Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thanks to LegalBlogWatch for alerting us to this response by a South Florida attorney to a show cause order issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. You don't have to understand the underlying legal issue to recognize how pissed this attorney is with the judge. It really makes one wonder, what was the attorney thinking? There's absolutely no doubt that this is going to end very badly for the attorney. The only question is exactly how badly will it end.
-- Opening paragraph: In your fourth published example of “Ready-Fire-Aim” against this attorney, it is obvious that you have not reviewed the record in this case which does not support the purported findings of fact. It is further quite obvious that you do not believe that the same respect mandated to be shown to you should also be shown to me. Your conclusion that Mr. Denison’s attempt to exempt his commissions as the head of a household is not supported by law is belied by the language of the actual statute. Your conduct in this case was been without citation to any authority for the propositions that: your jurisdiction is never ending and without geographic bounds; your unconditional releases are meaningless; and pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court are mere suggestions.
-- Footnote 1, page 1: Also see Adv Pro 09-01974-JKO where a mis-calendared hearing on a matter where an agreed judgment was submitted in favor of my client was treated as though a surgeon removed the wrong leg.
-- Page 1: In the Order to Show Cause [ECF 588] (hereinafter OSC) at pages 1 and 3, you “found” that “Denison had already admitted he owed those commissions to the Plan Administrator under the Debtor’s confirmed Chapter 11 Plan.” Wrong. Denison admitted that he was overpaid through a mathematical error not of his making.
-- Page 2: In the OSC, at page 3, you found that “During the January 4, 2011, hearing on the sanctions motion, Gleason made no attempt to assert that the Claim was proper (he actually conceded to the fact that it was improper by an agreed order to strike the Claim on December 6, 2010)...” Now I have ordered the transcript to demonstrate that you have “misremembered” the hearing....
-- Page 3: In the OSC, at page 7, you have, once again, proven that the superficially sound logic of the OSC is specious by stating...., “Gleason’s frivolous Claim was stricken by agreed order on December 6, 2010...” ... [T]he claim was not frivolous. What is frivolous is your grabbing of funds without any statutory grounds for so doing, and calling a garnishment by another name.
-- Page 3: The fiction continues on page 8 of the OSC, where you write, again, “Gleason has already stricken the offending Claim by agreed order."
-- Concluding sentence, page 4: It is sad when a man of your intellectual ability cannot get it right when your own record does not support your half-baked findings.
As I read this, I had to keep reminding myself that this is an attorney talking to a federal judge, not vice versa.