The lawyer who represented Delia in the underlying investigation, Stuart Adams, was kind enough to email us:

I am the attorney quoted in the Filarsky v. Delia case. I represented Delia in the “investigation.” I have dealt with Filarsky over 23 years of representing police and firefighters. The vociferous objection I made which is quoted in the decision is in direct proportion with my dealings with him over these years (context is everything and it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not have this context). His letter to Delia explains that. I thought you might like the letter he sent to me. It speaks for itself and says everything about Filarsky that you need to know.

All I said is that he would sweat it out wondering if he would incur personal liability. I’d say that six years of litigation all the way to the United States Supreme Court proves me right; that’s a lot of sweat.

And without further ado, here’s Filarsky’s latest letter:

“This is framed and on my credenza in my office,” says Adams. Because shouldn’t all lawyers keep tokens of the d-baggery of others?

For the sheer entertainment value alone, we hope that Filarsky decides to unleash the wrath upon someone else. And, of course, advise them to rot in hell.

Earlier: Lawyer of the Day: SCOTUS Victor Advises Losing Litigant to Read Opinion ‘Eternally from Hell’


comments sponsored by

56 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments