Thomas Gooch III strikes me as the kind of man who, upon finding himself in a hole, starts screaming for somebody to throw him down a shovel.

You’ll remember Gooch as the guy who filed a motion objecting to a woman seated at opposing counsel’s table. Well, more specifically, he objected to the breasts of a woman at opposing counsel’s table.

It was a spurious claim from the start; Gooch didn’t know anything about the woman, but because she had large boobs, Gooch felt like he could question her qualifications without any evidence whatsoever. But Gooch was really put in his place when opposing counsel, Dmitry Feofanov, revealed the the allegedly offensive breasts belonged to his wife, Daniella Atencia.

Well, Gooch has dropped his motion. And the judge in the case (remember, there was a real trial going on here before the Gooch started mentally motorboating opposing counsel’s wife) admonished him. And this could all be over with now.

If Gooch would just stop talking….

The Daily has an update on Gooch, Feofanov, Atencia, Atencia’s breasts, and Atencia’s dorky glasses that are almost big enough to function as a bra.

The judge in the case, Judge Anita Rivkin-Carothers, admonished both sides for these silly motions. (If you think Rivkin-Carothers is pissed now, wait until she figures out her Google Image footprint is permanently scarred with giant pictures of luscious cleavage.) Rivkin-Carothers’s scolding reminds me of a parent who yells at both children because she can’t be bothered to take two seconds to figure out who started it.

The Daily reports that Rivkin-Carothers was prepared to rule on the motion (likely against Gooch), but he withdrew it. End of story, right? Not quite. Here are the money lines from The Daily:

Okay, there are three dumb things Gooch just said right there, and I bet he’s hoping we’re all too stupid to catch them.

Problem 1: “He was more concerned about the thinness of her legal qualifications than the sag of her neckline.” Well, that’s not what you said. No, in your original motion, you said: “Defendant’s counsel is anecdotally familiar with the tactics and theatrics of Plaintiff’s counsel, [redacted]. Such behavior includes having a large breasted woman sit next to him at counsel’s table during the course of the trial.”

You only became concerned about her legal qualifications after you — and so far there is no evidence that anybody other than Gooch even noticed this woman’s boobs — were distracted by her bosom. Arguably, Feofanov could have had a homeless person sitting next to him, and as long as she was flat chested Gooch would never have questioned her legal qualifications.

Problem 2: “First, I have to find out what legal training she has.” You should have done that before you filed your motion, pig. It’s supposed to go: evidence, argument, motion before the court. Not: boobies, ejaculation, OMG I should tell the judge about this.

Problem 3: “Hell, I thought she was his daughter.” You seem like a weak dude, Mr. Gooch. What kind of man writes a motion to the court complaining about the cleavage of another man’s daughter because she’s sitting next to him at trial. I surmise you were going for some kind of frat boy, “he’s old enough to be her father,” kind of joke. But this whole thing is making you look like a dirty old man much moreso than Feofanov.

Honestly Gooch, don’t file any more motions. Don’t do any more “research” into the vivacious Daniella Atencia. Leave this woman and her husband alone and just represent your client. Can you do that? Can you just represent your client and resist the urge to talk about opposing counsel’s martial relationship?

Because right now even the car dealership that Gooch is representing is looking way more classy than the lawyer they hired.

Jugs and Jury [The Daily]

Earlier: Motion of the Day: No Law Against Having Big-Breasted Colleagues
The Allegedly Distracting Breasts At Counsel Table: Guess Who They Belong To?


comments sponsored by

47 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments