Does this count as schadenfreude?

I have this one case going on right now. It never should have gotten this far. And yet it has. Mostly because the other side refuses to be reasonable.

Now when I say reasonable, I am not just saying reasonable in the sense that they are refusing to give my client a sweetheart of a deal. I am talking about the opposing counsel deciding that courtesy is something only for books, that the rules of civil procedure are only binding on other attorneys, and that screaming at people over the phone (to start the conversation) is good business practice.

Yet somehow, my client has failed to get away from this case. A bad call was made, which has now snowballed into thanks to a series of questionable rulings. All this over a therapeutic device which my client uses and which does not bother anyone else, but somehow is in violation of his lease. (And no, not even the DEA would say my client is wrong.)

So thanks to the judge's ruling, I have spent the last week on the defensive. And that is just not a fun place to be.

And then, amid the gloom of awaiting opposing counsel's next screeching attack, I received a call from a city attorney who wanted to talk about the case. No cavalry will be coming, but she was asking why I was not moving to quash a subpoena issued to a city' agency in this case. After explaining to her what had happened, she agreed and stated that she understood. She then went to say "So after I got off with this screeching crazy [opposing counsel's name], I just don't think she understands that law. Even though she says its clear cut, which its not. Is she always like that?"

Made me feel better that other people think opposing counsel is crazy.

Apparently, these are how my views line up with the candidates

85% Bill Richardson
84% Chris Dodd
83% Barack Obama
82% Hillary Clinton
80% John Edwards
76% Joe Biden
61% Rudy Giuliani
61% John McCain
57% Dennis Kucinich
56% Mike Gravel
47% Mitt Romney
44% Mike Huckabee
32% Fred Thompson
26% Tom Tancredo
13% Ron Paul

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

At Least You Can Still Call Your Organization What You Want... Within Reason

Some ninny took a patent case up to the Supreme Court where today the Nine handed down their decision. At issue was what whether an organization could name itself as it wished, or whether self-appointed morality police groups could take away that freedom.

In short, Dykes on Bikes won its case today, and can keep their name.

The challenger, who is in my opinion a self-important ninny, is an attorney from the East Bay who alleged that the Patent Office erred in granting the trademark. According to him, the Patent Office should only issue trademarks to groups with names that are not "scandalous and immoral". (Somehow, he also felt that the name of the group demeaned men... that one I just don't get and neither did the Court of Appeal.)

After failing to convince the district court in D.C., the plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit where they upheld the Patent Office determination. Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, denying cert.

Meritless Briefs

And once again, I am up late dealing with a meritless motion from the other side. Unfortunately, given the draw of a particular judicial officer, it seems a distinct possibility that the opposing counsel's motion will be granted.

It boggles the mind. It is clear from opposing counsel's brief that they have done nothing beyond look up the appropriate code section for the motion. Had they taken the next step, and looked in the annotated code, then this person would have realized that they did not have the good cause required for the motion.

What I want to do is start off the brief with "Everything opposing counsel said in their motion is bullpuckey" or words to that effect. Unfortunately, I doubt that that will assist in my client cause.

Though, if the judicial officer rules against my client in this matter, it looks like I'll be seeking a writ.

To date in this case, I have filled a 2 inch thick file with pleadings. Most of them dealing with every wild hair thats gone up opposing counsel's arse (such as "Oh, my client can respond to discovery whenever we damn well please" or "Your client has no rights" or "Your client is a liar and therefore has the burden of proof which we, as the plaintiffs, do not bear in the slightest")(Note, these are the translations of the opposing counsel's actual words)

And all of this over a very small, very well trained dog.

I'm thinking that to date, this considering how much paper is flying back and forth between us, adding in appearances and experts hired by the other side, as well as sanctions awarded to my client, they are probably nearing $5000 or $6000. I push this further, drag it trial, and the opposition will have lost any profit that they would hope to achieve by this suit.

Of course, since this is a pro bono case, I shall be receiving.... well... nothing. Unless you count good karma.

Britney: The Offer Is Still Open!

I mean, obviously, you are having some trouble with your legal representation. Apparently your first set of lawyers wanted you to follow their advice, show up for appointments, things like that. So they quit.

Feh, quitters. They never win!

And now, it sounds like your current set of attorneys, the firm of Trope and Trope, has decided that they no longer are comfortable representing you. According to one report, they are saying that there has been a breakdown in communications between yourself and your attorneys.

Listen, shoot me an email. The offer is still open.

I may not be the most experienced family law practitioner in California, but I am completely at home with my clients not listening to me, wanting to do asinine things, and generally being uncontrollable. You want to stay out all night partying and be unable to show up for a deposition, no problem! You want the impossible done, you got it! As long as the retainer is maintained, then I can be your attorney for as long as you need.

If the EPA says that they didn't see this coming....

Then I'll have whatever they are smoking.

If you recall, a few weeks ago, the EPA in its infinite wisdom decided to go against nearly three decades of precedence and violate their discretion given to them by statute when they decided to reject California's application for a waiver under the Clean Air Act. I ranted a bit about the duplicitousness of the EPA's decision a few days ago.

My favorite part of the EPA's whole decision making process is the power point presentation that apparently was given by the EPA's legal department to the Agency's head. In it, they told him that if California is denied and sued, California would probably win. If California was granted the waiver, and the automakers sued the EPA, then the Agency would win.

It was announced today that California's Attorney General was filing suit against the EPA over its refusal to grant the waiver.