Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
[...]
> Are you reading this Roy Schestowitz?
> Here is a new career for you.
>
> Of course you will have to pass out No-Doze to the entire courtroom when
> you present your case because they will all be sound asleep.
Ha.
Roy Schestowitz type of lawyer makes a spectacular show over here:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket
and here:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/index.shtml
MISS HALL.
My favorite episode:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/173.pdf
THE CLERK: CALLING CASE C-06-1905, ROBERT JACOBSEN
VERSUS MATTHEW KATZER.
MR. JERGER: GOOD AFTERNOON. SCOTT JERGER,
REPRESENTING MATTHEW KATZER; KANE AND ASSOCIATES.
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
MISS HALL: GOOD AFTERNOON VICTORIA HALL, REPRESENTING
ROBERT JACOBSEN.
THE COURT: WELCOME. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE REVIEWED THE
MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN COMING IN WITH RESPECT TO THIS CASE AND
I HAVE A COUPLE OF -- MAYBE WE WILL FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES OF
ORDER -- A COUPLE OF POINTS OF ORDER HERE, WHICH I WANT TO DEAL
WITH FIRST.
ONE IS IN THS MOST RECENT FILINGS OF THE JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT.
IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS SUGGSSTING THE
POSSIBILITY -- WELL, THE PLAINTIFF CITES ON, UNDER RULE 455(A)
REQUESTING THAT THE COURT RECUSE ITSELF ON THE BASIS OF THE
PLAINTIFF AT U.C., AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE FACT
THAT THIS COURT TEACHES, HAS BEEN TEACHING AT BOALT HALL FOR
MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS; AND THAT COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF WAS A
STUDENT IN THIS COURT'S TRIAL PRACTICE CLASS, AND ASSISTED THE
COURT, ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT, IN ONGOING CLASSES IN
OBTAINING JURIES FOR MOCK TRIALS HELD IN HIS COURTROOM. AND,
BASED UPON THAT, SUGGESTS RECUSAL.
AND THEN GOES ON TO STATE:
PLAINTIFF NOTES FOR THE RECORD THAT HE DOES
NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISQUALIFICATION.
NOW, THE CONCERN I HAVE WITH THAT, MISS HALL, WOULD
YOU AGREE WITH ME, THAT ALL OF THESE FACTS WERE KNOWN TO YOU AND
YOUR CLIENT FROM THE ONSET OF THIS CASE?
MISS HALL: I WOULD AGREE THAT THESE FACTS WERE KNOWN.
BUT I REMEMBER IN ONE OF OUR CLASSES YOU HAD TOLD US THAT WHEN
YOU HAD A STUDENT APPEAR BEFORE YOU, THAT YOU WOULD IDENTIFY
THAT THIS PERSON WAS YOUR STUDENT, AND THAT YOU WOULD ALSO ASK
THE OTHER SIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH YOUR
HEARING THE CASE.
AND THE FIRST HEARING CAME AND WENT. AND I DIDN'T SEE
THAT YOU HAD DONE THAT. AND I WAS EXPECTING THAT MAYBE YOU
MIGHT DO IT IN THE SECOND HEARING.
IT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY I PUT IT IN A JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THAT U.C.
BERKELEY MIGHT VERY WELL BE A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE; AND WE
WOULD BE LOOKING AT A 455 (B) SITUATION.
AND I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ADDRESS IT THEN, AND YOU
DIDN'T.
AGAIN THE RULING CAME OUT, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY
MENTION THERE. AND I DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO PUT IT ON THE
RECORD. AND I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP.
THE COURT: WELL, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST
OF ALL, MY RECOLLECTIO IS THAT, IN FACT, DURING THE THE FIRST
HEARING OF THIS CASE I DID BRING UP THE FACT THAT I WAS YOUR
INSTRUCTOR, AND DID ASK THE OTHER SIDE IF THEY HAD ANY CONCERN,
THEY COULD RAISE IT.
BUT, IF ANYTHING, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR THE OTHER
SIDE AND NOT FOR YOU; THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO: IN THE ORIGINAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT RECUSAL AND IT
RECITES THE FACTS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLIENT'S EMPLOYMENT.
IT SAYS:
THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT SEEK RECUSAL.
THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. AND YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND READ
THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU FILE THESE THINGS IN COURT.
THE CONCERN IS, OF COURSE, THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN
PENDING FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME, MORE THAN A YEAR
CERTAINLY. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, MANY RULINGS IN THE CASE.
MISS HALL: TWO.
THE COURT: PARDON ME?
MISS HALL: TWO.
THE COURT: TWO WHAT?
MISS HALL: TWO RULINGS.
THE COURT: TWO RULINGS IN THIS CASE AGAINST YOU,
AGAINST YOUR CLIENT, THE PLAINTIFF; INCLUDING ORDERS TO STRIKE
AND DENIAL, DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WHICH
THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOW APPEALED TO THE THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
AFTER ALL THAT, THIS COMES OUT.
SO, MY VIEW IS --. WELL, BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING, LET
ME ASK DEFENSE COUNSEL WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, IF YOU HAVE ANY,
ON RECUSAL?
MR. JERGER: WELL, OUR POSITION WOULD BE THAT ANY --
WELL, FIRST, ANY ATTEMPT TO RECUSE YOUR HONOR, SHOULD BE PUT IN
A MOTION AND NOT IN A CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT.
AND WE WILL RESPOND TO IT, IF IT WERE PROPERLY PUT IN
A MOTION.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD THINK THE
PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO SEEK RECUSAL.
THE COURT: WELL, I AGREE WITH COUNSEL THAT THERE IS
NOTHING BEFORE THE COURT NOW EXCEPT THE SUGGESTION.
AND IF THE PLAINTIFF WANTS TO FILE A MOTION, UNDER
RULE 11, PROPERLY SIGNED, AND IN WRITING, ASKING THE COURT TO
RECUSE ITSELF, THAT HE BELIEVES THERE ARE GROUNDS; HE CAN
CERTAINLY DO SO.
I WOULD ADD, THOUGH, THAT THIS CERTAINLY HAS THE --
SHALL WE SAY, THE AURA, IF NOT THE AROMA, OF SEEKING A TACTICAL
ADVANTAGE, AND IS NOT LOOKED UPON KINDLY.
HAVING SAID THAT, THE COURT WILL FOLLOW ANY
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE RECUSAL, IF SUCH A
MOTION IS fILED.
I AM NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO DEFENSE COUNSEL'S CONTEXT
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING OFfICIALLY BEFORE ME.
PUTTING THIS IN A CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT IS NOT THE
APPROPRIATE FORMAT.
I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND FURTHER EXCEPT TO NOTE THAT
YOU SHOULD READ YOUR INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WHERE
YOU DID SPECIFICALLY RECITE, TALK ABOUT THIS COURT'S DIRECTION,
WITH RESPECT TO RECUSAL AND THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT
SEEKING RECUSAL.
MISS HALL: I WILL ARGUE IT.
regards,
alexander.
--
"Because of their informal and diffuse nature, open source groups are
vulnerable to theft of their intellectual property. That theft, in the
form of copyright infringement, happened in this case, and Jacobsen
sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Katzer and KAMIND's
infringement."
-- BRIEF OF ROBERT G. JACOBSEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CAFC 2008-1001
|
|
