Thursday, November 30, 2006

ABL and JTE


Here is ABL with the recently unveiled portrait of his favorite federal jurist. Despite the numerous illuminati of the WDNY bench and bar ABL had to dash out into the rain to make sure that a set of briefs was delivered on time. ABL is grateful to colleague Jacob Herstek who heroically ran through a block of Main Street traffic to deliver the package on time.

Desmond IOC Holiday Party




Last night's IOC holiday party was a fine affair at the Buffalo Club.

The "Founder's Award" was posthumously awarded to Judge Doyle (his sons accepting the award are pictured above). Also pictured above are Judges Pigott, Pietruszka, O'Donnell, and Peradotto. Also pictured above is David Brock accepting a "Past Presdident Award." ABL has always had great respect for Dave Brock -- even more so after learning that he has ABL bookmarked on his treo.

Many thanks are owed to Fran Letro for graciously hosting. Mirth and war stories were abundant. Judge Pigott shared a fond memory of Judge Doyle. When Judge Pigott first became a judge, Judge Doyle told him that he would learn that judges "get bored" and sometimes lose track of things at trial. To that end, Judge Doyle would, if an objection was made, ask counsel to "rephrase" because it was a safe way to deal with the problem. Judge Pigott recalled that his reaction at the time was "are you kidding me, you do not hear a question and then say "rephrase" when there is an objection. Well, Judge Pigott conceded that Judge Doyle's advice was sage and time-tested because judges are people too.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Wisconsin Court rejects "not cool" argument

Yesterday, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal in noteworthy fashion.(http://wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=26932). Pro se pleadings are often good fun. Apparently, this one was no exception. The appellant filed a "twenty-six page litany of purported facts and unsupported allegations that the trial court overlooked . . . " Although this finding has a familiar ring to it, the court went on to note in fn 4 that the document contained no legal issues: "For example, [appellant] states, '[Appellee] stated that I, [appellant] broke a window and the bench for his picnic table--not cool!' 'Not cool' is not a legal argument." Well there goes Point III in the brief that I am working on!

Thank you to Prof. Laura Reilly for sending me this opinion of interest. I encourage others to send materials worth posting.