The Joys of Dealing With the Pro Se Party – Part 1

Sometimes, my job is somewhat humorous, which is a relief because a lot of the time I am dealing with people in stressful situations.  Every time I come home with one of these stories, my lovely wife suggests that I save them and write a book.   Maybe someday I will do that.  Until then, I will tell them here.  Of course, there is always the difficulty of maintaining confidentiality with respect to these stories and I will try my best to obfuscate a few facts to protect the innocent those who need protection.

I should have known that it was going to be a weird one when the ADR office emailed me within 15 minutes of sending out the Notice to tell me that the Plaintiff’s attorney had withdrawn.  My second hint should have been the letter from the defense counsel to the now pro se (unrepresented by legal counsel) party.

What really drove the point home was a phone call with the pro se that went something like this:

ME: This is Chris Annunziata.  I am the mediator assigned to handle your case.  I just want to confirm that you will be attending the mediation on Tuesday.

PRO SE (“PS”):  Yea, but I ain’t gonna pay you.

ME: Well, then, we have a problem.

PS:  No.  There’s no problem.  I ain’t paying you.  I don’t see the point in having mediation.

ME:   Do you understand that the Court has ordered the parties to participate in mediation and appointed me to mediate this case?  This is your opportunity to try to discuss a settlement with the other side and try to resolve this case before appearing before the judge.

PS:  I don’t care.  I ain’t paying you.

ME:  Are you telling me that you want to mediate, but refuse ot pay me or that you don’t want to mediate and want to cancel?

PS:  No, I don’t want to mediate.  And I don’t have any money to pay you.

ME:  OK.,  Then we’re going to cancel the mediation because you refuse to appear and I will file a report with the Judge that you failed to appear at mediation.

PS:  Wait.  I’m gonna be there. But I ain’t gonna pay you.  They took all my money.   [Mind you, this is a personal injury dispute, not a theft or fraud case]

ME:  The court imposes a fee for the mediation and I am entitled to my compensation for mediating this case with you.  I suggest you discuss your complaint with the Court or the ADR office, but if you appear tomorrow, you will be responsible for one-half of my fee.  Otherwise, I’m canceling the mediation now.

PS:  I’m coming, but I ain’t paying you.  You better be there.  Do I gotta go through a metal detector?

ME:  Yes.

PS:  Then I’m gonna have to leave my guns at home.

ME:  Yes, you will.  You cannot carry a firearm in the Courthouse.

PS:  Yes, I can.

ME:  You will have to take that up with the deputies at the security desk, but there will be a metal detector.

PS:  OK.  I’ll be there.  You better be there.  And I ain’t paying you.

——–

I sue. You sue. We all sue for ice cream?

Yes, it’s happened again.  It’s so routine, I’m not sure why I’m mentioning it.   Another helpless adult was viciously injured by an 8-year old boy “making a mad dash” to get ice cream at school.   It’s a good thing the poor, poor teacher’s aide has a lawyer like to protect her against that scourge of the earth: the 8-year old boy.

It’s a better thing this didn’t happen in a backwards-ass state like Georgia, where we have a ridiculous law that states that children under 13 are generally not responsible for their actions in tort.

Hat tip to Overlawyered.

Never underestimate the power of a meaningless gesture.

When I first read the story of Ria Ramkissoon, I was horrified that such a story could still happen in 2009 in a civilized, modern society.  In short, Ms. Ramkissoon is a member of a whack-job cult.  At some point in 2006, the leader of the cult,  “Queen Antoinette,” decided that Ramkissoon’s one year old son was a demon because he refused to say “amen” after meals.  The “Queen” ordered that the boy be refused food and water.  Sadly, he died.   When the authorities caught up with these charlatans and fools two years later, the mother and several cult leaders were charged with first-degree murder.

As sad as the story is, it turns out that there is actually a useful negotiation and dispute resolution lesson to be learned from the plea agreement that Ramkissoon’s lawyer’s struck with prosecutors.

When confronted with what she had wrought,  Ramkissoon apparently insisted that her son would be resurrected per the “teachings” of “Queen Antoinette.”   She would only agree to enter into a plea agreement and testify against the cult leaders on the condition that all charges against her would be dropped if her son resurrected from the dead.

