« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
I think one of the most overlooked court personnell is the court reporter. Sure, they make a really good wage for doing nothing but typing, and they usually have an attitude, but then every once in a while you see something like this, and you actually feel sorry for the poor bastards. Just imagine trying to transcribe that......
Missing-evidence rule -- The doctrine that, when a party fails at trial to present evidence that the party controls and that would have been proper to present, the jury is entitled to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party.
This week's term is courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary.
It was a cold day...
The kind of day day when you raise a glass to the man who invented the remote start feature for automobiles, the kind of day where a stray gust of wind goes up your pantleg and makes you question the existence of the loving God...
I arrived at the courthouse early, to prepare my client for the foolishness to follow. It was the other side's hearing on a Petition for Rule to Show Cause. My client had left his half of the court-ordered expenses on her table a day or two after he should have, but well before the bills were due. Needless to say, it was a technical violation of the court order, but there was no injury. This Petition was brought simply to harrass my client.
An issue complicating this case is the presence of two minor children. No, strike that. The issue complicating this case is the presence of quite possibly the worst Children's Representative I've ever seen. The Rep has made some recommendations, which I actually laughed at in open court. The Rep has also been doing everything in his power to make us settle this case--not because it should be settled, but because if it goes to the next step, a court-appointed evaluator, the evaluator will almost certainly make recommendations that contradict the Rep's. This would make the Rep look like an idiot.
So we're at court (in DisDatDese County), and my opponent, Ima Weasel, attempts to step up in front of the judge without me. Apparently she did not see me sitting in the back with my client, and thought to get the jump on me. She stepped up almost an hour before our hearing was scheduled. When she started talking, I walked up behind her and let her go on for a little bit, and then the Judge looked up and asked me to comment. After the inevitable flinch by Ms. Weasel, I told the Judge that since we were speaking off the record, as all ex parte communications are, (another flinch), I might as well give my side of things.
After things were all said and done, no rule issued, my client was not found in contempt, and we worked out an agreed order. So, a waste of our time. The not so amusing thing was the Rep, who took us aside no less than four, four times and, in a long, sprawling, pointless, redundant lecture, tried to order us to settle the case.
I'm not sure how my fellow roguebarristers operate, but when I say, "No", I mean no. It's not rocket science, Rep. I don't agree with you, and it's because you are wrong. Earth to Rep, get your head out of your ass and order a spine, because now that the case is going to evaluation, you're flip-flopping on your earlier recommendations in an attempt to avoid almost certain embarrassment.
After we had worked out the agreed order, we step up in front of the Judge to ask for his suggestions on an Evaluator. The lawyers agree that evaluation is necessary (way to back me up, Weasel), but then the Rep starts his "diarrhea of the mouth" routine, stating that he thinks the parties can work this out (they can't agree on what day it is, for Pete's sake), that maybe mediation would help (they've been through mediation twice, no agreement on any issue), and that evaluation is expensive (my client is willing to front the whole amount.)
At this point, I've had enough, and it's time to de-pants someone. So the Judge looks at me for a response, and I reply, from the bottom of my icy black heart:
"Your honor, the only impediment to the swift resolution of this case is standing to my left. The Children's Representative, whom you appointed, has made several recommendations in this case, none of which we agree with, and has continued to force us to settle, despite the fact that the parties agree on nothing, and despite the fact that it is not his function to do so. In fact, I would suggest that the Child's Representative pursue a career at IHOP, as (he/she) is the biggest waffler I've ever seen."
At this point, the Judge's eyebrows shoot up in suprise, opposing counsel starts laughing out loud, and I just stare at the Rep, whose face is rapidly turning a deep purple. I continue:
"If the Rep hadn't already received a retainer, I would probably bring a motion for their removal. I can't seem to find in the Child Rep statute where it directs the Rep to try and settle the case, or to give counsel for each party directives regarding matters other than the children. Quite frankly, yesterday the children told my client that the Rep doesn't return their calls and doesn't let them talk for very long when he does see them. This case needs to go to evaluation, your Honor."
At that point, I thought the Rep was going to pass out, so we asked for an Evaluator, and the Court gave us one.
If you ever have a case with a Child's Representative, Guardian ad litem, or attorney for the child, keep them in line. They have a limited role, and they have no authority to intervene in matters not involving the children directly. Feel free to crack the whip on them. You have my explicit permission.
...what I'll probably be like in, say, 40 years or so, take a gander at this fine deposition.
Like the Oracle at Delphi, who sniffed mysterious gases before predicting the future, Rogue Barristers are also in tune with the world such that we can predict or identify social trends well before anyone else. For example, some lawyers’ fascinations with little people(YouTube) have been well documented by Rogue Barristers in various emails and conversations. Now, it seems the New York Times is finally catching on to our genius. Even if they are a year late, I welcome their belated insight.
* Prophet
Keith Olbermann may be proving himself to be the next Edward R. Murrow...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs&eurl=
QV.
We kicked its ass! I would like to thank all for their greetings of welcome as the Virginia Chapter of Rogue Barristers invaded the greatest city in the world. I think we made it through the wedding and reception okay and had a good time (how can you not when the head table is belting out "Don't Stop Believing" as it is being played by a string quartet). I think we left Chicago in good shape, and fear not, we will be back (especially since at least one of us got some digits).
