The Footsie Follies Live On!

The collateral litigation over the alleged foot-tapping lawyer has itself spawned collateral litigation, which of course no one could have ever predicted.

Wasn't this case at one time about Peter Halmos' yacht?

The latest sideshow involves Ms. Dennis' testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and whether defendant's in-house counsel possibly mischaracterized Magistrate Judge Brown's order and thus....oh I don't know you can read it yourself:

On October 22, 2010, John F. Roth, asked that this Court’s October 7, 2010 Order, which found that Mr. Roth violated this Court’s previous Order (D.E. 1020), be amended since it was “issued without affording him notice and an opportunity to be heard or present evidence . . . .”  That motion should be denied not only for the reasons originally given by the Court, but also because in his response, not only does he not exculpate himself, but he has (1) exacerbated his improprieties, and (2) provided direct evidence that contradicts the “credible” Ms. Dennis. Furthermore, the Court should impose stricter sanctions against Mr. Roth as it is clear that he, a lawyer, in fact willfully violated this Court’s Order, sanction INA’s lawyers for leading this Court astray in regards to Ms. Dennis’s testimony. The Court should also find Ms. Dennis in contempt of Court for lying to it.

BTW, the word "sanction" only appears five times in this brief!

Toe-Tapping Lawyer Controversy Stays On High Road -- Ends Amid Charges of "Racial Slant."

 Motion to Reconsider

Ok, since we last checked in the Court denied the footsie motion, then plaintiffs moved to reconsider, then Magistrate Judge Brown denied the motion to reconsider (all links are Scribd).

There's a treasure trove of material in there, but I'm going to put up the plaintiff's motion to reconsider, because pound for pound it's a start to finish must-read.

BTW, I scoured the reconsideration motion for the source of this seemingly out of nowhere comment by the Judge in his order denying reconsideration: 

The court will not dignify the racial slant with a response.

Where did that come from?

Although it took me many hours of careful review, I think I may have found what prompted it:

It must be noted that the only witness asked as to whether or not he had been convicted of a felony and whether or not his employer had represented him in the past, was of the young African-American witness, and not of the other two witnesses.

All I can say is since the Court struck the plaintiffs' jury demand this is going to be one very interesting bench trial.

Magistrate Judge Brown: Case "Totally and Completely Out of Control"!

Totally Out of Control Order

You know how when a big piece of litigation ends there is a feeling of loss, sometimes even a little remorse?

That's how I'm going to feel when this case ends, which apparently will be exactly March 18, 2011:

The Court finds that it must manage its calendar, and this case in particular as it has gotten totally and completely out of control.  To allow it to go unfettered will allow what this Court stated early on - "it's all about the journey, not the destination."

"Allow it to go unfettered"?

As in "if the disease is allowed to go unfettered the parasite will spread rapidly through the body, leading to paralysis, coma, and ultimately a slow, painful death."

(He probably meant "unfettered" in some other sense.)

The Court: (Yelling at Mr. Klock) SIT

Biased Judge Objection

I've often wondered, in the toe-tapping lawyer case before Magistrate Judge Brown, when the s%&t would hit the fan, when all hail would break loose, when the "thin veneer of civilization" (to use a favorite Edgar Rice Burroughs phrase) would lift and more primitive impulses start to emerge, overcoming the good intentions of all involved and just tearing the whole danged thing apart.

That seems to have happened with an extraordinary filing by Peter Halmos, acting pro se.  It is titled "Pro Se Plaintiff's Objections to Biased and Prejudiced Court Orders" and is sort of a greatest hits package of allegedly prejudicial quotations from Court orders, transcripts, and various accusations of judicial misconduct.

My favorite part is Peter's lengthy collection of adverse statements in Court orders, which are neatly summarized in a easy-to-read chart.  That's a must-read.

There's also an extended riff on Judge Brown not disclosing that he was an "Insurance Defense Lawyer" for more than 20 years (is that true?) and a nice set of transcripts in which Judge Brown is allegedly (and repeatedly) yelling at Pete's lawyer Joe Klock.

All in a day's work kiddies.....

SFL Friday -- He Went Out Ant-Hunting With His Elephant and Gun....

I can't believe we made it to Friday.

Let's get right to it:

I Scribd this so you can click on the link, but Magistrate Judge Brown has scheduled a hearing on whether or not the plaintiffs in the toe-tapping lawyer case can unilaterally cancel a Court-ordered hearing.

Can this get any better?

(I'm thinking YES IT CAN)

Here's a highlight:

Plaintiffs are completely disingenuous when they claim they will not waive any matter that is properly before the jury ... they already have!

Unfortunately, plaintiffs wish to "kill an ant with an elephant". The real issue is the scope of the hearing. Filings of proposed testimony to be offered by defendant (which may or may not be allowed at the hearing) do not change the scope of the hearing. It will be governed by the Joint Motion of the parties (D.E. 698) and subsequent Order of the Court (D.E. 706). In large part, plaintiffs are correct -the hearing is to resolve question(s) surrounding the documentation supporting claims. Defendant will not be permitted to take a position at this hearing that it has not taken prior to the filing of the Joint Motion. However, the task of determining whether the items at issue are covered under the policy clearly is an issue at this hearing. Undoubtably, plaintiffs have understood this all along. See, e.g, D.E. 964.

Ok, sounds like the Court has already determined the issue -- so why is there a half-hour hearing on the hearing again?

In other news, you need to be at the right place at the right time, oy with this Carl Paladino, and salt turns out to be good for you.

Have a great weekend!

Let's Have A Meet and Confer!

Has anyone heard about that case involving the (alleged) toe-tapping lawyer?

Well for you junkies and obsessives, in rolled the defendants' response to an attempt by the plaintiffs to cancel an evidentiary hearing (not the toe-tapping one, which I believe is still on).

Plaintiffs allegedly filed their notice of cancellation without conferring first with the defendants, prompting this love note:

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE

Plaintiffs failed to confer with INA regarding their Notice in violation of Local Rule 7.1.A.3.  Had Plaintiffs done so, INA would have informed them of the pending Court Orders, Plaintiffs' obligations pursuant to those Orders, and the lack of any basis upon which Plaintiffs could conceivably attempt to unilaterally cancel a COURT ORDERED evidentiary hearing.  INA would further have informed Plaintiffs that their actions were sanctionable.  Due to the Plaintiffs' failure to confer with INA regarding this relief, Plaintiffs violated Local Rule 7.1.A.3 and this Court should strike the Notice.

Boy, that would have been some conference!

I'm not singling anyone out, but I often say it's pointless to have a "conversation" with someone who is unwilling to entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, that maybe they missed something, who is unwilling to be persuaded through open and collaborative inquiry, and who is just waiting for you to stop talking so they can continue their argument.

That's why I find so much of the political intertubes chatter to be so utterly lame.

However, through intertubular magic, we now bring you the missed "conference" described by defendants above:

Plaintiffs' Counsel ("PC"):  Hi, we're thinking about cancelling that big evidentiary hearing and wanted to confer with you about that.

Defendants' Counsel ("DC"):   (silence)

PC:  Hello, is this thing on?

DC:  (building.....)

PC:  Aaah well, ok, just wanted to let you know.   Have a nice.....

DC:   (slowly, through clenched teeth)  There are two pending Orders.  You have obligations pursuant to those Orders.  There is a lack of any basis upon which you could conceivably attempt to unilaterally cancel a COURT ORDERED evidentiary hearing.  Your actions are sanctionable. 

PC:  So glad we had a chance to talk!

DC:  Wait, did you see Glee last night?

PC:  (click)