You're A Hard Man To Please, George L. Metcalfe!

I always knew Burt Young was a mensch.

But he brought a tear to even these jaded eyes with his most recent letter to the Florida Bar News (his earlier one is here), in what has become a continuing George L. Metcalfe soapbox/soap opera played out in the letters page of what used to be a normal Bar publication:

Is not it Biblically accepted that (wo)man was created in the image of G-d? If G-d created His people with different sexual orientations, then who is Mr. Metcalfe and his ilk to question G-d’s wisdom? If his answer is that the literal translation of the Bible says it’s so, then how are all of the bizarre and inhumane contradictions of the Bible explained? They cannot.

Who in their right minds would accept and be bound as part of the civil law the literal Biblical interpretations? (I do not consider members of the Taliban as being in their right minds!)

In sum and in every respect, David has made both his late mom and me very proud parents.

And, I repeat, any law that would prohibit the likes of my son from adopting a child is an “ass.”

And not just the law either.

You know, I think Burt is channeling either Shakespeare or Mel Brooks above.

Let's go with Brooks and the Nazis, they're funnier -- scroll through to about 4:55 in to see what I mean.

More Hilarity from The RRA Vaults!

So I took a look at this motion for sanctions filed against Whitney and Rothstein in the MD FL, which makes reference to this other Whitney case we talked about yesterday.

It's a fairly compelling document, laying out a long list of discovery hijinks allegedly perpetrated by Whitney and RRA in several cases filed by Whitney against various critics and detractors.

This part seems somewhat prescient:

48. If this Court does not take drastic measures, it is clear that Whitney and WIN, with the help of the Rothstein Firm, are going to continue to use the court system in bad faith to simply harass anyone who has the temerity to criticize Whitney or WIN. They will continue to repeat the pattern of causing their opponents to expend needless money on litigation, despite the fact that Whitney, WIN, and the Rothstein firm ultimately know that they have no plan to engage in discovery, and specifically no plan to allow Whitney’s deposition to take place.

49. In order to drive home the point – made a number of times before, but apparently never fully absorbed – that, if they want to sue someone, WIN and Whitney will have to engage in meaningful discovery, this Court should strike WIN and Whitney’s pleadings, dismiss the complaint filed by WIN and Whitney, and reserve jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs.

50. Additionally, it seems clear at this point that the Rothstein Firm knows or should know that WIN and Whitney have no intent to engage in meaningful discovery in any case in which Whitney is subject to deposition. In addition to sanctioning WIN and Whitney, this Court should sanction the Rothstein Firm based on their pattern of badfaith conduct in furtherance of WIN ane Whitney’s untenable actions. As noted above, and as demonstrated by the voluminous exhibits to this motion, the Rothstein Firm has been just as responsible for problems conducting discovery as WIN and Whitney themselves. In at least three other cases, depositions appear to have been cancelled at the last minute without regard to procedure. At least two other attorneys and one pro se defendant have complained that the Rothstein Firm appeared to be operating in bad faith. The Rothstein Firm is acting as a mere extension of its client without regard for the law or the ethical constraints of practice. It is therefore appropriate that the Rothstein Firm or its successor entities be held jointly and severally liable for any sanctions ordered against WIN and Whitney.

Unfortunately, too often judges take it easy on litigants or their attorneys in federal court, reluctant to ruffle feathers or get in the weeds on questions of attorney misconduct in discovery matters. Or, if they do decide some sanction is appropriate, it rarely is directed at the attorney for a host of reasons.

In this case, Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted the motion in part, compelling the delayed depositions, but denied as to sanctions against Rothstein or his client, even though she agreed that there was "some dilatory conduct, but not conduct sufficient to rise to the level of bad faith."

Don't worry -- plenty of that came later.

This One's For You, Scottie!!

Magistrate Judge Rosenbaum jailed him.

Glenn Garvin, Late and Wrong

Glenn Garvin's column today presents a case study in what is wrong with op-eds in local newspapers.

First, he's picked a topic with no local angle -- the trial of KSM in New York.

Being a national story, this topic has been discussed at length in newspapers and blogs and on TV ever since Attorney General Holder made the announcement two weeks ago.

Indeed, I covered it a week back on November 24.

So, if you are going to approach a topic that is several media-cycles old and which has already been the subject of tremendous debate and analysis by every major national columnist in this country, you need to bring something new to the table.

Needless to say, Garvin fails.

Instead, Garvin offers a deeply flawed and inaccurate understanding of how the criminal justice system works, with absolutely no reference to the successful terrorist prosecutions that have occured in this country, such as John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla -- all tried under the Bush Administration btw.

Garvin's gloom and doom and fear-based arguments are too silly to get into, and have already been addressed dozens of times by knowledgeable lawyers such as former Bush AGs Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith.