I'd like to extend a hearty welcome to the Virginia Chapter of Rogue Barristers, glad you guys came in and hopefully the City will still be standing by the time you leave!
-Hunc
Lawyer one: Hey there counselor, I tried to get a hold of you all day yesterday...
Lawyer two: I was in a murder trial all day.
Lawyer one: Oh....who'd you whack?
(...)
Lawyer three: Oh man, I just had the worst hearing ever
Lawyer four: What happened? Bad ruling?
Lawyer three: No, (such and such) was on the other side....
Lawyer four: Eewww, she's disgusting, and that's when she showers.
Lawyer three: No kidding, I started daydreaming that I was trapped in the hair growing out of her mole....
Mr. Evseroff, my hat is off to you sir. In one fail swoop you managed to keep a couple hundred thousand from not only the IRS but also from your separated wife. In fact, you convinced the New York Eastern District Court that the IRS shouldn't get this money BECAUSE you put it away to keep it from your wife!
In Evseroff v. US, 98 AFTR 2006, Mr. big balls Evseroff owed about 3/4 of a million to the IRS for improper tax shelters. Meanwhile, he set up a trust to "provide for his sons, avoid the estate tax and prevent his wife, from whom he was separated, but not divorced, from receiving a portion of his estate." The Court also liked the fact that if he asked for a divorce instead, he'd likely be stuck with a large settlement to pay to his wife. The Court held that this was a valid reason to set up a trust and it is apparently so important to screw over his wife, that it takes priority over the IRS.
The moral of the story, if you want to get away with screwing the IRS, make sure you use the money to screw your spouse
As for Mr. Evseroff, I'll leave him with the immortal words of Ice Cube "I got to say it was a good day"
Just trying to drum up some more interest in the site. To those of you who found us by searching "jessica simpson naked," I say to you, "Welcome, and I hope you enjoy the site."
Obtest -- 1. To call to or invoke as a witness. 2. To ask for earnestly; beseech; implore. 3. To protest.
(This week's term is courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary.)
Dear Dipshit, ESQ,
Thank you for your correspondence dated September 19, 2006. It has been forwarded to my client for their review. Please allow me to comment on the substance of your letter.
Thank you for pointing out that a four-way conference should be a good-faith attempt to discuss issues in a reasoned and calm environment. As an attorney whose practice is 100% domestic relations, and who engages in said conferences all the time, this was a huge, HUGE, wake-up call for me. Based on my previous four-way conferences, and specifically the three conferences I HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD WITH YOU, I was under the impression that four-way conferences were a chance for douchebags like yourself to belittle the other client, behave in a condescending manner to me, and generally showboat and make no progress towards a resolution of the issues. Thanks for clearing that up.
Additionally, thank you for pointing out that "civility" is something that needs to be on both sides of the case. It is a great relief to hear that from you. One can imagine that, after your client "keyed" my client's car, left the kids alone at my client's house with no key, used the children as couriers for your nasty messages, and announced to them that their mom is a "unrepentant, ungrateful, responsibility-shirking cunt" in a crowded Burger King, I had some hesitations about his ability to be civil.
Also, thank you for your ethical guidance regarding my alleged "lathered" tone and "saber-rattling" in previous correspondence. I know that in today's world, more than ever, ethical behavior is imperative. That's why our Bar has attorneys like you, who have never been sanctioned for filing a false pleading, or suspended for innappropriate contact with their own clients. Oh wait, that was you. Oh yeah, now I remember, it was us who filed the motion for Rule 137 sanctions against you....that's right....It's all coming back to me now....and Judge Good 'Ol Boy, who hasn't sanctioned anyone since the Reagan Administration, actually thought you were a big enough liar that you needed to be "taught a lesson".
I will indeed call your secretary to set up a time for the conference, at which time we will discuss, AT LENGTH, why your client cannot comply with the terms of the Marital Settlement Agreement, and why he feels "cheated" and that the terms are "unfair" and "not right", despite the fact that YOU AND HE DRAFTED THE F*CKING DOCUMENT WHILE MY CURRENT CLIENT WAS PRO SE AT THE TIME.
Looking forward to pounding you into the ground like a tent peg,
J.D. Crane
P.S. Please let me know in advance if you plan on bringing your own crow to eat, or if I should order one for the conference. Also, you'll be relieved to know that you may, in fact, refer to me as your 'daddy' during the conference without offending me, as I plan on demonstrating that fact during said conference.
...of Legal Term of the Week(TM)
This one is for our family law guru. Use it wisely.
Loss of consortium--1. A loss of the benefits that one spouse is entitled to receive from the other, including companionship, cooperation, aid, affection, and sexual relations. 2. A similar loss of benefits that one is entitled to receive from a parent or child.
(This week's term is courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary.)
Disclaimer:
These posts are not legal advice. This is a personal site. As such, views expressed should not be attributed to any law firm. The views of one author do not necessarily represent the views of the others. Copyright 2005-2007.
Recent Comments