A pro se plaintif responding to the motion

The clerk advised a pro se defendant on possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to motion for summary judgment.   The defendant filed a "Petition for Abatement" in which he asserted that the complaint fails to name him as a party on the grounds that his name appears in all upper case letter.

The court's response: "This filing by defendant does not respond in any form to the arguments raised in the Government's motion for summary judgment, and the respondent has failed to otherwise respond to the motion."

United States v. Renfrow, 2009-2 USTC para. 50,580 (E.D.N.C. 2009).

Elbert Hubbard, A message to Garcia

A fascinating story I have been assigned for the clinic. This is what sometimes I am afraid to feel about myself

. . . this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity,
this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and
lift, are the things that put pure socialism so far into the future. If men
will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their
effort is for all? . . .

. . . The employer is constantly sending away “help” that have shown their
incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being
taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if
times are hard and work is scarce, this sorting is done finer - but out
and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go. It is the survival of the
fittest. . . .

. . . My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as
well as when he is home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia,
quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no
lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught
else but deliver it, never gets “laid off,” nor has to go on strike for
higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such
individuals. Anything such a man asks will be granted; his kind is so rare
that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town,
and village - in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out for such; he is needed, and needed badly—the man who can Carry a message to Garcia.

Great things to think of in those hard times of high level of unemployment, isn't it?

P.S. I am working on my first this school year post, but still didn't come with apologies of my long-term absence from those pages. But stay tuned. Sooner or later I come back.

Ok, yes, I laugh from this...

Boring readings of complicated cases can be sometimes diluted with judge's humor. Apparently, from my postings on other web sites, lay people don't find that humor fun. Maybe that is why lawyers have own jokes that seem to others not at all amusing. My humor might happen to degrade to the level when I laugh at judge's opinions, but, oh well, I am a future lawyer, aren't I?

Here is an excerpt from one of the cases -- Penthouse Intern., Ltd. v. Dominion Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 855 F.2d 963, 973 (2d Cir. 1988):

Also important to Dominion's case was the testimony of Melrod partner, Philip Gorelick. Because of his extensive involvement in the transaction, he was in the
best position to present Dominion's perspective concerning the deal. The district court was not, however, receptive to Gorelick's testimony. After Gorelick had concluded his testimony on direct examination and began responding to questions on cross-examination, Judge Duffy called a morning recess. As the Judge was leaving the courtroom, he requested that the Melrod firm's attorney, Robert L. Tofel, join him in the robing room. When Tofel met Judge Duffy in the robing room, the judge handed him a copy of Volume 377 of the Federal Supplement and requested that Tofel read the first line in U.S. v. Tramunti, 377 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (Duffy, J.). That line reads: “John Spurdis is a liar.” After reading the sentence to himself, Tofel looked at the judge. Saying nothing, Judge Duffy simply shrugged expressively. Tofel then said in essence that Judge Duffy had misread Gorelick. Tofel explained that Gorelick may have been obnoxious or aggressive but that he was not a liar. Again, Judge Duffy did not respond and simply shrugged.

(. . .)

[t]he decision as to the credibility of witnesses is properly left to the trial judge or to the jury because as finders of fact they are in a position to view the demeanor of the witnesses.

Gorelick took the stand and attempted brazenly to lie to the court. During cross-examination, the crucible of truth, Gorelick continuously shifted uneasily in the chair, sweated like a trapped liar, and the glaze that came over his shifty eyes gave proof to his continuing perjury. His total lack of veracity was shown not only by his demeanor but by the shady practices he seemingly reveled in.

Don't you love it???

"A test that everyone passes is not a test at all."
Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987)(Justice Blackman)

I also would add that it should be easy to understand and of course feasible to apply. How often do you see those???