Welcome to yet another installment of the pro per case that never ends,
As related in part 6, I won a major tactical victory by excluding the testimony of the Plaintiff's girlfriend after she refused to testify.
The problem now lies in getting the order entered.
Courts speak through their written orders and this Court instead of simply taking in an order a the end of the hearing or issuing one itself, requires that either the parties jointly submit the order after a hearing, or that it is entered under the 7 day rule, where a party may object within 7 days if they don't like the order.
Therein lies the rub.
Since they weren't even present at the hearing they can't really object to the order.
They do so anyways, and claim the hearing never actually occurred.
Of course they do so wrongly and not in conformance with the court rules and I do a response pointing out it is defective, and there was indeed a hearing, and they were not just served with it and the notice of hearing but even responded to it and just failed to show up and their objections should be rejected forthwith.
Of course it is now the holidays and the courts are in slow mode.
So what does Plaintiff and his girlfriend do?
They file new objections last night, kinda sorta fixing the errors I pointed out (but making some new ones too) but still claiming the hearing was never held.
They file this 13 days after the order was submitted.
13 is greater than 7.
So I need to do a response and will be asking for sanctions as this is beyond ridiculous.
5 comments:
Award of fees to the Defense perhaps?
Censure of the other sides Attorney? It would seem like he or she is committing some sort of malpractice. NAL, of course.
The offending parties are representing themselves (badly) so nobody to sanction. I would also expect the case to be much less of a clown show on their side if they had retained an attorney.
Also give them both a stint in jail for contempt of court?
WOW! I need more popcorn for this one!
Rick T.: Unfortunately this judge is letting the pro pers get away with stuff an attorney would never be allowed to do and he never sanctions them because they're representing themselves. Very circular logic there.
pigpen51: They don't have an attorney which is the problem. Likely because their case is absolute crap but they have just enough to have an issue to get to trial on it.
RickT: Would be nice, but it won't happen.
Old NFO: It is actually getting even crazier as we speak.
Post a Comment