Best. Judicial. Ruling. EVER.
July 14, 2006 2:56 PM Subscribe
Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp., Inc. (147 F.Supp.2d 668) "Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact--complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words--to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins."
That judge is a huge asshole and has a history of this schoolyard bullying. See here [small pdf] for a proper critique of his juvenile antics.
posted by Falconetti at 3:03 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Falconetti at 3:03 PM on July 14, 2006
This is very familiar to me. Is this a dupe from a while back?
posted by kaemaril at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by kaemaril at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2006
Falconetti: invalid URL. I think you mean this (small pdf)
posted by kaemaril at 3:22 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by kaemaril at 3:22 PM on July 14, 2006
Oops, that is correct kaemaril. Sorry, should have previewed!
posted by Falconetti at 3:23 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Falconetti at 3:23 PM on July 14, 2006
I agree with ryoshu. I laughed like crazy. Inappropriate though it is, I'm also very fond of the language in this opinion from Judge Kent in which he actually kicked a lawyer of the case for writing a bad pleading.
posted by The Bellman at 3:37 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by The Bellman at 3:37 PM on July 14, 2006
That judge is a bully. Perhaps he is overcompensating for some horrible feelings of inadequacy due to childhood trauma, or is just mean. In any case, he certainly doesn't belong in a courtroom.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:40 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:40 PM on July 14, 2006
Well there should be some consequence (other than losing the case) for filing horrible writing with the court. Don't lawyers understand that people actually have to read and attempt to comprehend their drivel?
posted by Pacheco at 3:45 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Pacheco at 3:45 PM on July 14, 2006
Weeeellll, what ya'll don't understand is that down here in Texas we've got ourselves a low tax / low service type government setup. That means that for the most part the only thing we get out of our government is entertainment.
Judge Kent is a jackass, and in the eyes of many, not really a good judge. But he's entertaining as hell, and lately the State Ledge has gotten positively stogey. We haven't had a decent fistfight since the mid 70's, and there even haven't been any legislators arrested for cattle rustling for the past few sessions. Heck, Sen. Drew Nixon (not related to the former and unlamented president) has been the most entertaining part of the ledge for the past several cycles, and he's old news.
Point being that since entertainment is all we're getting out of the government anyway, there's no way we're getting rid of a judge as amusing as Kent, regardless of whether that'd be a good thing from the standpoint of justice.
posted by sotonohito at 3:58 PM on July 14, 2006
Judge Kent is a jackass, and in the eyes of many, not really a good judge. But he's entertaining as hell, and lately the State Ledge has gotten positively stogey. We haven't had a decent fistfight since the mid 70's, and there even haven't been any legislators arrested for cattle rustling for the past few sessions. Heck, Sen. Drew Nixon (not related to the former and unlamented president) has been the most entertaining part of the ledge for the past several cycles, and he's old news.
Point being that since entertainment is all we're getting out of the government anyway, there's no way we're getting rid of a judge as amusing as Kent, regardless of whether that'd be a good thing from the standpoint of justice.
posted by sotonohito at 3:58 PM on July 14, 2006
Judges often forget that they were once lawyers too. Publication of a lawyer's transgression to the world is appropriate only in two cases: formal discipline by the state bar committee; and sanction-worthy violation of the relevant rules of procedure. This judge's conduct is explicitly and implicitly prohibited by Canon 3 of the federal judicial code of conduct, which provides: "A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge's control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process."
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:59 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:59 PM on July 14, 2006
I have to say, I don't have a lot of sympathy for lawyers who write insipid briefs, and having read the entire opinion, these look especially bad. Frankly, as a client, it's difficult to tell when a lawyer writes a bad opinion. Laypeople can't make that call as long as there's a few cited precedents, etc. etc. At that point, the lawyers are essentially just engaging in professional theft (since they both did it), and the judge's recourse here actually strikes me as appropriate.
For those of you saying that it's inappropriate conduct in light of his profession -- so is writing briefs that are patently wrong and then billing your clients for it when they have no way of knowing better.
Given his reputation and the fact that he knows both lawyers, you'd think they'd understand his rules: don't write anything stupid, and you won't get called out for writing something stupid. Real simple.
posted by spiderwire at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2006
For those of you saying that it's inappropriate conduct in light of his profession -- so is writing briefs that are patently wrong and then billing your clients for it when they have no way of knowing better.
Given his reputation and the fact that he knows both lawyers, you'd think they'd understand his rules: don't write anything stupid, and you won't get called out for writing something stupid. Real simple.
posted by spiderwire at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2006
I feel bad for the poor bastard that got injured. Screw the lawyers.
posted by empath at 4:41 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by empath at 4:41 PM on July 14, 2006
Point being that since entertainment is all we're getting out of the government anyway, there's no way we're getting rid of a judge as amusing as Kent, regardless of whether that'd be a good thing from the standpoint of justice.
Texas can't get rid of him no matter how much they want to, even if they hold their breath until they turn blue or stamp their little feet. Kent is a federal judge, appointed by Bush Sr., and he will continue serving until he retires, dies, or is removed by impeachment and conviction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:02 PM on July 14, 2006
Texas can't get rid of him no matter how much they want to, even if they hold their breath until they turn blue or stamp their little feet. Kent is a federal judge, appointed by Bush Sr., and he will continue serving until he retires, dies, or is removed by impeachment and conviction.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:02 PM on July 14, 2006
My old law school writing professor made this opinoin required reading.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:12 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 5:12 PM on July 14, 2006
ROU_Xenophobe: all the more reason to enjoy him, if he's the worst thing a Bush ever did to Texas I'll be happy ('course he ain't, but that's a whole 'nother story [1]).
Still, if people were serious I suppose they could try impeaching him. 'Course, it probably wouldn't get much further than a slug down I-40 on a hot day [2], and in the end we'd probably get stuck with someone worse.
I'm reminded of something the late, great, Clay T Williams once said, an expression which went a long way to losing him the governer's race I might add, but in the interests of good tase I won't quote it here.
[1] Ok, the artificial Texan accent ends there. Sorry, its Molly Ivins' influence.
[2] I'm weak. I admit it.
posted by sotonohito at 5:39 PM on July 14, 2006
Still, if people were serious I suppose they could try impeaching him. 'Course, it probably wouldn't get much further than a slug down I-40 on a hot day [2], and in the end we'd probably get stuck with someone worse.
I'm reminded of something the late, great, Clay T Williams once said, an expression which went a long way to losing him the governer's race I might add, but in the interests of good tase I won't quote it here.
[1] Ok, the artificial Texan accent ends there. Sorry, its Molly Ivins' influence.
[2] I'm weak. I admit it.
posted by sotonohito at 5:39 PM on July 14, 2006
Hilarious, if shockingly unprofessional. Last time I checked, there were less than fifty uses of 'asinine' in the allfeds database in Westlaw, and Judge Kent has most of them. Also, Judge Kent had a substantial portion of his docket of cases taken away from him a few years ago because of a massive conflict of interest with several local attorney buddies of his practicing in his court.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:05 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:05 PM on July 14, 2006
This kind of tongue-in-cheek half-frivolous judgments is more common than many realize. I saw one a long time ago which was entirely in verse. (Different judge, though.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:23 PM on July 14, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:23 PM on July 14, 2006
Perhaps he is overcompensating for some horrible feelings of inadequacy due to childhood trauma...
I'd think that would only be applicable in the case of Judge Richard D. Boner.
posted by SenshiNeko at 12:09 AM on July 15, 2006
I'd think that would only be applicable in the case of Judge Richard D. Boner.
posted by SenshiNeko at 12:09 AM on July 15, 2006
Texas can't get rid of him no matter how much they want to, even if they hold their breath until they turn blue or stamp their little feet. Kent is a federal judge, appointed by Bush Sr., and he will continue serving until he retires, dies, or is removed by impeachment and conviction - posted by ROU_Xenophobe.
Nothing stopping Texas transmitting charges to initiate impeachment. It's been done before.
posted by kaemaril at 2:03 AM on July 15, 2006
Nothing stopping Texas transmitting charges to initiate impeachment. It's been done before.
posted by kaemaril at 2:03 AM on July 15, 2006
I would not feel that I had been fairly heard if my judge wrote such a document.
Can any of you honestly say that you would feel like justice had been served if you went before a federal judge and he spent the entire ruling insulting the lawyers and made light of the case in the one paragraph that actually mentioned the case?
posted by Megafly at 1:01 PM on July 17, 2006
Can any of you honestly say that you would feel like justice had been served if you went before a federal judge and he spent the entire ruling insulting the lawyers and made light of the case in the one paragraph that actually mentioned the case?
posted by Megafly at 1:01 PM on July 17, 2006
« Older Best Post Ever | Tony Bourdain trapped in Lebanon. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by stenseng at 3:02 PM on July 14, 2006