The larger point has to do with the newspaper business. If you are that late to a story, you have to approach it like Time Magazine, The Nation, or National Review -- deliver some analysis, synthesis, commentary that reflects a point of view or which has been lacking in the day-to-day coverage thus far.

Can anyone reading Garvin's column today -- including his editors -- say with a straight face that Garvin has added something (anything?) meaningful to the discussion?

A Chestnut Pulled From The Hilarious RRA Pleadings File!

Bob Norman as usual is ahead of everybody else and has a story that refers to Scott's delay tactics in a suit Rothstein brought on behalf of infomercial king Russ Whitney.

From what I can tell, it appears that Scott was filing SLAPP suits on behalf of Whitney against various critics and naysayers, including pro se defendant John Reed.

Scott went after Reed in a few suits filed in federal court here in Miami (Judge Seitz transferred the latter-filed one to Judge Marra, who sent them both up to the Middle District where a suit against Reed was already pending).

The Middle District docket is a hoot. The number of delays sought by Whitney -- often on an emergency basis -- is staggering, as are the reasons proffered.

My favorite is this emergency motion seeking to put off depositions of the defendant yet again because Scott was once sick, but now is well, and simply has to go on a European cruise with 18 of his closest friends, depos be damned:

3. On June 15, 2005, lead counsel, Scott Rothstein was undergoing medical procedures and was unable to be available for the conference. As this Court has been previously informed, Mr. Rothstein was suffering from a potentially significant health condition necessitating immediate medical intervention.

4. The depositions are currently set for July 5, 7 and 8, 2005, by agreement.

5. Mr. Rothstein was not medically cleared to travel until Monday, June 27, 2005.

6. Over a year ago, Mr. Rothstein purchased non-refundable tickets for a cruise which departs from Rome on July 1, 2005, for which he was scheduled to leave the country on July 29, 2005 at 3:00 PM, that will keep him out of the country until July 14, 2005. Mr. Rothstein was not going to travel because of his medical condition, but is now cleared to travel. Mr. Rothstein has not taken a vacation for more than a few days in over three years and it would be in his best interest healthwise to travel on the trip.

7. Additionally, Mr. Rothstein would be traveling with eighteen (18) of his friends with whom this special vacation was planned, and Mr. Rothstein was the person that principally coordinated the vacation, and the activities at each of the destinations, and will be acting as host on board the ship for all of his guests.

8. Upon learning of the conflict, the remaining attorneys working on the above styled action were preparing to cover the depositions in Mr. Rothstein’s absence.

9. Plaintiff, Whitney, was out of the country until this week and was not reachable until June 27, 2005. Upon returning, without waiving any attorney/client privilege, Mr. Whitney demanded that Mr. Rothstein represent him, stating that he was hired to represent him and that he would not allow anyone else from the undersigned firm to appear on his behalf at something so important as these depositions. This has placed Mr. Rothstein between a rock and a hard place. If the brief continuance is not granted, Mr. Rothstein will either appear at the depositions or lose an important client damaging his law firm. If he appears, he will lose all of the money for the trip, flights and hotels.

10. Mr. Rothstein is the CEO and senior shareholder of undersigned’s law firm, and has earned an excellent reputation as a trial attorney. Thus, Mr. Whitney hired Mr. Rothstein specifically with the understanding that it would be Mr. Rothstein that handled the most important portions of this litigation.

Can you believe this was actually submitted to a federal judge? On an emergency basis?

Reed's pro se response to an earlier but equally ridiculous "emergency" motion for a postponement of an evidentiary hearing, which lays out the improbable series of delays throughout the litigation due to illness, travel, and just about everything else, is here.

BTW, Judge Frazier denied Scott's illness/cruise emergency motion (D.E. 128):

The Court has continued matters in this case twice before at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel and will not continue these matters a third time. The request to continue depositions was untimely. The depositions currently set for July 5, 7, and 8, 2005 will go forward.

The parties settled on confidential terms shortly thereafter.

Maybe the best part of this story is that Rothstein was apparently counsel for the cruise line and presumably could have changed the date if he really needed to?

(Some of You) Like Me, You Really Like Me!!

Well the kind folks at the ABA Journal who compile the otherwise excellent Blawg 100 have thrown their normally good taste and judgment to the wind and included us for a second straight year!

Thanks for the acknowledgement, seriously.

We're listed in the "Geo" category (with very fine company btw) and you can vote for us here.

A Day Without Scott Rothstein?

I don't know about you, but it feels pretty good to go a whole day without any significant developments in the Scott Rothstein saga.

Best I can tell, all that happened today is Scott was officially disbarred, and the feds amended their forfeiture petition to add a few more properties. And a few days ago the Palm Beach Post questioned Scott's enablers.

Weird that I have not heard of more announcements of where former RRA attorneys are landing. Anyone with info please feel free to email me directly.

Sheesh it feels quiet around town today. Where is everybody?