Lowering the Bar

A Doughnut Drama in Three Acts

Act One.
A small town in Oregon.  Two men in "cowboy garb," Adam and Vincent, are eating doughnuts.  Enter two sheriff's deputies.

DEPUTY ONE:   A burglary has been reported.
DEPUTY TWO:  Yes, we must hurry to the scene of it.
VINCENT:         Doughnuts, officers?
Adam smirks, but says nothing.
DEPUTY ONE:   No thank you, cowboy.  We are on official police business.
VINCENT:         Suit yourself.

Act Two.
The burgled store.

DEPUTY ONE:   Shopkeeper, what has been stolen?
SHOPKEEPER:   A number of items, including, but not limited to,
                     cigarettes, candy, chewing gum, and doughnuts.
DEPUTY ONE:   Doughnuts, you say?
SHOPKEEPER:   Yes, doughnuts are among the items that were stolen.
                      Please, inspect my shop for clues.
DEPUTY ONE:   I observe here on the floor the prints of cowboy boots.
SHOPKEEPER:   I fear this crime may never be solved.
DEPUTY ONE:   There is hope, for a reason of which you are unaware.
DEPUTY TWO:  I did not appear in this scene.

Act Three.
A courtroom.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY:   The officers then put two and two together.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:    My client, Your Honor, is unintelligent and was easily led.
ADAM:                         Also, I had been drinking whiskey.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:    No, you are unintelligent and easily led.
JUDGE:                       You are also convicted.

Exeunt omnes.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com

Deponent and Counsel Jointly Sanctioned $367 Per F-Bomb

"Few depositions warrant sanctions more than this one," wrote Judge Eduardo Robreno (E.D. Pa.), in this opinion dated February 29, before embarking on an "extended discussion" of the conduct to show why.  The story and a PDF of the opinion were posted on the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.

Generally speaking, the deponent, Aaron Wider of HTFC Corp., was taken to task for:

          1.  engaging in hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct;
          2.  impeding, delaying, and frustrating fair examination; and
          3.  failing to answer and providing intentionally evasive answers to deposition questions.

To be more specific, the court noted that, during his two-day deposition in this breach-of-contract case, Wider used the F-word "and variants thereof" 73 times (9.86/hour, or about one every six minutes), while using the word "contract" just 14 times.  And the F-word and its variants were by no means the only expletives being used, which gives you some sense of what the deposition was like.

The court concluded that the abusive language could only have been chosen "to intimidate and demean opposing counsel."  Apart from the obvious, the court noted that Wider repeatedly referred to opposing counsel as a "clown," and suggested that a later reference to "clown" verged on a physical threat:

Q.  My question is where are you currently employed?
A.  I'm not.  I just told you I work for free.
Q.  Okay.  You're not employed by HTFC Corporation?
A.  No, I own HTFC Corporation.  Be specific.
Q.  Okay.  And what do the initials HTFC mean?
A.  Hit That [Expletive] Clown.  That's what it means.  It's an acronym.

Maybe it does actually stand for that -- the details aren't provided on the company's website.  I notice that there is a state agency in New York called the "Housing Trust Fund Corporation," but this isn't it.  Wider's company, "HTFC Corp." (the Housing Trust Fund Corporation Corporation?), is a sub-prime mortgage lender, so the similarity to the state agency's name is surely just a remarkable coincidence.

The court also found that Wider "proudly expressed his intent to frustrate his examination," made his own legal objections, and usually provided intentionally unhelpful answers when he did answer, all of which was frequently delivered with "a gleeful smirk" at the camera.  (Personally, I think smirking alone should be actionable, let alone doing it gleefully.)

Wider's counsel took a shot at defending this conduct.  Among other things, counsel argued that it was justified because Wider was just reacting to "provocative and accusatory" questions.  "This argument is simply astonishing," said the judge, pointing to this exchange as an example:

Q.  This is your loan file.  What do Mr. and Mrs. Fitzgerald do for a living?
A.  I don't know.  Open it up and find it.
Q.  Look at your loan file and tell me.
A.  Open it up and find it.  I'm not your [expletive] [expletive]. . . . [S]hut the [expletive] up. . . You want me to look at something, you get the document out.  Earn your [expletive] money [expletive].  Isn't the law wonderful?  Better get used to it.  You'll retire when I'm done.

The court also criticized the attorney who represented Wider at the deposition, for failing to intervene or suggest an adjournment, and for actually tending to endorse Wider's conduct by "chuckling" at it and daring opposing counsel to file a motion to compel.

Which he did, of course.  Wider and the attorney were sanctioned and ordered to pay $29,322.61, for which they are jointly and severally liable.  As the WSJ calculated, that is approximately $367 per F-word or variant thereof.

