tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post407861913830073592..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Federal Court Cites Immunity In Granting Dismissal Of $25-Million Lawsuit Against Judge Robert Vance legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-44012584748883428272013-07-09T03:51:50.007-05:002013-07-09T03:51:50.007-05:00.. Your odd animus against lawyers and judges, lac..... Your odd animus against lawyers and judges, lack of legal training, and susceptibility to confirmation bias lead you to be unable to see this exceptionally flimsy legal argument for what it is.<br /><br />"*Odd animus against lawyers and judges ...."<br /><br />*No this isn't a factual statement, other than stupid and dogs are not as dumb as you.<br /><br />"The anima and animus, in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the ... "<br /><br />OK wise one, where do you find your psycho babble to dribble into the world of intelligent?<br /><br />And you have the audacity to be more in words than necessary.<br /><br />Best read Mark Twain a while and then join in the fight with the dog that is way bigger than that poor beaten down one in you.<br /><br />Sad your anima and animus are truly not on point with how the world works in the outer. This is our problem in America. Those that use words that aren't other than simply verbal vomit.<br /><br />Hope you learned something from ... "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain <br /><br />You're in the wrong dog fight, anon9:58PM.<br /><br />No lawyers need to be here, cause we're already 'citizens lawyers' that get well taught here, and therefore, are well aware of the corruption and junk yard dogs with no animus or anima.<br /><br />You're proof of how bad the USA is with respect to ignorant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07667059914458248898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-3505832237400937342013-07-08T22:45:18.503-05:002013-07-08T22:45:18.503-05:00I'm not a lawyer because I don't want to b...I'm not a lawyer because I don't want to be a lawyer--and you couldn't make me be one at gunpoint. You, on the other hand, apparently are a lawyer--and based on this comment, you must be a bad one.<br /><br />If you read Scott v. Hayes, the underlying case cited in Sibley, it uses the following language:<br /><br />"This test has been restated by the former Fifth Circuit to consist of a combination of four factors, whether:"<br /><br />It then recites the four factors noted in my post and analyzes each of them, and the context shows that any of the four can deprive a judge of immunity. <br /><br />In Scott, the case had been assigned to Judge Hayes, and that is the primary reason he maintained immunity, in spite of some wildly inappropriate comments from the bench.<br /><br />In the Vance situation, the case is not assigned to him and there was no meeting of all parties before the judge. Therefore, two of the prongs are not met.<br /><br />At the very least, dismissal should be denied, with discovery conducted to provide more information about Vance's actions. If he meets the standard at summary judgment, so be it. But he doesn't meet it at dismissal.<br /><br />You don't seem to be comfortable with the language of Sibley--and underlying cases such as Scott and Harper. But you can't change what the words say, not matter how hard you try.<br /><br />Nice effort, even though you failed.<br /><br />P.S.--You are right about one thing. Sibley does not require the complainant to meet all four prongs for immunity to be removed. They need only meet one, and Hayden/Trust meet two.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-31955777372587730492013-07-08T21:58:53.387-05:002013-07-08T21:58:53.387-05:00...and this is why you're not a lawyer. You&#......and this is why you're not a lawyer. You've latched on to an excerpt from a case without reading it in context. The four factors enumerated in <i>Sibley</i> are <b>not all required to be met</b>. The question is whether the acts were the "type[s] of act[s] normally performed only by judges" (which is what the four factors HELP to determine), and these quite obviously were for reasons that the district court notes. <i>Stump v. Sparkman</i><br />, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 360 (1978). You've also ignored the district court's reliance on <i>Ex parte Metropolitan Life Insurance Company</i><br />, 707 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1997). And, as the district court noted, the plaintiffs failed to cite ANY authority whatsoever for the proposition that a judge in a court of general jurisdiction lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue an order in a case that isn't assigned to him but is before his court. <i>Dist. Ct. Order</i>, p. 8; <i>Pl. Resp.</i>, <i>passim</i>. The plaintiff's response attempts to avoid this by glossing over the argument for WHY Vance didn't have jurisdiction and focusing on the effects of a lack of jurisdiction. Your odd animus against lawyers and judges, lack of legal training, and susceptibility to confirmation bias lead you to be unable to see this exceptionally flimsy legal argument for what it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74499317069089022512013-07-08T19:31:58.599-05:002013-07-08T19:31:58.599-05:00Anon at 11:29 AM
