A party who represents herself... You know the rest...

I'm reading a case about a pro se plaintiff who was sanctioned for her behavior at trial. The case is somewhat interesting and may stand for the proposition that a party can be liable for the opposing party's legal fees based upon his or her misconduct, even in the absence of a contract or statute providing for legal fees. The case is Harvey v. Carponelli, 117 Ill.App.3d 448 (1st Dist. 1983). There's also good language in there about holding pro se litigants to the same procedural standards as attorneys.

Anyway, all I really wanted to point out is the following paragraph from the case. For some reason this description of the trial made me laugh out loud. I'm just glad it wasn't me who had to oppose this lady.

"Plaintiff's first witness was called and examined. The trial judge found that the entire line of questioning by plaintiff as pro se counsel indicated a lack of awareness of the issues raised by [her] in her fourth amended complaint. The entire testimony of this witness was stricken as irrelevant. Next, plaintiff called herself as a witness. After taking the stand, she was allowed to read questions to herself from her notes for 1 1/2 days. She asked herself at least one question to which she answered "I don't know." 

Oh man... One and half days? And she was answering "I don't know" to her own questions!! I would have had a heart attack. 

"Corporations are people too, my friend."

Maybe if Mitt Romney would have been elected President, Jonathan Frieman would have stood a better chance in traffic court last week.  We all remember when Mitt Romney uttered the famous words, "Corporations are people too, my friend" to a heckler on the campaign trial.

Mr. Frieman remembered those words also when he was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane in Marin County, California.  As the officer approached his car, Mr. Frieman reached to his passenger seat and picked up legal papers related to a corporation that he had just formed.

He argued to the police officer that he was not alone in his car because he was carrying a corporation with him.  The officer didn't buy it.  Neither did the court.  Lowering the Bar, the legal humor blog, reports that Mr. Frieman's argument was rejected by the traffic court and he was fined $478.00.  Not surprisingly, Mr. Frieman plans to appeal.

Is Swag Admissible in Court?

Three juveniles in Galveston, Texas allegedly committed a small-time burglary a couple of weeks ago.  They broke into an "amphibious vehicle" at a local water park and stole the fire extinguisher, doing some minor damage in the process.  They were captured on surveillance video, part of which is linked above.  

One of the suspects is apparently known throughout his high school for his "swag," or his "signature dance move," which he "regularly performs in the hall ways," according to the local Police Captain Jeff Heyse.  Apparently, someone who knows this kid's swag identified him to police and he was arrested.

So, the question, as presented by Lowering the Bar, the legal humor blog, is whether this video will be admissible to identify him based on his swag, even though his face is not clearly visible.  According to Lowering the Bar, it may be admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 406, which says that "evidence of the habit of a person... is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person... on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice."

The Lowering the Bar blog notes that a creative defense lawyer would probably parade several witnesses through the courtroom and have them all perform this dance move in front of the jury to show that this kid's swag is not so distinctive after all.  

I wish I could think of a good catch phrase for the closing argument, similar to the Johnny Cochran classic "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."  Anybody got one for me????????

Indiana lawyers have more fun.

We need to sign up this guy as a contributor to the Northern Law Blog.

Warm Holiday Wishes*

*The wishes provided herein represent the sentiment of the sender as of the date written and may not reflect the sender’s sentiments on the date this is first received or anytime hereafter. The sender reserves the right to deny the sender ever wished the recipient wishes, whether warm, cold or any temperature whatsoever. Also, the wishes are not dependent on the warmth and may be just wishes, with all the privileges accorded to the state of wishing, including grandiosity but not excluding practicality. The wish, whether warm, neutral or cold, is under no obligation to come true, but does not exclude the possibility that it may come true.

The Plainfield Village Code Specifically Authorizes Texting While Driving.

I live in Plainfield, IL. I just read in the winter newsletter that the Village Board passed a negligent driving ordinance last month. The ordinance amends the Village Code to make it unlawful for any person to "negligently operate" a motor vehicle upon any roadway or public way--certainly an honorable intention. But I pulled it up online to check it out and I believe it specifically authorizes me to text while driving.

Negligently is defined as, among other things, engaging in inattentive actions. Inattentive actions include, among other things, the use of an electronic communication device. Electronic communications devices include, among other things, cell phones and PDAs capable of being used for the purpose of composing, reading or sending an electronic message. Here is the full text of the ordinance.

Then the ordinance declares that "This section is not intended to prohibit the use of an electronic communication device during the safe operation of a motor vehicle."

Cool. So, when I am driving through downtown Plainfield, as long as I am safely operating my car, I can text, watch youtube videos, tweet, and compete in online poker tournaments.

The argument is that you could never operate your car safely while doing any of those things. But keep in mind that police can pull you over if they see you texting, even if you have not made any other traffic infractions. If that happened, I believe you could at least argue this defense to the village prosecutor with a straight face. Of course, I can argue anything with a straight face, as you can tell from the preceding paragraphs. ;)

Victory!!!!! (Kinda)

The Illinois Second District Appellate Court has overturned the $100 trauma center fee that was assessed to Ernesto Valle of Aurora following his conviction for murder. Unfortunately for Mr. Valle, the Appellate Court upheld his murder conviction.

The trauma center fee applies to people receiving orders of supervision for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, people convicted of certain weapons offenses and people convicted of certain drug offenses — but not murderers. The appellate prosecutors admitted the fee was assessed in error.

I wish I could have met this guy.

This weekend I read the obituary of Nicholas G. Manos in the Chicago Tribune. I had not heard of Mr. Manos before, or the Rock Island Railroad bankruptcy case, but I guess that just shows my inexperience in these matters.

According to his daughter, who witnessed the incident, Mr. Manos delivered probably one of the greatest opening lines of all time at oral argument. Here is the story:

"On the day of final arguments in the Rock Island Railroad bankruptcy case in the late 1970s, attorney Nicholas G. Manos stepped up to the lectern for one of the biggest moments of his life.

Silence fell over the crowded federal district courtroom as Mr. Manos looked straight into the judge's eyes and said:

"Your honor, I can hardly wait to hear what I am about to say."

With that, the courtroom exploded with laughter. Mr. Manos' daughter, Stathy White, who witnessed the moment, said the comment illustrated her father's intelligence and charisma.

"That really says a lot about the confidence that he had," she said. "He had a wonderful wit about him, and his presence was unmatched."

After the trial, Mr. Manos drafted a reorganization plan for the ailing railroad that satisfied all sides. In 1983, the plan was approved by the Supreme Court and the Interstate Commerce Commission, making it one of the most successful railroad reorganizations in history."

Awesome. I wish I had the guts to pull off something like that.

Corporate Voting Deadlocks

If you are ever asked to draft corporate bylaws or an operating agreement on behalf of a client, I suggest that you add the following provision:

Voting Deadlock. In the event of a deadlock in the vote of the members or managers, the decision shall be made using the method of "paper, rock and scissors." A representative of each side of the issue shall face each other with their arms in a right angle of 90 degrees as the elbow with fists closed and the right fist on top of the left fist. An independent participant, if available, or either of the representatives will be responsible to count to three in approximately one (1) second intervals. With each count, each representative shall lightly touch the left fist with the right fist to the cadence of the count and, at the count of three, each representative will signify whether he or she is selecting "paper," "rock," or "scissors." "Paper" shall be represented by the right hand fully extended, palm down. "Rock" shall be represented by the right hand in a full fist. "Scissors" shall be represented with the right hand in a fist with the index and third finger extended. The outcome of the issue shall be decided by the representative who wins the contest by the best two out of three sessions using the following rules:

i. A display of paper defeats a display of rock;

ii. A display of rock defeats a display of scissors; and

iii. A display of scissors defeats a display of paper.

The winning representative shall decide the issue conclusively on behalf of the company.

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Here is today's West Headnote of the Day. This reminds me of a good story from law school:

Evidence at a preliminary hearing that the accused asked the witness "How do you know it was me when I had a handkerchief over my face?" was properly admitted at trial for robbery as an admission. Nance v. United States, 299 F.2d 122 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

When I was at NIU, I worked at the DeKalb County State's Attorney's Office as a Rule 711 intern. I spent about half of my time in the felony division preparing for a murder trial. That case did not go to trial until after I graduated, passed the bar, and was working in private practice. But I still followed the case pretty closely in the newspaper.

The defendant fired several lawyers leading up to trial. The judge eventually allowed him to represent himself. He didn't do too bad, I guess, throughout the course of the trial, but he really blew it during closing arguments.

He stood before the jury and asked them "Please, please do not convict me of these crimes that I have committed."

Oops!

March Madness!!!!!!

A University Of Washington law student named James, who seems to love March Madness almost as much as I do, attempted to move his Taxation LL.M. final to March 22 so he could watch the tournament. Here is a copy of his request, and the administration's cold, heartless response:

The following exam reschedule request has been submitted.
Name: James ***
Student ID: ****
Phone: 208-***-****
Email: ****@yahoo.com

Current class exams and professors:
Sat. March 13 - 1:00 PMT511B Partnership Tax (Donaldson), Mon. March 16 - 6:00 PM T516B Int'l Taxation II (Gianni), Tue. Mar 17, 1:00 PM T510 Estate & Gift Tax (Drake) [24Hr Take-Home], Fri. March 19 - 6:00 PM T521B Comp & Benefits (Thorson)
Reschedule reason(s):

* Other. (Non-automatic, subject to Associate Dean approval)
Explanation:

The first weekend of the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament occurs on March 18-21 this year. This is, by far, my favorite weekend of the year, specifically Thursday and Friday, in which the first round takes place. I am not a member of any church and have no children, so I consider this my "holiday," the most important day of the year. For the past several years, a couple of friends of mine, who are in similar position in life, and I have spent the weekend enjoying this "holiday" in Reno, NV. It is a central location for the gathering and meeting there for this weekend has become a tradition that has become very important and dear to me.

