Anybody else think these fundy lawyers aren't too bright? Last

week they filed a case and called Robert and Mary Schindler "Robert and Mary Schiavo" in the caption. Law School 101, learn your client's names! The Judge dealt with that in a footnote. Monday they filed their papers without a supporting memorandum of law as required by court rule. They were given until noon to comply. Now they are telling an appellate court that the actions of the legislative and executive branches will have been "vain and useless" if they don't act immediately, in a case that's all about separation of powers.

Borders on a rule 11 violation.

Otherwise known as the frivolous litigation rule.

Subsection (b)

Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

complaint Gibbs came up with after all of the wrangling in Congress was pretty poor. It was supposed to be a "de novo" (new--I understand language) case, yet Gibbs went back to the old complaints and talking points and targeted Judge Greer. I understand that in any "de novo" case, certain past legal activity must be reviewed before a judge can determine if the case ultimately has any chance of succeeding--it's part of the criteria for establishing the case, no?


?

And he has come up with the most desperate sounding excuses ...



Now the fundies (including Santorum) are blasting Whittemore for not conducting the case in a "de novo" fashion.

Am I anywhere near right?

And in determining whether a procedural due process violation has taken place, a judge must, of necessity, look to the procedural history of the pleadings up to that point.

Judge Whittemore did just that, and found nothing in the procedural history, nor in the argument of counsel, to convince him that there was sufficient evidence to justify a further hearing on the matter of due process.

win on that side are the parents, not everyone else. otherwise, they would be better, no?

Those people have abused the Florida judicial system for seven years! ;-)

I have not seen their briefs but did read the Judge's decision posted this morning. It is obvious that they put on a weak case and raised some weak arguments. The freedom of religion argument was very weak at best. If that is the best that they have, then while go to federal court.

Just saying that even a great legal team can't change the essential facts and reality of a situation. They can only present the case they have in the best possible light.

Either that or they don't really want to win.

Or, like you said, they aren't good.

On edit: I suppose a good ETHICAL lawyer would tell her / his clients to give it up though.