ha

please stop saying "first"

first?

first?!?

first?

What a prude.

would be interesting if pro se attorney gets an affidavit from someone supporting his version of events!

first

Judge Cock Block.

And First.

3:50 - More interesting if he had photographic evidence.

Test the little black dress/robe.

Hmm. No sanctions, no comment. She's guilty

First

First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First First

Rings a little hollow - relationship does not exist today, but did it?

I like the cut of her jib.

I like the cut of her jib.

4:02 -- what part of "prior relationship" isn't clear to you?

Is it perjury if a judge lies from the bench? I mean, I know she isn't under oath, per se...

Maybe the Plaintiff was stalking the Judge.

That is the most judicious, but least entertaining way of ruling on that motion. If I was on trial before that Judge I would probably be having the same fantasies. "Leave the robe on your honor . . . "

She will not "comment further on that which does not exist." Touche, Your Honor. But nobody is saying that the "prior relationship" still "exists." That's an oxymoron, silly. That's why it's a prior relationship - it no longer exists.

I think she is carefully denying something that cannot possibly be true in the first place, but not in fact speaking to the plaintiff's allegations.

Fellatiowned? Nope.

SECOND!

I'd get underneath her robes . . .

That was very smart of the judge to rule upon the motion to recuse at the same time as she ruled upon the motion in limine which let everyone know this plaintiff has a conviction for criminal stalking.

Given the plaintiff's criminal history, and the unbelievable nature of his allegations (he yelled so loud during fellatio it set off car alarms) I think it's safe to assume the judge is an innocent victim here.

I guess this is a moot point, but would a twenty year old hummer even be a reason for recusal?

A prior relationship continues to exist as a prior relationship for time immemorial.

She did it. If it were true, that would be one thing. But if it were totally made up, the judge would have flipped! The judge I clerked for would have gone nuts if someone fabricated such an allegation.

The guy basically said, "your honor, please recuse yourself because you used to be a whore, and I was the beneficiary of such whoredom."

". . . the cause of his termination was his criminal stalking arrest."

Lat, I think you need to amend/remove the first post. You may be within your rights to post it, but your language gave the motion more credibility than it deserved. Instead of "is oral sex grounds for recusal?", you should have framed it as "nuttiest motion for recusal ever."

Hold on a second, he now has counsel? another Motion to Recuse was filed. Where is the reporting on this, get the whole file people.

4:18, it depends on how it ended.

Wait . . . did they even have car alarms in 1983?

it certainly could have the appearance of impropriety - especially if he screamed so loud it set off a car alarm

We know how it allegedly ended. I don't think there is anything to recuse there.

Also, I do agree with the prior poster that in light of this nutbags stalking conviction, posting his allegations here are a bit creepy.

Could she be tried for perjury if the plaintiff proves that his version of the facts are indeed true???

Too late. It already happened in my head.

4:11 -- she says the allegations of a prior relationship are untrue. The statement "that which does not exist" does not turn this into an "oxymoron." It simply means that she's not going to comment on "a prior relationship" that does not exist, i.e., never happened. She's not being coy.

4:24: No. Judicial orders aren't sworn statements under oath. And judges pretty much have absolute immunity for things done in the course of their duties.

My theory - there was this blonde girl who engaged in said conduct 25 years ago and then Mr. Pro Se sees that the judge is a blonde who was at U of M 25 years ago. And he's c-r-a-z-y. So he puts 2 and 2 together and it adds up to this. Funny stuff. Hope the judge has a sense of humor and isn't too humiliated.

(But I'd like to think that she did have some drunken gropes in college, though, and is thinking, just in the back of her mind, well, maybe...)

Wow, Plaintiff has the most guts/nerve/chutzpah I have ever seen. To allege, in a court document, that Her Honor wasn't so 'honorable'... and to give such specific details . . . Wow. . . Wow. . .

Anyone who believed this bullshit the first time around needs a little bit more seasoning before they become a lawyer.

4:23, let me rephrase: it depends upon his courtesy and aim.

bravo. well handled--deal w/ it summarily is the best way to make the loser plaintiff look like the loser he obviously is.

Hey -- 4:22 has a really good point. Car alarms were NOT that prevalent in 1983. In fact, they were barely even in wide use at all, and certainly not in cars owned by typical college students. They started out far more as a luxury.

