I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Is Yoko v. Expelled judge incompetent?

I think so. I took a closer look at the TRO's schedule for delivery of answering and reply papers:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiffs by hand delivering copies thereof to Plaintiffs counsel, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman LLP, 111 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019 on or before May _14_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that reply papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Dendants (sic) by hand delivering copies thereof to be retrieved by Defendants’ counsel, on or before May _16_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m..

Because the court rules allow electronic transmission of papers if the receiving party consents, I previously expressed surprise that the judge required hand delivery. Now looking at the deadlines for delivery, I see that the plaintiffs' attorneys, when receiving the final answering papers, have as little as 48 hours to have reply papers hand-delivered to the defense attorneys at the other end of the country. That's ridiculous. This judge is off his rocker.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Because the court rules allow electronic transmission of papers if the receiving party consents, I previously expressed surprise that the judge required hand delivery.<<<

The requirement for hand-delivery was in the original suggested Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiffs (which should have been clear in my commentary). Why Larry is surprised that the judge acquiesced to the parties' request for hand-delivery is beyond me.

>>>Now looking at the deadlines for delivery, I see that the plaintiffs' attorneys, when receiving the final answering papers, have as little as 48 hours to have reply papers hand-delivered to the defense attorneys at the other end of the country. That's ridiculous.<<<

That is ridiculous - the defense attorneys aren't on the other side of the country, they're in the same damn city! Let's look at the quotes Larry provided, plus the paragraph preceeding them (I have corrected my typos, which are due to my hasty transcription and do not appear in the original document).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that good and sufficient service of this Order to Show Cause and other papers on which it is based shall be made, via hand delivery or Federal Express overnight delivery, to be received on or before April 30, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. on Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc. c/o Allen C. Wasserman, Esq., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, 885 Third Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10022 and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon Plaintiffs by hand delivering copies thereof to Plaintiffs counsel, Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman LLP, 111 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019 on or before May _14_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that reply papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants by hand delivering copies thereof to be retrieved by Defendants’ counsel, on or before May _16_, 2008 at 5:00 p.m..


In fact, when you put the addresses into Mapquest, the plaintif and defense attorneys' offices are less than a mile apart.

As for the short turn around, again, that was a request on the part of the plaintiffs. They requested an expedited process, and they agreed at the meeting at the end of April to the timetable. If they feel that two days is sufficient, who is the judge to complain?

>>>This judge is off his rocker.<<<

It would seem that Larry is the only one off his rocker.

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

It seems that Larry thinks that all judges are crooked and/or crazy because they don't follow his twisted logic and redefinition of terms.

- Bill

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a little off-topic in this thread (thank goodness!), but relates to earlier discussion re Wikipedia bias that has scrolled off.

Here's an interesting comparison of a non-PC version of history, versus Wikipedia's PC version of the same story. (IMO the non-PC one is more accurate and insightful.)

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin said,
>>>>> The requirement for hand-delivery was in the original suggested Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiffs (which should have been clear in my commentary). <<<<<<

What commentary? There is no commentary at all under my previous post about the TRO. Anyway, such commentary is irrelevant because this is the first time I raised the issue of the deadline delivery dates.

>>>>>> Why Larry is surprised that the judge acquiesced to the parties' request for hand-delivery is beyond me. <<<<<<

As I pointed out before, a judge does not have to do everything that the parties ask him to do. For example, Judge Jones did not have to rule on the ID-as-science issue just because both sides asked him to.

>>>>>> That is ridiculous - the defense attorneys aren't on the other side of the country, they're in the same damn city! . . . .Let's look at the quotes Larry provided, plus the paragraph preceeding them<<<<<<

OK, I was looking only at the schedule for the final answering and reply papers and missed the preceding paragraph that gave the address for sending documents to the defendants' attorneys. Because of that pro hac vice stuff, where out-of-state attorneys must be sponsored by local attorneys even in federal cases, the defendants have a local NYC attorney. But the home offices of the defendants' other -- and probably main -- attorneys are in California and Texas, and I naturally presumed that the papers were supposed to be hand delivered to those offices. Because of the difficulty in quickly transmitting the printed papers to these other defense attorneys (the papers would have to be scanned into a computer or faxed), the judge should have denied the request for hand delivery and insisted on electronic filing. One of the nice things about electronic filing is that the papers can be accessed from anywhere if the attorneys are away from their home offices (maybe even because they arrive early for an out-of-town hearing).

Also, IMO the court rules should require that the litigants themselves -- and not just their attorneys -- have immediate access to papers served in the case. IMO litigants should not just sit on the sidelines but should be active in doing legal research (with guidance from the attorneys) and even help in writing drafts of the briefs. Attorneys' time can be extremely expensive and sometimes an attorney might not even have adequate time to do the research and writing because of illness, the press of other business, etc.. The litigants could also point out factual errors in the briefs. Our whole legal system is completely messed up.

ViU, you lousy dunghill, I told you to at least withhold your gratuitous comments until after I have a chance to answer. You miss no opportunity to mess up this blog with your crap.

And yes, judges are both crooked and crazy.

"So I'm the bad guy. How did that happen?"
-- D-Fens in the movie "Falling Down"

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

I'm especially interested in the effect of the suit on the movie's success. According to Box Office Mojo, its gross through May 14 was $7,353,913, which is fairly good for a documentary: and means that around a million people have seen it so far. That's a small fraction of the US population, but a sizable proportion of those who really follow this immense, ongoing scientific and philsosophical controversy.

Interestingly, quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff, who isn't a Christian, gave EXPELLED a good review on his blog. The clueless Darwin-fans who attack this blog make a display of their amazing ignorance by insisting that "creationist fundies" are the only ones who reject the silly, antiquated doctrines of the Darwinists. But like myself, Mohrhoff isn't a creationist of any variety: and I suspect that his overall views are fairly similar to my own.

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

< That's a small fraction of the US population, but a sizable proportion of those (i.e., 0.3% of the U.S. population, all of whom BTW were of course in favor of the film's theme) who really follow this (allegedly) immense, (allegedly) ongoing scientific and philsosophical (sic) (alleged) controversy.

Interestingly, quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff ... >

Quantum "physicists" have their own problems with scientific worldview and scientific method.

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:53:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home