|
|
| Just So You Know Judges Are Human Beings Too |
 |
|
Friday, November 26 2004 @ 05:30 AM EST
|
For those of you who want Judge Kimball to get disgusted with SCO's machinations and make them stop filing what we perceive as delaying motions for this and for that, take heart. I came across a ruling [PDF] by a judge in another case, involving trademark infringement, and I thought it was so funny I wanted to share it with you, just so you will see that judges do have limits to their patience. The judge in the case, Sam Sparks, writes that he wants to scream to the lawyers in that case, "Get a Life." He also told them that if they didn't shape up, he would enter an order that the parties get new lawyers. Of course, this all happened in Texas, which, as you know, has a history of straight-shooting cowboys. But, hey. You never know. It could catch on elsewhere.
*****************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
_____________________
KLEIN-BECKER, LLC, and BASIC RESEARCH, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
WILLIAM STANLEY and BODYWORX.COM,
Defendants.
Case No. A-03-CA-871-SS
_____________________
ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on the 21st day of July 2004 and the Court took time to make its daily review of the above-captioned case, and thereafter, enters the following:
When the undersigned accepted the appointment from the President of the United States of the position now held, he was ready to face the daily practice of law in federal courts with presumably competent lawyers. No one warned the undersigned that in many instances his responsibility would be the same as a person who supervised kindergarten. Frankly, the undersigned would guess the lawyers in this case did not attend kindergarten as they never learned how to get along well with others. Notwithstanding the history of filings and antagonistic motions full of personal insults and requiring multiple discovery hearings, earning the disgust of this Court, the lawyers continue ad infinitum. On July 20, 2004, the Court's schedule was interrupted by an emergency motion so the parties' deposition, which began on July 20, would and could proceed until 6:30 in the evening. No intelligent discussion of the issue was accomplished prior to the filing and service of the motion, even though the lawyers were in the same room. Over a telephone conference, the lawyers, of course, had inconsistent statements as to the support of their positions. On July 20, 2004, the Court entered an order allowing the plaintiffs/counter-defendants until July 23, 2004 (two days from today) to answer a counterclaim. Yet, on July 21, 2004, Bodyworx.com, Inc.'s lawyers filed a motion for reconsideration of that Court order arguing the pleadings should have been filed by July 19, 2004.
The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, "Get a life" or "Do you have any other cases?" or "When is the last time you registered for anger management classes?"
Neither the world's problems nor this case will be determined by an answer to a counterclaim which is four days late, even with the approval of the presiding judge.
If the lawyers in this case do not change, immediately, their manner of practice and start conducting themselves as competent to practice in the federal court, the Court will contemplate and may enter an order requiring the parties to obtain new counsel.
In the event it is not clear from the above discussion, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SIGNED this 21st day of July 2004.
_____[signature of Sam Sparks]___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST |
You know the drill.
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST |
PJ,
Thanks for sharing this - it lifted spirits and raised a smile on a
Friday - always very welcome!
We can only wonder at the level of
behaviour in this case that would cause a judge to resort to a rebuke of this
nature, but something tells me that this must have been pretty
extreme.
In a vague attempt to keep us [relatively] on topic, here's a
question for the Team... Would anyone with experience of court proceedings care
to venture an opinion on the following questions, just to give the rest of us
amateurs a handle on how these things proceed? Thanks!
1. Would the
behaviour described in this article warrant the Court handing down "Contempt of
Court" notices to the legal parties involved?
2. Does a court, facing
what I'll inexpertly described as "misbehaving" counsel, have any other options
available to them, other than a "severe talking to" or a contempt
notice?
3. Does any of the conduct in the SCO vs IBM case seen to date
[from either party] - for example SCOs habit of telling different stories to
different courts, or IBMs foot-dragging over the production of the affadavits,
come close to the kind of thing that a judge could rule contempt
for?
4. Do Courts typically pay attention to the behaviour of litigants
outside of the Court room? For example, in the SCO vs IBM case we've seen a
great deal of public statement from TSG and next to zero from IBM. One could
argue that TSG are using public news channels to build support for their
position. Yes we live in a free society, but when does this conduct cross the
line [if at all]?
5. With specific reference to TSG vs IBM, we do have
one aspect of the case that could be relevant here. TSG are claiming that IBM
took TSG property and improperly released it into GNU/Linux. We have to be very
careful to make a distinction between what officers of TSG make in statements to
the press and what TSGs Counsel state in court. However, TSG have made this
claim in court but now, more than 18 months after proceedings started, have
failed to produce a single line of code as evidence to support the claim. So my
question, obviously, is, how will a court react to this kind of behaviour? Does
this qualify as contempt? I recall court orders asking them to produce this
material [at least two I believe] and nothing produced to date? Anyone care to
venture an opinion on what i) could and/or ii) is most likely, to happen
here?
PJ, you're truly amazing! Please keep up the excellent
work!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST |
Please - tell us if the judge doing this actually made a difference?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 07:59 AM EST |
| There is another judgement in similar vein available here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kalimar on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST |
Wow.
Dear Judge Sparks,
Thank you. Seriously. Thank you from all of us who get sick and tired of
petty tactics from juvenile, purile, immature practitioners of 'law'. Thank
you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 08:05 AM EST |
| ..and what his outrage at and rebuke of a defendent who was openly abusing
the
legal
process got us...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
Another ruling from the BBC Website.
Here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More details - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 09:51 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 10:10 AM EST |
yahoo scox 3 months ago ...
Someone doing some deep researching ...?
BGE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
FYI, the players in this lawsuit are Utah-based "supplement"
manufacturers.
They have links to Hatch's brother for representation on FDA violations of
their potions, and Genesis Media (now BMOO.OB) for marketing. Boiler room
Telemarketers who earlier worked for uSight (Bert Young's 2002-3 CFA gig)
show up pushing their product.
Small world.
--Stats_for_hauling[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
"Of course, this all happened in Texas, which, as you know, has a history
of straight-shooting cowboys" PJ
Every time I think of the legal system in Texas, my mind screams
"Tulia!". It also screams of the lengths that the prosecutors in
Dallas would go to to exclude black potential jurors in felony cases, and of
that Mexican American cop who was planting faked evidence on Mexican migrants to
rake in the convictions. I'd like to hear more positive stories like the story
of that all-white Texas jury who acquitted two Vietnamese defendants of the
murder of that redneck on grounds of self-defence back in the early 80's, but
these stories are just not coming out of Texas. I am probably improperly
stereotyping, but I just don't see the commitment in Texas to civil liberties,
the rights of the accused, and the (still way too reluctant) willingness to
acknowledge wrongful convictions that we have here in Manhattan. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nartreb on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST |
One of the most elegant scoldings I've ever read is reprinted below.
(available free as pdf: http://traverlaw.com/hyperphrase.pdf.)
(as html in Google cache:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:XJgNMNEqbHkJ:traverlaw.com/hyperphrase.pdf&
amp;hl=en)
By the way, Hyperphrase lost this case at summary judgement.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
and HYPERPHRASE INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
02-C-647-C
Pursuant to the modified scheduling order, the parties in this case had until
June 25, 2003 to file summary judgment motions. Any electronic document may be
e-filed until midnight on the due date. In a scandalous affront to this court?s
deadlines, Microsoft did not file its summary judgment motion until 12:04:27
a.m. on June 26, 2003, with some supporting documents trickling in as late as
1:11:15 a.m. I don?t know this personally because I was home sleeping, but
that?s what the court?s computer docketing program says, so I?ll accept it as
true.
Microsoft?s insouciance so flustered Hyperphrase that nine of its attorneys,
namely Mark A. Cameli, Lynn M. Stathas, Andrew W. Erlandson, Raymond P. Niro,
Paul K. Vickrey, Raymond P. Niro, Jr., Robert Greenspoon, Matthew G. McAndrews,
and William W. Flachsbart, promptly filed a motion to strike the summary
judgment motion as untimely. Counsel used bolded italics to make their point, a
clear sign of grievous iniquity by one?s foe. True, this court did enter an
order on June 20, 2003 ordering the parties not to flyspeck each other, but how
could such an order apply to a motion filed almost five minutes late?
Microsoft?s temerity was nothing short of a frontal assault on the precept of
punctuality so cherished by and vital to this court.
Wounded though this court may be by Microsoft?s four minute and twenty-seven
second dereliction of duty, it will transcend the affront and forgive the
tardiness. Indeed, to demonstrate the even-handedness of its magnanimity, the
court will allow Hyperphrase on some future occasion in this case to e-file a
motion <i>four minutes and thirty seconds</i> late, with supporting
documents to follow up to <i>seventy-two</i> minutes later.
Having spent more than that amount of time on Hyperphrase?s motion, it is now
time to move on to the other Gordian problems confronting this court.
Plaintiff?s motion to strike is denied.
Entered this 1st day of July, 2003.
BY THE COURT
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
- most enjoyable - Authored by: skip on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: smoot on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST |
I had the privilege of testifying before Judge Sparks when I lived in Austin, TX
years ago. He has always had the reputation of being "flinty." He
certainly runs a tight courtroom. In my experience he expected you to answer the
questions asked and only the questions asked. No elaboration allowed. He would
interrupt you if you tried to hedge on a "yes" or "no"
question. It was a very interesting experience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST |
Bill Gates has a vision of the future where we are all in the hands of
microsucks, nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, go wrong............
BTW microsucks has never produced a OS without bugs. I can't wait for Longhorn
SP3 in 2010 or 2011 or 2012...........[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bugs - Authored by: xtifr on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 06:53 AM EST
- Vision - Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 09:34 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST |
| Hop over to the Telegraph Newspaper
Online ( the online version of The Daily Telegraph -- published in the UK)
and search for the story with the title "Something in the way he judged me".
I can't give a link since the site has a registration system (free, but you
have to give them an email address).
The story is about a judge who gave his
ruling in the form of George Harrison's song "Something". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 11:29 AM EST |
This same Sam Sparks (along with another judge) has just informed the RIAA that
they cannot sue multiple alleged file-sharers in the same lawsuit -- they have
to file one suit per sharer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rc on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST |
| PJ - shame on you! You should have warned us all to "PUT DOWN ALL DRINKS
BEFORE READING THE JUDGE'S COMMENTS"
*ESPECIALLY* that last
sentence! I just about hurt myself!
rc - still 'chuckling in my beard' over
that one...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
