Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9368503" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Justin is (oddly) very loudly a Mason, and they don't tend to make Masonic private schools - so it wouldn't be unusual for him to have picked another slightly non-mainstream but very Christian school with prestige and tradition for his daughter.LANASA V TENKAR - ROUND 2I figured the appeal docs would be available in PACER and enough of them to be worth looking at by now, and hand a look in LaNasa v Tenkar, ROUND 2.  (Unfortunately they don't seem to be on CourtListener yet, so I've put some key documents in <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10MvaIAw17Lnnm5TWdK0yZCkJhU90Thlw?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">a Google Drive</a>.)Initially we have three issues: the parties, the caption of the case and the timeline.Longtime fans are probably not surprised that these all tie into the bizarre arrogance of Justin's lawyer.The PartiesThe appeal names both Rachel (who was never served) and TSR LLC (who Justin no longer has authority to act on behalf of).This means it's an inaccurate reflection as its being presented, and that's generally bad. The Captionie the longer version of "Party A v Party B". These are kind of a big deal in courts as they are used for citation, referencing, understanding who is involved etc and various courts have rules on how it works, and adjusting/updating them must be approved by the court - but it is also the duty of the lawyers to apply when it becomes applicable.Justin's lawyer argues that he just used the caption as it was when it was dismissed and well it's not his fault the District Court put that on the document at the end.The TimelineUnsurprisingly, in order to avoid appeals being used as a vector for harassment there are pretty tight timelines on when you have to raise your appeal etc.  Justin's lawyer lodged the appeal with a timeline that is well and truly outside the standard timeline, giving him a lot more time than he should and drags it out a much longer timeline.Justin's lawyer's explanation for this is well he's got stuff to do so he doesn't have time to deal with it, so justice just has to wait on when he's available. (As a side note, I am not an expert on US legal ethics - but in New Zealand it is considered unethical for a lawyer to accept a case they do not have time to deal with and not having time is one of the few basis under which a lawyer can refuse to represent a client).The singular problemAs you might have guessed, all of these are a little more complicated than black and white, and there's an expectation that if there is a complication you will proactively bring it to the attention of the court and opposing counsel, humbling requesting that you be allowed to vary the standard approach.Justin's lawyer does the opposite - he simply assumes he can do whatever he wants and then writes these weird, snide responses in reply where he not only dismisses the idea it was his responsibility to be clear but insists it was the other side's job to ask him to explain himself before they assert their rights under law.[ATTACH=full]366478[/ATTACH]To be charitable, I theorize that this is another hold over from him being used to being a criminal defense lawyer where the state is obligated to bend over backward because they have the burdens of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Requisite Mental State.  Also given that the defendant generally does not enjoy being prosecuted and/or detained/bailed they are usually eager to progress things (especially if they're at risk of incriminating themselves).This is a civil appeal, where his singular goal is to convince a panel of three judges that one of their peers came to the incorrect conclusion - a tough task at the best of times.  I humbly submit, that arrogance and demonstrating that he tends to just leave things unexplained and ignore expectations to be proactive in explaining himself is not going to help him here.</blockquote>

Verification