- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Highlight
- #15,181
I knew I recognized this prose style. It's Samuel B. Kent. This is from another of his opinions.
"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.
[. . .]
II. CONCLUSION
After this remarkably long walk on a short legal pier, having received no useful guidance whatever from either party, the Court has endeavored, primarily based upon its affection for both counsel, but also out of its own sense of morbid curiosity, to resolve what it perceived to be the legal issue presented. Despite the waste of perfectly good crayon seen in both parties' briefing (and the inexplicable odor of wet dog emanating from such) the Court believes it has satisfactorily resolved this matter. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.At this juncture, Plaintiff retains, albeit seemingly to his befuddlement and/or consternation, a maritime law cause of action versus his alleged Jones Act employer, Defendant Unity Marine Corporation, Inc. However, it is well known around these parts that Unity Marine's lawyer is equally likable and has been writing crisply in ink since the second grade. Some old-timers even spin yarns of an ability to type. The Court cannot speak to the veracity of such loose talk, but out of caution, the Court suggests that Plaintiff's lovable counsel had best upgrade to a nice shiny No. 2 pencil or at least sharpen what's left of the stubs of his crayons for what remains of this heart-stopping, spine-tingling action. IT IS SO ORDERED."
Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, 147 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Tex. 2001)
There's actually some legal analysis in here, too, also peppered with (deserved) insults towards counsel, but it's lengthier than needs reproduced here.
Sadly Kent ended his career with an impeachment and criminal conviction for being a sex pest, as well as having faced some other disciplinary issues relating to his rambunctious behavior as the sole judge of the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
That's not entirely true. It's also available for crimes against the state such as treason. While arguably anything rising to the level of treason (i.e. materially assisting a nation with which we are at war) implicates loss of human life, it isn't necessary.
"This casts serious doubt upon the constitutional validity of statutes imposing the death penalty for a variety of conduct which, though dangerous, may not necessarily result in any immediate death, e.g., treason, airplane hijacking, and kidnaping. In that respect, today's holding does even more harm than is initially apparent." Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 621 (1977) (Powell, J., dissenting).
Kennedy addressed this concern.
"Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State. As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken." Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 437 (2008).
