"Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact--complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words--to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins."
Seriously, check it out even if you're not at all involved with the study or practice of law. I love this case. Thanks to Patrick for pointing me to this case.
P.S. You'll need Adobe Acrobat to follow the link.
Edit: Here's the cite for those of you who have access to, and would prefer to use, other methods of viewing the case. 147 F.Supp.2d 668
2 comments:
That's spectacular. Once in a while I'll come across some philosopher totally ripping on another but, like I imagine the law to be, it's usually a pretty serious, ad hominem-free affair. If I had the time, I'd find some choice examples; Kant can be surprisingly derogatory sometimes.
Mother of God it's beautiful. And here's some pseudo-philosophical phunnies for you too, what the hell:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/100235.html
Post a Comment