Apparently, being on the “losing end” the first case of resurrection since Jesus Christ was a risk the prosecutors seemed willing to take.  Sometimes, making a meaningless gesture, such as the “resurrection clause”, can induce a party to enter into an agreement they otherwise would not.

[Ken from Popehat (who gets my hat-tip) takes a different tack, arguing that her insistance on these terms illustrates that she simply isn't competent.]

The World’s Most Egregious Indian Giver?

You won’t believe what this disgruntled husband wants back in his divorce.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that the term “Indian giver” might, by some PC types, be considered offensive.  Well, it’s an effective and well-known idiom and I really don’t think anyone goes around muttering, or thinking,  “Those damned Indians (or Native Americans).  Always taking stuff back they donated.”  They are simply words that concisely and effectively communicate the issue at hand.

It’s mine now, you whippersnapper!

It’s every 13 year-old boy’s nightmare.  Losing your football over the fence and into the “crazy old lady’s” yard. Now thrown in the arrest of the “crazy old lady” for doing her best Lionel Hutz imitation and citing the legal precedent of Finders v. Keepers when asked to return the football, add in the resulting lawsuit, and you’ve got the farce that happened in suburban Cincinnati.

While it would appear that the parents of the presumably “snot-nosed kid” initiated a call to the police or else the old woman would not have been arrested, they did try to meet to discuss how they “could peacefully coexist and how [they]  could retrieve anything that might land or blow in her yard.”

This one befuddles me.  Everyone suffers.  The young teen and his friends have to walk on eggshells when playing outside lest a stray gust of wind blow their ball or frisbee into the neighbor’s yard.  The 88-year old neighbor is forced to resume mowing her own lawn, which had previously been mowed by the boy or his father.

I really fault the elderly woman’s lawyer for this.  Frankly, he should know better.

Hat tip to Overlawyered.

It’s FINALLY OVER

Yes, I know that I’m violating my own hiatus, but it is finally over (save for the application for certiorari). The D.C. Court of Appeals this morning rejected Roy L. Pearson Jr.’s request for a new trial regarding his highly publicized $54 million lawsuit against a neighborhood dry cleaners over a pair of lost pants.

Thus ends one of the saddest and strangest chapters in Modern American jurisprudence.

Almost Cooked by a Goose.

Courtesy of Overlawyered comes this tale of an abusive lawsuit.  It has everything: small business owners, ridiculous government regulation, and an overreaching plaintiff.

In short, two Canada geese took up residence in a planter located in front of a pool supply store in a strip-mall.  The store owner asked the local authorities to remove the geese, but was told they were protected by federal law.  During their federally protected roost, they attacked a passer-by, who, of course, sued.

I’ll let you watch to find out what happened.  A video will play when you click on the link, but no worries, it is safe for work.

My favorite line comes in around the 1:20 mark of the video,

“The goose was not our employee or our agent.”

As committed as I am to ADR, I am glad there are lawyers out there willing to fight these types of cases.

Does how write betray our gender (biases)?

Apparently so, says GenderAnalyzer.com.  Just plug in your blog’s URL and their “artificial intelligence” will determine whether your blog was written by a man or a woman.  According to them, there is a 63% chance that my blog is written by a man.  Quite amazing actually, since I do shave my legs*, which make up about 34% of my body….

Plug in your favorite dispute resolution blog.  You may be surprised by some of the results.

Read more after the jump.

Sue Magazine?

Is it:

a)  A Magazine for Johnny Cash fans;

b) A Magazine for creepy geriatric sex expert Sue Johanson;

c) A Magazine for Women Litigators; or

d)  The fourth sign of the Apocalypse.

You can’t make this stuff up.  H/T to Above the Law.

Is blogging a cry for attention?

Among the comments on the recent story of the $300k/year Harvard Law grad who burned his diploma on YouTube, was the following:

“since he is a BLOGGER, mabye he is just looking for ATTENTION.”(emphasis supplied)

I ask you, is blogging a cry of attention?  Are we bloggers simply looking for approval in the form of comments, trackbacks and link-love?

I think not.  But I may simply be deluding myself.  Now, pardon me while I post a video of me blowing up my three-piece suit, wingtips, briefcase and blackberry with an M-80 in symbolic rejection of BigLaw life.