Wednesday Writs for 8/14
L1: Due to time constraints, I don’t have a “case of the week” for you today. Instead, have a read through this list of the 5 most “awesomely sarcastic” opinions in SCOTUS history. I’m partial to this RBG quote from #3 on the list:
“Notwithstanding nightmarish images of out-of-control flatware, livestock run amok, and colliding tubas disturbing the peace and quiet of Tecumseh…”
L2: Trump has set his sites on legal immigrants now in his newest volley in the immigration debate, with a regulation targeting the poorest immigrants.
L3: The first law suit challenging the new immigration rule is already underway.
L4: A 23 year old set up a law practice website and started charging clients for services, despite not actually being a lawyer. Gotta hand it to him for the moxie.
L5: Now that the scourge that is Jeffrey Epstein has been removed from the earth, what happens next, from a legal standpoint?
L6: A Florida man is accusing CNN’s Don Lemon of an assault, saying the journalist grabbed his genitals at a New York bar last year. Lemon denies the claims.
L7: The parents from a reality TV family I have never heard of are facing tax evasion charges.
L8: The Jehovah’s Witnesses give the Catholic Church a run for its money in sex abuse cover-ups.
L9: The head jerk at Barstool Sports, an organization full of jerks, continued to be a jerk online yesterday and in doing so, may have broken labor laws. David Portnoy, infamous for misogyny, online harassment and intellectual property theft, tweeted that if any Barstool employee DMed a union organizer, they would be fired on the spot. Threatening employees to dissuade unionization is a no-no.
L10: In a classic case of pot and kettle, an insurance giant accuses a pharmaceutical giant of charging too much.
L11: Our dumb criminal of the week is an Amazon delivery man who has apparently never heard of porch cameras and decided to steal a little girl’s bicycle. Kid’s bike thieves have a special place in hell.
L1: So that first item in the list, can the government still pull that kind of crap (filing an appeal at the 11th hour, so the other part can’t possibly reply)?Report
Well, it’s kind of an odd situation, because it wasn’t that the opposing party could not file a response to the appeal.
Here’s what happened.
Bertman sold tomato paste to the US Gov. Bertman hired Kirsch to deliver it. The gov said the paste arrived spoiled. The government sued Bertman. Bertman filed a cross-claim to bring in Kirsch, arguing it was Kirsch’s fault. The jury found that the tomato paste was not defective, and Bertman was not liable, and also let Kircsh off the hook.
So, when the government appealed, Bertman wanted to appeal the ruling insofar as it let Kirsch off the hook, so that if the government won its appeal, Bertman would still be able to lay the damages on Kirsch. Had the government not appealed, Bertman would have had no reason to do so either, because he had won. But if Bertman was going to appeal the verdict, it had to be done within the same 60 days.
Understand? Clear as mud?Report
Pretty sure mud is easier to see through…Report
Tried my best. I’ll try it this way: There were two rulings: 1)the tomato paste was not defective so Bertman owed the government nothing. 2)because the tomato paste was not defective and Bertman owed nothing, Kercsh likewise owed Bertman nothing. The government appealed the 1st ruling- they did’t care about the second; they just wanted Bertman to pay them because he is who they contracted with.
However, if Bertman wanted to appeal that 2nd ruling, he had to do it within 60 days. But there was no need to; he only needed money from Kercsh if he had to pay the government.
But when the government filed its appeal, Bertman was back on the hook for possibly having to pay the government damages. So he says well crap, better appeal that 2nd ruling so that I can blame Kercsh. But since the 60 days were up, he couldn’t. Legally, he could have filed his appeal any time during that 60 day period. The fact that he had no reason to doesn’t legally mitigate the fact that he didn’t.
Bertman didn’t lose his right to respond to the government’s appeal. He could still do that. He just lost his right to blame Kercsh.Report
OK, that makes more sense.
Still seems shitty, but might only be shitty in a unique way.Report
I believe the rule has changed, so today Bertman would enjoy an additional 14 days to file his own appeal from the date the government filed its appeal. So, it doesn’t completely make sense; it seems like an artifact from an earlier time where winners were winners and losers were losers, and neither the twain need both appeal.Report
Colliding Tubas is great name for a band. Now i just gotta learn to play an instrument.Report
L11 – Bicycle thieves may or may not have a special place in hell, but they do have a special place in film!Report
L7- I should have become an accountant specializing in reality TV stars, because apparently, they are a severely underserved market when it comes to tax advice. I mean, Richard Hatch went to jail (the first time) over ten years ago, and it looks like people still haven’t learned.Report