If you enjoyed the Best Notice of Appeal Ever, as well as the complaint in Ward v. Arm & Hammer, you’ll enjoy our latest pro se filing, too.
It’s an interesting challenge to jurisdiction, filed by a fellow who legally changed his name to Elmo Fred; Griffiths. (Yes, the semicolon is legally part of his name.) The case is a guardianship proceeding for Griffiths’s mother, Ruth Griffiths, brought by one of Elmo’s siblings.
Here’s the first page:
And there’s more. The rest of the document appears after the jump.
If you enjoyed the Best Notice of Appeal Ever, as well as the complaint in Ward v. Arm & Hammer, you’ll enjoy our latest pro se filing, too.
We have a weakness for the ridiculous and bizarre. So we’re finding ourselves quite taken with all these tales of law school library strangeness.
Here’s an update on yesterday’s item about the “attorney general of the United States,” at the Emory Law School library:
The “attorney general” was a homeless guy that wandered around the whole law school. I was studying in the main common area when he asked me if there were any professors who would be interested in the “largest federal lawsuit ever filed.” He also asked me to vouch for him if security came looking for him.
Apparently he had already done his shtick in the library and was chased out by the librarians. The library was locked, and students needed to swipe their ID card to get in, so a fellow student must have let him in.
I dispatched him to the floor that contained the faculty offices (and was nicely contained). Security was informed. He was discovered changing his clothes, then was escorted off the premises. Nice guy, just a little… err, very creepy.
We’re glad Emory security can tell the difference between homeless people and law professors. Given the similarities — disheveled, smelly, given to wearing ratty sports coats, talking to themselves — it’s only a matter of time before a mistake gets made.
(Oh, and speaking of homeless people…)
Earlier: What Is Up With Law School Libraries These Days?
Breaking: Mystery Smell Hits NYU Law Library!!!
Breaking news: The Second Coming is almost here!
Don’t believe us? Check out the official press release:
[T]he disasters and plagues that are described in the Bible are about to happen. The immediate future will be difficult for everyone, but the result will be that people acknowledge the true Christian God and follow his commandments. The cities will be like Heaven on Earth and God Himself will come and live with us.
The first plague to happen in the immediate future will be a tsunami affecting the East Coast of America. Unfortunately, even Christians who are expecting these events seem unwilling to accept that they are about to happen. If this belief persists, the death toll for the East Coast will be extremely high.
A tsunami? We respectfully dissent.
When the first plague arrives, it will hit a law school library. Maybe locusts in the Am Jur volumes, or LLM students breaking out in boils.
Why? Strange things have been happening at law school libraries lately. Like the “mystery smell” at the NYU library. And now the “Jesus” freak at Emory Law School:
From: “Katherine Brokaw” [email address redacted]
Date: December 15, 2006 2:37:38 PM EST
To: [Emory Law School classes of 2007 - 2009]
Subject: [ELS 2008-announce] stranger in library last night
Last night a white male, approximately 40, was disruptive in the library. He was wearing a Jesus t-shirt, a black leather jacket, black cowboy hat with the word “perfect” in silver. We are told he claimed to be the attorney general of the United States.
If you see him in the library or in Gambrell, please notify Operations or Security, or the staff at the Circulaton Desk in the library who will call the appropriate people. Thank you — Dean Brokaw
So that’s what John Ashcroft has been up to lately.
(Besides appearing on The Daily Show — on which, by the way, he was surprisingly charming and funny.)
The Second Coming [press release, via Yahoo! Finance]
The Daily Show: John Ashcroft [TV.com]
Earlier: Breaking: Mystery Smell Hits NYU Law Library!!!
- Ann Althouse, Biglaw, Blogging, Hotties, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Law Professors, Law Schools, Lunacy, Media and Journalism, Non-Sequiturs, Plaintiffs Firms
Here’s a delightful potpourri of fun and interesting links. We planned to write about these items in more depth, but just never got around to it. So now we’re just going to air them in these pages.
We’ve been saving them up for a while, so some are a bit dated (although some are new). They’re all well worth your time and interest. There are a lot of links here, so we’ve organized them by category.
Legal Practice and Profession:
* This doesn’t seem right to us, at least not with respect to the biggest of the Biglaw firms. It’s not how Sullivan & Cromwell is going to lose Goldman Sachs as a client. [WSJ Law Blog]
* If you’re good at it, you can make tons of money as a plaintiffs’ lawyer — all while standing up for “the little guy.” So why doesn’t plaintiffs’ work attract more graduates of top law schools? We’re not the only folks asking this question. [Empirical Legal Studies]
* Also, we didn’t know that the plaintiffs’ bar had an elite club for the 100 top practitioners. Aren’t they supposed to be anti-elitist? [Inner Circle of Advocates via ELS Blog]
* The latest success story at JD Bliss: Canadian condo lawyer turned television star. And she’s a hottie, too. [JD Bliss Blog]
* More proof of the legal profession’s incestuous character. [WSJ Law Blog]
* We keep you updated on legal hottie developments. Now, check out some hot doctors. [Nasty, Brutish & Short]
* We can’t say we’re surprised to hear about politics getting dragged into the law school accreditation process (which really ought to be too boring to be controversial). [Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit]
* Are “young” law school professors too old? Or do we actually pay too much attention to youthful legal geniuses, a la Noah Feldman, Tim Wu, and Neal Katyal? [MoneyLaw; Concurring Opinions]
* We bet very few law professors live in this town. [Southern Appeal]
Mainstream Media (MSM):
* Heh. We guessed that Jan Crawford Greenburg posed just two of the audience questions at last week’s Nino-Breyer Smackdown. But even that number may have been too generous. [Prettier Than Napoleon]
* Best name for a newspaper EVER. Finally, people who have a more awkward time at cocktail parties than we do. [Flower Mound Messenger via How Appealing]
Blogs, Bloggers, Blogging:
* Don’t get us wrong: we love you, blog commenters. That said, some of you are nasty, crazy, or both. [Althouse]
* We’re warning you: DO NOT CLICK THROUGH THIS LINK. [QuizLaw]
* Thank you, Professor Althouse, for making us feel better for our rather idiosyncratic approach to selecting subjects to write about. [Althouse]
* Blog readers, make your voices heard. Who should take second place behind the Volokh Conspiracy? [How Appealing]
* Althouse: a juggernaut of the blawgosphere. Seven million visitors can’t be wrong! [Althouse]
- Crime, Death Penalty, Fast Food, Food, Gay, Gay Marriage, Lunacy, Morning Docket, War on Terror, Weirdness
* How crazy are bedbugs, exactly? [CNN]
* Which of your personalities is the arsonist?. [CNN]
* Yo quiero to sue Taco Bell. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Chinese Gitmo detainees say the same evidence being used to detain them was used to clear five others. [Jurist]
* Maryland Court of Appeals considers same-sex marriage. [Jurist]
* Jurors go wild… kind of. [AP via Yahoo! News]
* This could be your fate if you have sexual relations with any animal, dead or alive, regardless of law: you could be the posthumous star of a Sundance documentary. [Editor and Publisher]
* Do not think you can know go about suing the various characters in your dysfunctional family. [Seattle Times]
- Bill Mathesius, Death Penalty, James M. Brooks, Judge of the Day, Lunacy, New Jersey, Richard Posner, State Judges, State Judges Are Clowns
Today we have TWO judges of the day. Both win the prize for their honesty and fearlessness. These jurists aren’t afraid to speak their minds, and for that we salute them.
First, there’s Judge James Brooks, of “the O.C.” — Orange County, California.
An Orange County judge with a sharp tongue and a history of making insensitive comments about ethnic minorities was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
The commission cited [a] contempt hearing where litigant Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he didn’t attend a scheduled Oct. 15 deposition because he had gone to the hospital with chest pains.
“Gee,” Brooks responded. “I wonder what’s going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?”
Come now — that’s a bit tepid. We’ve heard harsher words from federal appellate judges at oral argument. This was more compelling:
[T]he commission noted that Brooks had been privately chastised three times since 1996 for similar conduct. The commission-cited punishments include: a 1996 advisory letter for referring to Hispanic defendants as “Pedro,” and issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for “ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen”…
Second, there’s Judge Wilbur Mathesius, a Superior Court judge in Mercer County, New Jersey.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court on Thursday handed Judge Wilbur Mathesius a one-month suspension without pay for making shoot-from-the hip comments that undermined the judicial system….
[Judge Mathesius allegedly] berated a jury for acquitting a defendant of illegal handgun possession. According to the complaint, Mathesius went to the jury room and said, “What the hell were you thinking?” He then told the jurors the defendant had a prior criminal record and chose to not testify because of that record; that another witness would have testified for the prosecution had he not been threatened; and that the prosecution’s principal witness was the most credible he had ever seen.
This was only one of several incidents for which Judge Mathesius was disciplined. He also made some over-the-top comments about the death penalty. When criticized for these comments before the New Jersey Supreme Court, he responded as follows:
Mathesius observ[ed] that Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner “has written on many of the same subjects,” [and Mathesius] suggested that members of the New Jersey judiciary do the same.
Judge Mathesius, we know Judge Richard Posner. We have corresponded with Richard Posner. And you, sir, are no Richard Posner.
You are a state court judge. In the trial court. In New Jersey. In a word: ICKY.
(We mean no disrespect to the Garden State, from which we hail. But the “state court” and “trial court” aspects are proper subjects of disdain.)
Vociferous Judge Is Suspended a Month Without Pay [New Jersey Law Journal]
Judge Scolded for Insensitive Remarks [NYLawyer.com]
- ACLU, Anal Sex / Butt Sex, Federalist Society, Gay, Gay Marriage, Lunacy, Rudeness, Vicious Infighting, William Eskridge
Apperances can be deceiving. The smiling woman above looks like a sweet old lady (or perhaps she’s middle-aged).
But don’t be fooled. This pleasant-looking woman opened a can of whoop-ass at the final panel discussion of the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention. She rained hellfire and brimstone upon the audience, and placed at least two of the panelists on an express train to Hell.
As we mentioned earlier, that last panel “discussion” was insane. It was a no-holds-barred fight between the Federalist Society’s two major constituencies: the social conservatives and the libertarians. It was a smart move to save this intra-societal slugfest until the end of the weekend.
The nominal title of the panel: “The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture.” A more appropriate title for the panel: “Watch Libertarians and Social Conservatives Rant at Each Other About Gay Marriage.”
Moderator cum lion tamer: Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General
For the libertarians: Dr. Charles Murray, AEI; Mr. Anthony Romero, ACLU
For the social conservatives: Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Professor Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Kinda in between: Professor William Eskridge, Yale Law School
Kinda irrelevant: Hon. Walter Dellinger, currently of O’Melveny & Myers and Duke Law School (and former acting Solicitor General)
A blow-by-blow account of this intellectual battle royal, after the jump.
- Ann Coulter, Crime, Food, John Paul Stevens, Lunacy, Rank Stupidity, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Earlier this year, controversial blonde pundit Ann Coulter joked about putting rat poison in Justice John Paul Stevens’s creme brulee.
Did Coulter give someone an idea? Check out this story, from the Star-Telegram of Forth Worth:
When federal appellate Judge Danny Boggs said at a Friday legal conference at Las Colinas that physical assaults aimed at judges have come mainly from “the deranged,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor underscored the safety concerns.
“Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them,” she recounted. “Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”
Sounds pretty serious, right?
But we must call out Justice O’Connor for exaggerating the seriousness of the threat. It seems the ol’ cowgirl is playing fast and loose with the record. As reported by SCOTUS press corps diva Linda Greenhouse:
The danger posed by the packages was immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and adding, “This is poisoned.”
Supreme Court justices get accused of many things. But illiteracy is not usually among them.
Moreover, Justice O’Connor’s casual statement of “I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them” — implying the deadly treats came thisclose to reaching supreme judicial lips — is misleading. Again, per the Queen Bee:
All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer.
So it’s not that easy to poison a Supreme Court justice. Furthermore, even if the poisoned food somehow makes it past the initial screening, to reach a justice’s chambers, success is still not guaranteed. Why? In addition to their other duties, some Supreme Court clerks serve as food tasters for their bosses.
Finally, we fail to see how Justice O’Connor’s tale of the poisoned baked goods refutes Judge Boggs’s point that most threats against judges comes from “the deranged.” Clearly Barbara Joan March, who sent the poisoned packages to the Supreme Court — accompanied by notes that helpfully disclosed their toxic nature — is not a right-thinking person. At the very least, she’s not the most sane, nor the most intelligent, resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sitting Ducks on the Bench [Star-Telegram (Fort Worth)]
Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison [New York Times]
Ann Coulter to Justice Stevens: Drop Dead — Here, Let Me Help [Wonkette]
How do you solve a problem like Naomi — besides deporting her skinny black ass?
Repeated brushes with the law have not deterred the British-born beauty from beating the crap out of the hired help. Here’s the latest:
Naomi Campbell might be spending more time in courtrooms than on catwalks these days. The supermodel was due in a New York court Wednesday to face charges of assaulting a housekeeper — one in a series of former employees who have said the supermodel is striking in more ways than one.
“Striking in more ways than one” — we love it. Who says wire reporters have no fun?
In Campbell’s latest legal woes, Gibson’s new lawsuit says ”Campbell either kicked or punched the back of Gibson’s head … while yelling discriminatory comments” as the maid searched the closet for the model’s jeans.
In Campbell’s defense, those were no ordinary jeans. They were Stella McCartney jeans.
And here’s the basis for the allegations of bigotry:
Gibson worked for Campbell from November 2005 through January 2006. Her court papers call Campbell a ”violent super-bigot” who disparaged her maid by saying, ”You are not in the Third World any more, stupid,” and ”Romanians are not usually as dumb as you.”
Bigotry? Come now — let’s give credit where credit is due. Campbell should be commended for the artful, almost lawyerly wording of her insult: “Romanians are NOT usually as dumb as you” (emphasis added).
Naomi Campbell Sued Again by Ex – Employee [Associated Press]