Check Out What I Found Out About The Judge That I Drew

[Coltfan1972]

I decided it was time to start Googling and learning about my judge.

Here is what I found. It Proves nothing or won't get me a victory, but it beats a judge that is known to throw out a lot of FDCPA cases, or known to be hard on pro-se litigants. And some of it is just some of the funniest stuff I've ever read about any judge.

On a serious note, it appears his favorable rating is about as high of any judge out there, and is respected for his "gunslinger style" I think I can live with that.

"Judge Uses Experience With His Stubborn Mules to Deal With Lawyers"

"How many federal judges openly embrace the “L” word, as in “liberal."

letter he sent to a lawyer whose motion in limine he viewed as a bit over-the-top

Plaintiff's motion in limine to prohibit Defendant from touching or marking on Plaintiff's demonstrative aids.

Dear Attorney XXX

Are you kidding?

Cordially,

Judge Wilson

Possible translation- Our FDCPA violations were bona fide error, "Are you kidding?"

"When lawyers aren’t busy protecting widows and orphans and the American Way, they have a pretty keen sense of self-interest."

As a trial lawyer, Wilson was one of Arkansas’s best. An opposing lawyer once identified him in a legal proceeding as the best. He alternated between personal-injury law and criminal law.

Personal-injury

"He remains a vigorous proponent of the jury system, now under attack by “tort reformers.”

Oh hell yes !!!!!!

"I tell every juror that I believe we have the best justice system here in America that ever existed, because it guarantees the right to trial by jury.”

::USA::::USA::

“Be honest and just when you make decisions in legal cases. Do not show favoritism to the poor or fear the rich."

Don't need favoritism judge, just my day in court. And like you, I don't fear the rich.

"He’s actually a legalese-hatin’, cowboy-boot-wearin’, unafraid-to-admihuit-it liberal judge who rules from the bench in a rocking chair."

I have nothing against rocking chairs. (on a side note, I did more research and found out the rocking chair part is true).

He’s been known to buck sentencing guidelines to give counterfeiters more than the recommended prison term.

Counterfeiters? As in possible doctored or bogus documents, or from a mystery person nobody can locate. As in a misrepresentation as to the legal status of something. ????? What comes to mind here.

"some of his favorite cases are personal injury lawsuits."

Legal or BV80, I leave the posting to you. I must be in heaven.

Defendants withholding documents beware.

Okay it's official, this is a dream.

The real story behind the farm’s name, is longer than a donkey’s gestation period.

This really has nothing to do with anything, but anybody that uses the phrase "donkey's gestation period" gets my vote.

“Looks like we’re ready to saddle up,” he told lawyers on a conference call the Friday before a trial."

“I mean, who’s going to come up to say, You’re a dumb judge."

Not me !!

"You just do your best and hope you come out right.”

And then I read this crybaby post on some lawyer message board.

Often taking over the roles of the attorneys, causes unnecessary work for attorneys and increases in the expense of the litigation.

Well that is just horrible. Nothing worse than a bunch of unnecessary legal bill. :waah::waah::waah::waah:

Edited April 3, 2012 by Coltfan1972

[crash5050]

That is a Judge to draw, is that your Presiding or Magistrate?

[Seadragon]

[WhoCares1000]

I bet it does not matter much. I am going to bet in the end, the lawyers for the other side will review this and then direct their client to find out how much it will take to make this all go away.

[yellowdog]

Is a trial date set yet ? the opposing counsel better stock pile some Rx ointment so no infection sets in. I hear sword wounds can be quite nasty.

Go Get Em Coltfan ......:lol::lol:.

[Coltfan1972]

You know Sea, that thought crossed my mind. I know is a "random" selection??? But she and I were the only ones in the office and she was sitting at her computer and came back five minutes later with the judges name stamped on the outside of my lawsuit.

[Coltfan1972]

That is a Judge to draw, is that your Presiding or Magistrate?

Presiding.

[RockDaddy]

I decided it was time to start Googling and learning about my judge.

Here is what I found. It Proves nothing or won't get me a victory, but it beats a judge that is known to throw out a lot of FDCPA cases, or known to be hard on pro-se litigants. And some of it is just some of the funniest stuff I've ever read about any judge.

On a serious note, it appears his favorable rating is about as high of any judge out there, and is respected for his "gunslinger style" I think I can live with that.

"Judge Uses Experience With His Stubborn Mules to Deal With Lawyers"

"How many federal judges openly embrace the “L” word, as in “liberal."

letter he sent to a lawyer whose motion in limine he viewed as a bit over-the-top

Plaintiff's motion in limine to prohibit Defendant from touching or marking on Plaintiff's demonstrative aids.

Dear Attorney XXX

Are you kidding?

Cordially,

Judge Wilson

Possible translation- Our FDCPA violations were bona fide error, "Are you kidding?"

"When lawyers aren’t busy protecting widows and orphans and the American Way, they have a pretty keen sense of self-interest."

As a trial lawyer, Wilson was one of Arkansas’s best. An opposing lawyer once identified him in a legal proceeding as the best. He alternated between personal-injury law and criminal law.

Personal-injury

"He remains a vigorous proponent of the jury system, now under attack by “tort reformers.”

Oh hell yes !!!!!!

"I tell every juror that I believe we have the best justice system here in America that ever existed, because it guarantees the right to trial by jury.”

::USA::::USA::

“Be honest and just when you make decisions in legal cases. Do not show favoritism to the poor or fear the rich."

Don't need favoritism judge, just my day in court. And like you, I don't fear the rich.

"He’s actually a legalese-hatin’, cowboy-boot-wearin’, unafraid-to-admihuit-it liberal judge who rules from the bench in a rocking chair."

I have nothing against rocking chairs. (on a side note, I did more research and found out the rocking chair part is true).

He’s been known to buck sentencing guidelines to give counterfeiters more than the recommended prison term.

Counterfeiters? As in possible doctored or bogus documents, or from a mystery person nobody can locate. As in a misrepresentation as to the legal status of something. ????? What comes to mind here.

"some of his favorite cases are personal injury lawsuits."

Legal or BV80, I leave the posting to you. I must be in heaven.

Defendants withholding documents beware.

Okay it's official, this is a dream.

The real story behind the farm’s name, is longer than a donkey’s gestation period.

This really has nothing to do with anything, but anybody that uses the phrase "donkey's gestation period" gets my vote.

“Looks like we’re ready to saddle up,” he told lawyers on a conference call the Friday before a trial."

“I mean, who’s going to come up to say, You’re a dumb judge."

Not me !!

"You just do your best and hope you come out right.”

And then I read this crybaby post on some lawyer message board.

Often taking over the roles of the attorneys, causes unnecessary work for attorneys and increases in the expense of the litigation.

Well that is just horrible. Nothing worse than a bunch of unnecessary legal bill. :waah::waah::waah::waah:

Very smart to do research on your judge.

Looking at the remarks you've made, you obviously are trying to get some sort of benchmark as to what sort of man he is, what character traits he'd value in a lawyer or a pro se litigant such as yourself.

You question - would he respect the fact that you've done your homework, for example. And that you are well prepared, courteous to a flaw and seem interested enough to have dotted your i's and crossed your t's...

I agree with Seadragon, your draw of the judge may very well have been when you impressed the clerk of courts. It goes a long way.

He’s been known to buck sentencing guidelines to give counterfeiters more than the recommended prison term.

Counterfeiters? As in possible doctored or bogus documents, or from a mystery person nobody can locate. As in a misrepresentation as to the legal status of something. ????? What comes to mind here.

This means exactly what you hope it means, in my opinion. He doesn't like doctored documents or people that will play games, trying to squeeze in marginable, imaginary evidence in hopes of a win. You should hammer this home and if you can get away with it, try and include some of his own language as you make your argument. Just food for thought, but you get the gist.

Personally, I think this is a dream judge for you my friend. Find out anything you can about him, as you've done. Knowing political associations, his age, clubs he belongs to, how he's ruled on similar cases, all of it. I'm sure you're already busy with all of that though, aren't you?

Just don't forget to rest and hydrate. Otherwise how will you persecute them for violating you.... hahaha....

-RD

Edited April 3, 2012 by RockDaddy

[legaleagle]

counterfeiters

Probably the guys who print their own money, not some JDB with a fake affidavit. Sounds like you'll get a fair shot with this judge. How long do you have to wait for trial?

[debtorshusband]

He’s been known to buck sentencing guidelines to give counterfeiters more than the recommended prison term.

Counterfeiters? As in possible doctored or bogus documents, or from a mystery person nobody can locate. As in a misrepresentation as to the legal status of something. ????? What comes to mind here.

Counterfeiting means phony money.

Forging documents is called, well, forgery.

Regards,

DH

[RockDaddy]

counterfeiters

Probably the guys who print their own money, not some JDB with a fake affidavit. Sounds like you'll get a fair shot with this judge. How long do you have to wait for trial?

