Assorted Foolishness

Does it really matter if you have a fool for a client?

After all, it's not the client who has to prepare documents and make arguments. Lots of foolish clients do perfectly well in court.

I thought of this the other day because, well, the mind wanders -- and I was noticing that a lot of law firms sue clients who haven't paid their bills. They don't go out and hire other lawyers to do it.

And, yet, we've been told that "he who represents himself has a fool for a client."

What we're not told is "he who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer."

If you represent yourself well, it shouldn't matter that you were a fool to end up with this problem in the first place. Just ignore the idiot and do your job.

Right?

I've got to stop this mind meandering....

WTF? My wife teaches second grade so I sympathize with teachers. If you get a lousy group of students, your life can be miserable.

Could you blame a teacher for taking a drink or two on the weekend? (My wife doesn't - this is purely hypothetical.)

So I was astonished to read a California Third Appellate District opinion called Broney v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing in which a fifth grade teacher appealed a 60-day suspension she got because she was convicted of drunk driving.

She was cited for drunk driving in a parking garage before she got out on the road on a weekend nowhere near her school - and then was "served with an accusation" four years later.

WTF?!?

It gets weirder. According to the ruling, the school principal said the woman was very dedicated and talented, worked hard, and, "if anything, her flaw is caring too much about her work."

An administrative law judge, not surprisingly, threw out the case.

In steps the Commission on Teacher Credentialing which decides the teacher is a horrible influence on all those children who never knew anything about the drunk driving.

Don't look at me. Read it yourself.

And the appellate court upheld the suspension.

What the ....?

No wonder so many teachers are grumpy.

NEVER DRINK MILK BEFORE DRIVING IN ARIZONA. OK, this happened in New Jersey, but it's a valuable lesson for anyone with tanned friends in Arizona these days.

This is from a U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling called Dique v. New Jersey State Police:

"On January 7, 1990, Walter Dique was the victim of racial profiling.... Dique is a native of Colombia; his two passengers were Hispanic.... During questioning (the officer) noticed that one of the passengers had a 'white powdery substance in his mustache.'"

As you can imagine, a search and drug arrest ensued.

If you're going to drive, always provide napkins for your passengers.

FASCISM RISES AGAIN. It's always amazing to see where that Hitler guy will appear.

The following is from a Thirteenth District of Texas appellate ruling called Cortez v. Zeller:

"In January of 2007, Richard Cortez appeared on the Davis Rankin talk show on 710 AM radio to be interviewed in connection with issues pending concerning the McAllen Police Officers Union and the City [of McAllen]. Defendant Richard Cortez compared Plaintiff [Zellers] to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.... Defendant makes the foregoing comments and publication knowing that Plaintiff was of German descent...."

Saddam was German?

Be that as it may, the court ruling here was that the defendant, the mayor of the City of McAllen, Texas, made that statement in his official capacity and so was immune from being sued for libel.

It's vital for our government officials be able to freely ferret out Nazi/Arab terrorists when dealing with union issues.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit