge instructed my lawyer to stop asking me questions about myself. She said that information was irrelevant.

I respect some judges, but not all of them. There is always a chance you'll get one who doesn't like you, your political leanings, or your core values. I would rather face a jury of my peers, who can debate the merits of the argument and come to an unbiased conclusion. In my case, the jury saw through the judge's power play.

Me:  Be a gracious winner.  You won the case, for chrissakes!  You don't need to slam Judge Cooke for her "power play," whatever that means.  Litigants don't really hold equal power with the presiding judge in a federal case, anyways.

Also, and I'll let my buddy Brodsky weigh in on this if he's so inclined, but maybe the judge let in evidence of the plaintiff's background because it went to her damages?

Just take the "W" and move on.

BTW, I'm happy Luke spent a lot of money on Richard -- it was evidently worth every penny.

Your Daily Morning Luke Campbell Verdict Form.

Luke Campbell Verdict Form

A fresh read (along with your coffee).

Note -- excessive use of exclamation points temporarily suspended due to mockery by David O. Markus.

Uncle Luke Wins Trial!

Full defense verdict!

Luke Campbell Case In Trial!

Luke Cambell Evidence Lesson

Trial again on Monday before Judge Cooke, and on the eve of week two new counsel Richard Brodsky submits a tutorial on the difference between authenticity and admissible hearsay:

The issue is whether the two returns of service, in the forms of affidavits from a process server, are admissible.  In denying the Defendant’s objection to the admissibility of these documents as hearsay, the Court stated that they are self-­‐authenticating, and therefore admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 901.  Respectfully, this is a fundamental misconception of the purpose of Rule 901.

I feel like I'm back in my evidence class!

Luke Campbell Loses Motion to Dismiss!

Luke Campbell Order

Well it appears Judge Cooke has ruled and given Luke Campbell an early Thanksgiving gift -- a big fat goose egg:

Plaintiffs argue that Campbell is liable for the negligence of the Luke Corporations under Florida’s business judgment rule, Florida Statute § 607.0831. “Under the business judgment rule, directors are presumed to have acted properly and in good faith, and are called to account for their actions only when they are shown to have engaged in fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion.” Cottle v. Storer Commc’ns, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 574 (11th Cir. 1988).

Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges that Campbell willfully and recklessly failed to use reasonable care in performing his duties as the sole corporate director for the Luke Corporations. Count II further alleges that Campbell acted in bad faith and that the proximate result of Campbell’s actions have lead Plaintiffs to be damaged in an amount in excess of $400,000.00 plus interest and costs. The allegations of personal negligence set forth in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to satisfy the business judgment rule. Therefore, I find that Count II survives the Motion to Dismiss.

First the Canes and now this!