I understand that this is not a typical request, but I'd like to move my Compensation and Benefits final to the following Monday (3/22) or earlier in finals week. This is so important to me that I wouldn't even mind it if it were rescheduled during a day that I already have a final.

Please give my request ample consideration. I appreciate your time.

Reschedule class:
Fri. March 19 - 6:00 PM T521B Comp & Benefits (Thorson)
Requested date: Wednesday, March 17
Requested time: 1:00 PM

And then the cold, unfeeling registrar named "Pontus" shatters his dreams...

From: Lawnews
Subject: RE: Exam Reschedule Request
To: ****@yahoo.com
Cc: "'lawnews'"
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 3:10 PM

This reschedule request is denied; this request does not in any way meet the exam rescheduling guidelines.


Variation from the original exam date/time will be permitted only for an automatic reason (options above), severe mental or physical illness, or very unusual or demanding circumstances that make it unreasonably difficult or burdensome to meet the scheduled time. Rescheduling exam is not done generally for activities such as travel, field research, interviews (personal or school related) and other personal events such as weddings, reunions, etc.

Considering the importance of this event to you, you may have wanted to make different course selections based on the exam schedule, which was available ahead of the start of Winter classes.

Pontus.

Pontus Niklasson

Registrar & Director

Academic Services

University of Washington School of Law
William H. Gates Hall, Room 361

Arpaio Deputies Caught in the Act

Last week I wrote a lengthy post on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and inferenced the notion that his office follows no rule of law. It is widely known out here in the southwestern desert that the Maricopa's Sherriff's Office do as they please.

Unbelievably, one of Sheriff Joe's Deputies were caught on tape. In this video, a defense attorney is speaking to the judge. Watch the Deputy in the back, walk towards the defendant, begin to peruse the attorney's files, call another Deputy over and then steal a few documents from her.

I'm sorry for dwelling on this guy, but you just can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE: CNN's Rick Sanchez reported and showed the video during CNN's Newsroom this afternoon, calling for the attention of the Justice Department.

I think he pushed him.

UPDATE:

I received a call from attorney Mark Brennan who was upset by the label that I applied to him in the previous title to this post. He also claims that he didn't push opposing counsel during the hearing. So I changed the title to the post.

ORIGINAL POST:

Colorado attorney Mark Brennan was recently cited for contempt of court TWICE during his own DISCIPLINARY HEARING relating to allegations of past misconduct!

Then he pushed his opposing counsel!! And it is on video!!! The presiding judge actually had to admonish the lawyers that it wasn't "trial by combat"!!!!

You have to check out this link, courtesy of Lowering the Bar. Here is another article about the shoving incident.

True of False?

This story was posted to the ISBA email exchange. There was some debate back and forth as to whether this was actually a true story. The original poster claimed that this was a true story that took place in Charlotte, North Carolina. True or not, it is a good story that is worth reposting here. Here it is:

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things.

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires.'

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion!

The lawyer sued and WON!

While delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable 'fire' and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the 'fires'.

NOW FOR THE BEST PART....

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

What do you think? True or not?

Rocket Science

I’m not a big television person, but every now and then I’m compelled to watch some good old “reality TV”. Something about people foolishly making themselves appear unintelligent or uneducated makes me smugly feel better about myself. Cops, Peoples Court, and yes even The Real Housewives of New York City are among my, “if it’s on and I have nothing better to do I’ll watch it” list.

Well, apparently I had nothing better to do. (As a law student I don’t know how that is possible but, sure why not?) I was watching Judge Judy, and this particular case involved two young women and their parents. Apparently the defendants daughter got a little reckless when she decided to push the plaintiff’s daughter into a pool which in turn caused complete damage of an iPhone.

Watch the video below and see how easy it is to smugly feel better about yourself. Oh and if you’re watching this video and think that defendants daughter reminds you a certain Miss Teen South Carolina of 2007...I concur.

Rocket Science on Judge Judy

I guess a better question to have asked would have been, "What is a rhetorical question?"


...Just in case you are wondering here is Miss Teen South Carolina of 2007 --> Miss Teen South Carolina of 2007