Pleadings & Other Documents

Special thanks to Senior Judge James Barlow, from San Antonio for all the classic stuff he has sent to Lawahah.com. Here’s a distinguished jurist who not only appreciates a good laugh, but possesses a lifetime collection of legal humor treasure. He’s sent along a lot of gems not available elsewhere. Here’s an interesting one:

Apparently because he was the only person in the family with a driver’s license, a man (a lawyer, apparently) was ordered by a Giles County, TN, chancery court to shuttle two kids of divorced parents back and forth during periods of visitation.

But the involuntary driver–“intervenor” in the pleading below–filed a petition to relieve him from the transportation duties in the best interests of the children on that basis that “Friday afternoon by 1700 hours, and particularly on Sundy [sic] by the same time, your intervenor, generally has consumed three or more beers,” and that, as a consequence, he will “register .15 or higher on any cop’s ‘Get’m’ scale.” (The copy of the petition bears the clerk’s file stamp (May 13, 2002), and appears to be authentic.)

Further, he said he didn’t know how to operate child seats or the seatbelts in his “pickity-up truck.” Children, he asserted, should not be subjected to such danger.

Whether or not you sympathize with the intervenor, it’s hard to deny his sincerity (original typos left in):

IN THE MATTER OF WHITE VS. WHITE

IN GILES CHANCERY

NO. 2196

INTERVENING PETITION

Comes the petitioner, Wm. Travis Gobble, who professes to be greatly aggrieved by the order of this court … whereby your intervenor was ordered to provide transportation for Suzanna and ‘Log-Jam’ White, minor children of Derrell and Chrysty White, during periods of visitation between the said parties, in the following particulars:

1. Your intervenor is the only damn one in the family with drivers licenses.

2. He should not be required to risk losing his.

3. On Friday afternoon by 1700 hours, and particularly on Sundy by the same time, your intervenor, generally has consumed three or more beers.

4.  Three, or more, beers according to all the clients your intervenor has represented causes a driver to register .15 or higher on any cop’s “Get’m” scale.

5. According to MADD mothers, any driver who has consumed three beers, whatever he registers, is drunk and a menace to society.

6. Small children should not be subjected to such danger.

7. In addition thereto, your intervenor drives a small pickity-up truck with only two seat belts, neither of which he can make operable.

8. The two children are of such a size that both must be bundled inside a device resembling and over-sized football helmet. Your intervenor has tried, but has been unable to date, to secure said children into such a device.

9. In any event, he, two children and a fourth person would crowd his little truck.

10. In the event your intervenor elected to have a fourth, or a fifth beer enroute [sic] ith said kids, he would have no place to sit said cans and would have to drive one-handed.

11. The kids themselves would be a further distraction.

12. A distracted driver is a dangerous driver.

13. Without a fourth person to assist him, should minor children commence to cry, a common occurance [sic], your intervenor would surely drop his beer and wreck.

…

16. As the common carrier, your intervenor would be trown into regular contact with both parents and subjected to all the

allegations hurled from both sides. Your intervenor is too old to suffer such.

FOR ALL OF WHICH Wm. Travis Cobble respectfully moves this Honorable Court to assign said duties to some other caring soul.

— In the Matter of White v. White, Giles County, Tennessee, Chancery Court, No. 2196, filed May 13, 2002. Thanks to Senior Judge James Barlow.

A Texas lawyer is a big fan of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Make that a HUGE fan. So huge that he filed an “emergency motion for continuance” of a pretrial conference in a case that conflicted with Game 1 of the 2010 World Series between the Rangers and the San Francisco Giants. Here’s some of what he said:

1. The lawyer in charge of this matter for the defendant is Darrell W. Cook (hereinafter referred to as Darrell).

2. Since 1972, when Darrell was but a lad of thirteen, he has been a fan of the Texas Rangers Baseball Club (hereinafter referred to as “Rangers”)

3. As such he has developed a love of the Rangers that has gone generally unrequited for thirty-eight (38) years.

4. Darrell has been to more games than he can possibly recall, has been a season ticket holder in one form or another for over ten (l0) years and has either listened to or watched all or parts of thousands of baseball games played by the Rangers.

5. Everything between Darrell and the Rangers was business as usual this year:

a. Josh Hamilton was discovered drunken and covered in whip cream;

b. Ron Washington was discovered to have ingested a “controlled substance” during the 2009 All-Star break;

c. The top two starters for the Rangers at the beginning of the season, Rich Harden and Scott Feldman, looked like they were completely unfamiliar with the tasks assigned to them and made a mockery of their roles as leaders of the pitching staff; and

d. The team declared bankruptcy and was sold via an auction more befitting a used Buick than a major league baseball team.

6. So, when this setting was received Darrell was convinced he would be in attendance as it was unimaginable that anything the Rangers could do would interfere with such setting.

7. Then suddenly and without warning the Rangers began a steady march toward credibility. …

8. Thereafter the unthinkable occurred ….

The unthinkable, of course, was that the Rangers made it to the World Series. He concluded his motion by noting that “[t]he continuance is not sought merely for delay alone, but so that justice may be done.”

No denying the lawyer’s sincerity. I hope he got to go to the game.

— Emergency Motion for Continuance, City of Irving v. Villas of Irving, Ltd, Case No. T-01398471 01, Municipal Court, City of Irving, Texas, Oct. 25, 2010. Thanks to Thomas Samuel.

A Montana criminal defense lawyer filed a motion for the court to order a fist fight between the defense team and the prosecutors in a case in which the lawyer’s client allegedly killed someone who was bullying him or his friend or both.

The motion is not exactly a model of clarity, but the lawyer apparently was trying to make the point that, in prosecuting his client for killing in apparent self-defense while being attacked with fists, the state was condoning fist fights. Here’s how the motion starts out:

COMES NOW counsel for Defendant, through his [sic] and respectfully requests this Court to Order a fist fight between Shaun Donovan and John Connor on one sided [sic] and Kirk Krutilla and Bill Buzzell on the other side.”

The lawyer then argues that the prosecutors had taken the position that it was “perfectly right, legal and moral” for the deceased to have attacked the defendant and states that the defense team would love to give Donovan and Conner a chance to stand up for the principle they stand for; i.e. the brutal humiliation and beating up of weaker human beings is the most cherished principle in life. Therefore, the defense moves that before the hearing April 17, 2006 that the state be given a chance on what they cherish in a resolution of dispute and that there be a fist fight [between the prosecutors and the defense lawyers].

Not surprisingly, the prosecutors took issue with the defense’s characterization of the state’s position in the State of Montana’s Response to ‘Motion for Fist Fight,’ and requested “that the Court deny the same.”

The prosecutors insisted they were not standing up for a legal and moral right to beat up people. Instead, “the State has asserted from the outset that the infliction of thirteen lethal stab wounds on an unarmed aggressor by [the defendant and his friend]” was an excessive use of force in self defense.

The prosecutors argued the defendant’s motion was “ill conceived” and that humor should not extend to filed court pleadings in a case which has lead to the death of one young man, serious and possibly permanent injury to others and the specter of long imprisonment and community strife for others.

After condemning the defense lawyer’s motion, the prosecutors puffed up and essentially insisted they could kick the defense lawyers’ butts if the proposed fight were to ensue, or as they put it in a more lawyerly fashion, they were “confident they could acquit themselves respectably if it were necessary to settle any part of this matter by means of a physical contest.”

— Motion for Fist Fight, Montana v. Mauher, Case No. D2005-8, Mont. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Mineral County, filed Mar. 27, 2006. Thanks to Donna Mustard.