Link: Law Blog - WSJ.com

Law School That Didn't Exist Is Sued by Student Who Didn't Take Classes

From today's Santa Clara County (CA) new-case report:

Katrina Petrini (in pro per) v. Doug Marcus aka Douglas Marcus; Chuck Marcus; Charles Marcus; Marcus Charles; National Law School Inc.; Does; No. 1-08-CV-107116 (filed 2/29/2008)

Fraud lawsuit. The defendants charged the plaintiff for classes that never took place at a school that never existed. $56,000.

In other news, someone paid $56,000 up front for law-school tuition without checking to see whether the school ever existed.

To be somewhat fair to Ms. Petrini (as you know, Lowering the Bar is firmly committed to the principle of somewhat-fairness), a "National Law School" does appear to have existed, sort of, in Santa Clara County at one point.  Though it has now been removed, it was previously listed as a registered correspondence law school on the state bar's website.  This particular national law school could be found in Room 305 at 228 Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. 

California allows graduates of unaccredited law schools to take the bar, subject to certain restrictions.  Some of these seem to have actual physical classrooms, but others are "correspondence law schools" that offer courses by mail or online.  The "National Law School" was one of the latter.  Few details are available about the lawsuit so far, partly because I am too cheap to pay for the download, but it sounds like the allegations are that the National Law School set up a website, collected tuition, and then moved its computer out of Room 305 and went to Mexico.

There is no shortage of law schools in California.  Thirty-eight of them that are actually accredited one way or another are listed on the bar's website.  But if those aren't your style, you can also try one of the others, such as the Newport (Beach) University School of Law (located in spacious Suite 103), the Larry H. Layton School of Law (in Acton, CA, "one block from the Antelope Valley Freeway at the Crown Valley Road exit") or the University of Honolulu School of Law, which, oddly, is in Modesto, California.

Link: Courthouse News (paid download)
Link: California State Bar's list of law schools

Japanese Bikini Model Uses Self as Exhibit

Serena Kozakura was convicted last year of property destruction, after a man accused her of kicking a hole in the door of his room so she could get inside.  Since Kozakura is a well-known pin-up and bikini model in Japan, that does not really seem like something you'd press charges over, but according to the report the man may have been with another woman at the time of the door-kicking.

But the truly remarkable part of the story was the argument made by Kozakura's counsel on appeal.  Kozakura's position was that the man had made the hole himself and blamed her for it.  That seems even odder than his a-bikini-model-kicked-a-hole-in-my-door story, but Kozakura's counsel was ready with evidence.  During oral argument, he held up a demonstrative exhibit showing the size of the hole in the door, and pointed out that Ms. Kozakura could not possibly have gotten through a hole of that size, as the man had claimed, because her breasts are far too large.

Kozakura's bust reportedly measures 44 inches (or an even more impressive 110 centimeters).

She (and her bust) prevailed.  The judges on the Tokyo High Court agreed that there was "reasonable doubt" about the man's account, a result that the report attributed to this very argument, although it is not clear if that's really true.  According to Kozakura, the judges did not visibly react when the breasts were presented as evidence.  "The judges were very good-mannered as they showed no expressions on their faces," she said.  "I guess they're well-trained."

Less-good-mannered was the Japanese media, which reported furiously on the decision, with the Asahi network "even inviting her to demonstrate how she could not fit through the opening."  Seriously -- have they no shame?  Let the poor woman have her privacy.  The next thing you know, this will be all over the Internet, for God's sake.

Actually, she didn't seem at all reluctant to have the publicity, as she gave numerous interviews after the dramatic court decision.  She told one interviewer, "I used to hate my body so much" -- and who can blame a poor bikini model for that? -- "but it was my breasts that won in court."

Once again, the law teaches us something about ourselves.

Link: Yahoo! News

Police Say Shooting Designed to "Get Some Time Off Work"

Most of us have "called in sick" at one point or another, when we probably could have dragged ourselves into the office but had other priorities.  But who among us has been as creative, determined, and stupid as Daniel Kuch, of Pasco, Washington?  None among us, that's who.

Kuch was shot in the shoulder last Thursday, and initially told police he had been the victim of a drive-by while he was out jogging.  It seems that the investigation circled back around to Kuch fairly quickly, and detectives said Kuch eventually admitted that he had asked his good friend Kurtis Johnson to shoot him so that Kuch could "get some time off work."  Friends don't let friends shoot themselves, I guess.

Reportedly, and unsurprisingly, Kuch also hoped to avoid an upcoming drug test during his bullet-induced vacation.

The shooter was arrested for investigation of possible reckless-endangerment charges, which I guess raises the question whether you can be prosecuted for recklessly endangering somebody who asked you to endanger them.  I'm not sure who is going to press charges.  The shootee, meanwhile, was also arrested and was expected to face charges of false reporting.

He has, however, successfully gotten at least some time off.  According to the report, detectives "declined to say where Kuch works, or whether he still has a job," but he probably doesn't.  "It wasn't known if he had obtained a lawyer," but he probably should.

Link: CBS News