judicial tyranny

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Thu May 17 13:32:04 PDT 2001

Jesus, Charles, the first thing you learn in this job is that you can _never_ trust the parties' briefs on the law _or_ the facts. They lie. They miss things. They misrepresent. We're sending a well-litigated case run by good lawyers on both sides (a rare experience) to the jury today, and it's amazing how much they missed. The less able lawyers do proportionately worse. Basically I have to do _everything_ myself from scratch. And it's Rule 11 you're thinking of. The only reason we don't use it more than we do is that if we used it for all the half-assed, dishonest arguments that deserved it, we'd sanction almost everyone almost all the time. In any case, if you do the job right, you find that there is not always a case to be made of the civil plaintiff or criminal defendant. --jks

>From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:02:08 -0400
>All you have to do is adopt the arguments made by plaintiffs' attorneys in
>their briefs. If you don't have briefs, tell the judge to ask for briefs on
>the issues. Those arguments will be very colorable legally,and they won't
>contain an iota of what in common language is considered "political". Very
>few complaints filed by competent attorneys are frivilous or rejectable
>under ,is it Rule 23.
> >>> jkschw at hotmail.com 05/16/01 05:49PM >>>
>OK, there's no distinction. The judge just asked to me look up whether some
>plaintiffs can maintain a malicious prosecution action. Shall I say, Judge,
>you are a liberal Democrat, and these are plaintiffs suing a city that "we
>all know" is corrupt. Sure they can. I'll write it that way, because law is
>just politics. I don't need to worry about whether they have satisfied the
>elements of this cause of action, that's just window dressing, ideological
>folderal. Good idea? On the other hand, the plaintiffs are cops, and as
>liberals, don't we hate cops? So maybe we should find for the city because
>cops are bad. Oh, what fun, law is totally indeterminate.
> >
> >Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >>This isn't politics. It's law.
> >
> >Fascinating distinction.
> >
> >Doug
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list