|
Detailed Current Conditions Saturday, 04 July 2009 04:46 am |
HOME | ADVERTISE | SITE GUIDE |
|
Sanity Test Good Reasons to Hate Rochester Around the Towns and Into the Pits Sanctimonious Blowhards Horoscopes for Realists Reviews of Movies I Haven't Seen Coming Soon...
Pageviews since 9/7/07: 42544
Custom Search
|
Historic Case Law: Judge Rules For, Then Against, Defendant City Court's Judge Schwartz either doesn't know what he's doing (that's code for incompetent) or maybe he doesn't like people appearing before him without legal counsel.
A certain individual was representing himself in City Court. The individual was not represented by legal counsel. When the case was called by Judge Schwartz, the individual identified himself as the defendant. There was no appearance by the plaintiff or their attorney. Without so much as 20 seconds passing, the judge granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant, whose motion it was, said, "thank you," and walked away from the podium. Immediately after making his ruling, the judge inquired of his clerk about the plaintiff's attorney. The clerk responded, and at that point, the defendant, who was departing the courtroom, turned around and said, "if it pleases the court, [the attorney] is from either Long Island or Westchester County." At that point, Judge Schwartz asked, "this is your [defendant's] motion?" The defendant replied in the affirmative. Judge Schwartz responded, "Then your motion is denied. It is insufficient. There is not enough detail." The judge then said words to this effect: My advice is that you get a lawyer to represent you. I cannot advise you any further than that. The defendant, somewhat startled at the sudden turn of events (bear in mind that there was no appearance by the plaintiff and no opposition to the motion), asked what would happen next. The judge declared that the plaintiff could make a motion for a summary judgement or make other motions. The judge affirmed that the defendant would be informed of any activity on the matter. The defendant left the courtroom. That's it. The entire proceeding took less than three minutes. After first granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, the judge, upon learning that the motion was the defendant's (apparently, the judge thought the plaintiff was making some kind of motion, in which case, it was OK), he reversed himself and denied the motion. This leaves the matter in a kind of limbo. The plaintiff chose not to appear, and by most understandings of law, the motion would have been granted by default, which is what the judge actually did originally, and the case dismissed. So, maybe Judge Schwartz might take some time to actually read the defendant's motion to dismiss. If he does, he may find that the exact same case had already been decided by another judge. As for me, I am the defendant in this action and I am not going to do anything for now. I have the weight of the law on my side. The judge has left this action hanging out there, so the next move is either his or that of the plaintiff. I'm also going to leave this article on my web site as testament to the egalitarian nature of Judge John Schwartz who ruled for and against both parties within a two-minute time span. Now, that's what I call blind justice. As an aside, Judge Schwartz might do well to understand the phrase, "justice delayed is justice denied." He, obviously a bright and seasoned legal professional, should bear in mind my rights, because, should I ever have the occasion to appear before him on this or any other matter, he, by his actions and ruling in this matter, has provided me with more than sufficient legal maneuverability. His Honor, Judge Schwartz, should also bear in mind that he is a public servant, sworn to protect the rights of all who appear before him, not just lawyers, but anyone who appears in his court, whether they appear with or without legal counsel. It is his sworn duty to rule within the law, not in ways in which he choses to interpret it. In the end, I'm choosing to take the judge's first ruling, in which he granted my motion. At that moment, the case was dismissed because the court granted a motion to dismiss. Period. Anything after that is nothing more than a footnote. A judge cannot overrule himself. I also retain the option of publishing all of the details of this case here on my site, including all of the court papers and my filings. If I cannot obtain justice in a court of law, then maybe I can get some in the court of public opinion. Judge Schwartz can do as he pleases. So can I. As far as I can tell, this is still the United States of America, a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. Just before 4:00 pm today, I called the judge and spoke to his clerk. She told me that the judge was on another line and could not offer me any more advice. I responded that I was not calling for advice, I was calling to see if the judge might reconsider his decision. She affirmed that she had my number and that she would forward my message to the judge. I have not received the courtesy of a return phone call at this time. by defendant, May 6, 2009, 6:54 pm If you'd like to comment on this article, or are an attorney or a writer focused on matters of the law and/or the judiciary, send me an email and I'll be sure to respond. The facts surrounding this case are sure to fascinate even the most feeble of legal minds. Finally, my apologies to readers for the sometimes serious nature of this article. Thanks to the fine work of the Hororable Justice John R. Schwartz, I have dedicated my site and myself to humor and satire, but I know this particular matter and this article falls well short of my objective. I shall endeavor to provide more dripping irony and knee-slapping hilarity in future writings. |
This is a true story, and, as truth is often stranger than fiction, serves as inspiration for the further existence of the Rochester1.com web site. All of the information here can be easily verified by a reading of the City Court Part 3 transcript from May 6, 2009, specifically the 9:30 am motions calendar portion, the
Rochester1.com is owned by a local person who shall remain nameless. Due to the nature of the material (mostly satire, humor or snarky commentary) the owners of this website crave anonymity and immunity from lawsuits. .
Rochester1.com is hosted by locally-owned CLSS Enterprises.
All material contained on this site is for entertainment purposes only and any similarity between characters presented on this website and real people are coincidental, unintentional or probably a case of some sanctimonious snobs thinking too much of themselves. Copyright © 2009, Rochester1.com. All rights reserved. For more boring legal stuff, try here.