If there was a like button on yo...Anon at 11:29 AM<br /><br />If there was a like button on yor comment, I'd click it.<br />James Greeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-75926787121323406052013-07-08T17:33:40.872-05:002013-07-08T17:33:40.872-05:00Mumia Abu Jamal explains in his book Jailhouse Law...Mumia Abu Jamal explains in his book Jailhouse Lawyers, the law is whatever the judge says it is. Of course there is the possibility of a judge being overturned by a higher court, but in this particular instance, due to the fact that all judges are paid with taxpayer money, it wouldn’t be in their interests to do so.<br /><br />Since we have no way to hold our federal officials directly accountable during their terms of office, which is the only time they’re supposed to represent us, we cannot exercise our will through them, so when we vote, we delegate to them the power to govern us according to their will, not ours. By voting, we are presumed to have consented to grant them the power and authority to tax us, imprison us, taser us, grope us at airports, export our jobs, give our money to their wealthy campaign donors, and even, should they decide that we are dangerous to national security, shoot us without bothering to allow us due process.<br /><br />So if half of us consent, we are all presumed to have consented. To everything. The rest, those of us who won’t vote because we do not consent to delegate our power to people we can’t hold accountable, are presumed to be “apathetic,” although in the only poll that ever questioned nonvoters, most said that the reason they didn’t vote was that they didn’t feel that anyone on the ballot with a chance of winning would represent their interests. However a recent poll of voters found that only 11% approve of what our government is doing, so 89% of voters are so apathetic that they’re granting their consent of the governed to a government they don’t approve of. Now that’s apathy!<br /><br />http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/show-me-the-law/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-56815811765695751072013-07-08T13:25:29.483-05:002013-07-08T13:25:29.483-05:00Why isn't the U.S. attorney looking into this?...Why isn't the U.S. attorney looking into this?<br /><br />Oh wait . . . that's Vance's wife.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-58721087646019753122013-07-08T13:24:58.857-05:002013-07-08T13:24:58.857-05:00Anon at 1:04--
I like your idea. It would never f...Anon at 1:04--<br /><br />I like your idea. It would never fly with Vance, but I like it anyway.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12393054831785031212013-07-08T13:04:37.690-05:002013-07-08T13:04:37.690-05:00Here is a suggestion for Robert Vance. Why don'...Here is a suggestion for Robert Vance. Why don't you hold a press conference/public meeting and take any and all questions about your handling of the Cashion matter? The public deserves to hear your explanations on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74998489394633025072013-07-08T13:02:52.811-05:002013-07-08T13:02:52.811-05:00This case seems simple to me. The law says a judge...This case seems simple to me. The law says a judge must act on a case before him in order to be protected by immunity. Vance acted on a case that was not before him. He therefore is not immune.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-18811279926665429442013-07-08T13:00:27.527-05:002013-07-08T13:00:27.527-05:00If I remember correctly, Vance talked during his c...If I remember correctly, Vance talked during his campaign for Supreme Court chief justice about the importance of the public believing in a court's integrity. Given his actions in the Cashion case, why should the public believe in his integrity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12292574983327399192013-07-08T11:53:00.480-05:002013-07-08T11:53:00.480-05:00Sharon Blackburn benefited from state-court corrup...Sharon Blackburn benefited from state-court corruption in her divorce from Joe Blackburn. No way she was going to bite the hand that has fed her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-87146372410291697012013-07-08T11:49:46.086-05:002013-07-08T11:49:46.086-05:00Robert Vance is a tool for Maynard Cooper & Ga...Robert Vance is a tool for Maynard Cooper & Gale--and he doesn't even try to hide it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-34717920655471005642013-07-08T11:39:21.374-05:002013-07-08T11:39:21.374-05:00If it's OK for one judge to steal a case that&...If it's OK for one judge to steal a case that's been assigned to another judge, then why have cases randomly assigned at all? Let's just have a free-for-all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-80172166128984084582013-07-08T11:34:20.079-05:002013-07-08T11:34:20.079-05:00If Vance is acting lawfully, why is he hiding behi...If Vance is acting lawfully, why is he hiding behind judicial immunity? Why doesn't he answer the actual claims in the lawsuit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42285965380262653152013-07-08T11:29:33.766-05:002013-07-08T11:29:33.766-05:00Judicial immunity is a crock. Why should a judge n...Judicial immunity is a crock. Why should a judge not have to answer for violating the law?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com