Anyway -- very good point!

bravo. well handled--deal w/ it summarily is the best way to make the loser plaintiff look like the loser he obviously is.

4:25,

I realize she is not being coy. I am not being serious. Get over yo-self.

Were car alarms even around back in 1984?

I would also point out that screams usually don't set off car alarms, motion does. But maybe the mythical 1983 car alarms were different....

It depends on what one means by "prior relationship"

Some would say that a blow job in the restroom does not create a prior relationship.

First of all, just giving someone a blow job does not put you in a "relationship" with that person, notwithstanding what a stage-five clinger might tell you. If anything has been around from time immemorial, it's loose girls.

The Judge's carefully worded motion never really denied that she blew him. There's many interpretations possible, that she didn't consider it a "relationship" being the most prominent among them in my opinion. And it would indeed be grounds for recusal because some girls, when they grow up, have a way of hating guys that knew them from their looser days. It's remarkable -- the guy becomes a "predator" and a "stalker" simply because the girl may have tightened her standards, among other things.

Circumstantially though, the best evidence that she did is that she was not livid at the thought of the recusal motion. If it's so false why doesn't she sue him for libel? The reason is obvious.

Don't construe this as saying there's anything wrong with randomly blowing a guy. But the bull shit that ensues is just comical sometimes.

She can't sue him for libel for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that the offending remark is contained in a motion. Good luck with those NY bar results tomorrow.

Any luck getting that stalking conviction overturned 4:38? You have a real nice attitude.

I think 4:38 is late for a tinfoil hat meeting of conspiracy theorists . . . .

"If it's so false why doesn't she sue him for libel? The reason is obvious."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 04:38 PM

_________________________________

Please, only posting by lawyers or law students from now on.

LOL@"Circumstantially though, the best evidence that she did is that she was not livid at the thought of the recusal motion. If it's so false why doesn't she sue him for libel? The reason is obvious."

You aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?

4:38 cracks me up. Classic lawyering in reaching a conclusion and then figuring out some way to support it. Maybe Mr. Pro Se, like lots of other pro se plaintiffs, looked up the judge's bio, figured out she went to Miami, and then concocted a story because he had nothing better to do. But you're right; I would probably believe a pro se plaintiff over a judge.

"The Judge's carefully worded motion" - Judges don't submit motions. They issue orders.

"It's remarkable -- the guy becomes a "predator" and a "stalker" simply because the girl may have tightened her standards, among other things." - You are right, he was just too *real* for her!

"Circumstantially though, the best evidence that she did is that she was not livid at the thought of the recusal motion." - Wow, a judge retaining her professionalism in the face of baseless accusations? What a shock.

"Don't construe this as saying there's anything wrong with randomly blowing a guy" - That should be the least of your concerns.

Don't know if she blew him or not, but you can bet that she's gonna rip him a new asshole after this...

If he is still on probation for stalking would making a false allegation like that in a Motion filed with a Court be a probation violation? Probably not best for anyone to pursue it given his obvious nuttiness.

I wonder what brilliant attorney gets to represent him now?

4:38 = Robert Steitz

Hold on there, blow jobs should be encouraged. A good hand job never hurt anyone to much either. Your obvious woman issues are probably why you think that a simple hummer is such a big deal.

Your spelling, usage, and grammar are atrocious.

she's lying

another one!:

Enjoy your time at Nova and let me know how the job search works out for you.

Wait, did car alarms even exist in 1985?

Forget that - why did he scream? Did she bite 'im? [allegedly] Ouch!

What is a Nova?

We can use a little teeth, but we don't want to be a biter.

Interesting. The judge denies a motion, in part, based on the determination of facts to which she is percipient.

Did chicks give head in 1986?

You're all a bunch of haters.

Every ruling on a recusal motion is going to involve a determination of facts to which the judge is percipient.

You, sir, are mildly retarded.

Honestly, I cannot imagine someone treating the desperate allegations of this "gentleman" more judicially. What more appropriate way to rule on a motion that is completely unfounded than simply denying it and moving on. Any more of a reaction would have been a deviation from the true purpose judges are, after all, expected to serve.

Nothing worse than a drunken chick with sharp teeth

And who would remember the first and last names of a drunken blowjob received a quarter of a century ago. Are you kidding me? This guy is ridiculous.

6:32: Awesome.

to 6:34

If the drunken BJ-giver was that hot...the real question is: who wouldn't remember?

Intensive purposes FB? Are you also the type of person who says "irregardless"?

Wonder why this guy didnt support his motion with an affidavit from his running buddy, or any of the people who supposedly heard him scream (in ecstasy I suppose?) at the party? What a quack.

One thing this thread accomplished - and it has accomplished much - is to make me reminisce fondly about getting drunken semi-anonymous blowjobs in college.

She totally blew him. Also, she is a straight JILF.

Robert C. Seitz, the pro se filer, is dangerous. Born 2/6/64, in miami dade county felony criminal case no. F01019975, Seitz was charged with felony agrravated stalking and violation of a domestic violence injunction. Doctors Haber and Ditomasso performed psychological evaluations to determine competency and the defendant had CT scans and neurological issues. In felony criminal case F01019972, he was convicted of felony battery on a woman and sentenced to 4 years in prison for violating his probation. He has a misdemeanor stalking case as well M1033770. His last known address is 6356Manor Lane, South Miami FL Suite 103, 33143

Well, all the stalkers believe earnestly that objects of their affection are in love with them. I'm sure he believes sincerely the judge blew him.

Looks like she really did graduate 'cum' laude!

she is kind of attractive, i'd let her rogers my hammerstein.

Robert C. Seitz, the pro se filer, is dangerous. Born 2/6/64, in case no. F01019975, Seitz was charged with felony agrravated stalking and violation of a domestic violence injunction. Renowned criminal defense lawyer Barry Wax represented him. Doctors Haber and Ditomasso performed psychological evaluations to determine competency and the defendant had CT scans and neurological issues. IN Case F01019972, he was convicted of felony battery on a woman and sentenced to 4 years in prison for violating his probation. He has a misdemanor stalking case as well M1033770. His last know n address is 6356Manor Lane, South Miami FL Suite 103 33143

4:19/4:38, perhaps she did "flip" and "get livid" in private, but it's much more mature and judicial to handle it as she did -- the ridiculous allegations barely deserved a response. Why dignify them further? Had she responded more aggressively, everyone would be saying, "Methinks the lady douth protest too much."

The title of the previous post should be changed.

Female judges are always so horny. They have stressful jobs, have to act manly in the court to gain respect, so when they take their robes off....they really take them off. Complete cougars in the sack.

I don't know if what this guy says is true, but if all judges could be recused for banging other attorneys, they dockets would come to a grinding halt.

Why hasn't this talkbalk devolved into a compilation of judge-involved sex stories? I'm very disappointed.

first!

Little Mary came home from a frat party one night and with a smile on her face and told her mother, "Robert Seitz showed me his weenie today!"

Before the mother could raise a concern, Mary went on to say, "It reminded me of a peanut."

Relaxing with a hidden smile, Mary's mom asked, "Really small was it?"

Mary replied, "No... salty!"

Robert C. Seitz, the pro se filer, is dangerous. Born 2/6/64, in case no. F01019975, Seitz was charged with felony agrravated stalking and violation of a domestic violence injunction. Renowned criminal defense lawyer Barry Wax represented him. Doctors Haber and Ditomasso performed psychological evaluations to determine competency and the defendant had CT scans and neurological issues. IN Case F01019972, he was convicted of felony battery on a woman and sentenced to 4 years in prison for violating his probation. He has a misdemanor stalking case as well M1033770. His last know n address is 6356Manor Lane, South Miami FL Suite 103 33143

Judge Barzee is a competent and impartial jurist. Seitz is a scum bag doing everything he possibly can to abuse the system and deflect attention from his numerous breaches of the law. They need to throw his a** in Raiford and let him get gang raped for the next 20 years.

Robert Seitz needs to be stopped from ruining the lives of innocent people. Somebody must be able to curtail his manipulation of the legal system. His behavior illustrates his need for help.

Robert Seitz needs to be stopped from ruining the lives of innocent people. Somebody must be able to curtail his manipulation of the legal system. His behavior illustrates his need for help.