| Viewing Single Post From: Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants | |
|---|---|
| Tidbits | Jun 27 2009, 09:06 PM |
|
I scanned several of the defendant briefs. I don't plan to do more for now. Some reactions: 1. Conclusions unsupported by facts. Yep. 2. Recitations of the elements. Yep. 3. Failure to appreciate Rule 8 and Twombly and Iqbal. Yep The briefs suffer from all of this, repeatedly. Much, perhaps more than half, is boilerplate. It can be used in every case. It is almost filler. Much that purports to apply to this case is generic. Filler. A bit is actually about this case. For those who wish, print a brief and: 1. Strike out the T and I boilerplate. The "this is what T says, this is what I says..." 2. Delete mere recitations of the elements of their claims that the complaint is inadequate. The "they only recite the elements..." stuff. 3. What is left? Not much. 4. Part of it is facially inadequate. "They allege fact A, but if the fact is B, it would not be a claim." Yet fact A is enough. The facts plead must be accepted as true. 5. Some might be left. 6. Read Iqbal. Read the complaints in this case. There is no comparison. But, note all the words that signified nothing. If they have a good point, why don't they make it and stop? A good point can get lost in the mess. One answer is conflict of interest. Some lawyers represent more than one defendant. What if one has a good point and the others don't? Should they get the one off and stop? Is that ethically required? Are they neglecting one by making worthless claims for others? Is that a problem? Will that be a problem for lawyers in other cases? It this an ethical quagmire? Enjoy the humor. One claimed that Iqbal eliminated any questions about what Twombley means. ROFL. T and I are today the source of massive confusion, disagreement, and angst. So, enjoy the humor. But, judges, who must deal with the problem may not see the humor. It might just seem like stupidity or bluster, or maybe stupid bluster. One thing I didn't see, and suspect was not there, was a fair discussion of Iqbal and its application to this case. I didn't notice any quotations or references to the language and concepts in Iqbal that are against the defendant's view. (Did I miss something? Maybe.) The briefs reek of spin. A good judge wants to see the issues fairly. The briefs should say, "here is our weakest link, but we win anyway because..." instead these say, "we can spin Iqbal so it seems like we should win." Big deal. The plaintiffs can spin it so it looks like they can win. If everything is accepted in the best way for the plaintiffs, do some claims get dismissed? That is the question for the court. Did they briefs answer that? I saw them avoid that question. If I am the judge, the briefs are largely a nuisance, not a help. In short, there might be a needle in the haystack, but it is hidden under a pile of moldy hay. But, there is a bright side. The lawyers get to bill their clients for drafting boilerplate documents that they can use over and over and over, even if they don't work. And they can and will bill over and over and over. PS. I am not sure that all the lawyers actually read Iqbal. |
 |
|
| Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers | |
10:15 PM Nov 26