Probably, yes. At face value. One could certainly argue that it means funny money. I'm not arguing the semantics of the actual word, 'counterfeiting' here. Hope that is clear. I know what the word means.

Then again, my suggestion that his dislike for counterfeiter's of ANY kind, could distill itself into what I postulated; which was a possible dislike for phoney documents, lying lawyers with shady affidavits, etc. This character trait *could* bode well for Colt if it reaches trial, for example. Just sayin'.

Then again, I'm always searching for the underlying stuff that might make up a person's psyche, or make them decide one way or another about something that seems completely unrelated. But that's how I think, when sizing up the players in a game, or an enemy.

Remember that show with Tim Roth called Lie To Me? That's what I'm getting at here. It's all about subtle and not so subtle recon. Overt and covert tells, etc...

Like if you wear a blue suit and a red and white tie in an election year, voters tend to like what you have to say...

But yeah, it could just be about funny money.

Edited April 3, 2012 by RockDaddy

[crash5050]

Presiding.

I was told my Presiding Judge would not hear the case, a Magistrate assigned to the Presiding would hear the case, then forward the decision to the presiding Judge.

[kittymamma]

Oh God love him, he's a redneck!!! You got this one in the bag Colty woo hooxangelx

[Coltfan1972]

Come on guys, give me some credit. I know what a federal counterfeiting is and the difference in that and b.s. JDB documents. I was not really scratching my head wondering.

I guess it was a poor attempt at humor. I was just saying one could draw a slight comparision to "b.s. documents." I'm pretty sure just about every judge does not like counterfitters.

I aware the U.S. Secret Service is not getting involved in a case of a robo signed affidavit.

[1stStep]

Wow Colt awesome!!

I have had 2 FDCPA cases heard by the same judge - and she was not putting up with any BS.

In my 2nd case, she reamed a CA's lawyer for taking off his coat in the courtroom...

[Coltfan1972]

How long do you have to wait for trial?

Don't know. I'm getting the served this week. I anticipate a very long discovery process. Hopefully I can get them sucked into investing enough money that they will feel they are committed and move to a trial.

That is what I did to the last one, and it worked out so well for them.

[Coltfan1972]

Wow Colt awesome!!

I have had 2 FDCPA cases heard by the same judge - and she was not putting up with any BS.

In my 2nd case, she reamed a CA's lawyer for taking off his coat in the courtroom...

Nice, were these federal judges?

Also, this is by far my favorite. ""He remains a vigorous proponent of the jury system, now under attack by “tort reformers.”

Attack !!!! by "tort reformers"

[legaleagle]

Yeah, the Secret Service won't be calling on this one. We like to break 'em off once in a while, other posters may not know the difference between counterfeit and a hearsay affidavit, even faked documents, which as you know I am pursuing myself against the guy with the nice tan. Why would discovery be long? You have the dunning letter, what else do you need? I would do one request for production of documents........"Produce a copy of your license to collect debts in the state of Arkansas which was in effect on such and such a date." Maybe one rog asking them if they were properly licensed on such a date.

[Credator]

That's great intelligence gathering on the judge.

Arbitrators and judges I have researched had limited online insights available.

On arbitrator selection (AZ uses court-connected arbitration) each side can strike one from the list of arbitrators. Best intelligence I found was in the court records in the case where a CA struck one it might be an indication that that arbitrator might have been "too fair" to the pro se. That arbitrator might be a keeper if the CA doesn't strike them in your particular case.

__________________

"For more than six hundred years -- that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws." ~Lysander Spooner

[thezoebender]

other posters may not know the difference between counterfeit and a hearsay affidavit, even faked documents, which as you know I am pursuing myself against the guy with the nice tan.

Is it me or is LegalEagle being oppositional and snarky with this comment? He's obviously responding to this:

This means exactly what you hope it means, in my opinion. He doesn't like doctored documents or people that will play games, trying to squeeze in marginable, imaginary evidence in hopes of a win. You should hammer this home and if you can get away with it, try and include some of his own language as you make your argument. Just food for thought, but you get the gist.

And this:

Probably, yes. At face value. One could certainly argue that it means funny money. I'm not arguing the semantics of the actual word, 'counterfeiting' here. Hope that is clear. I know what the word means.

In my opinion, this makes a lot of sense and it was NOT about the definition of counterfiet and hearsay. But I'm new, so I don't know a lot. Also, is 'the guy with the nice tan' a racist comment? Just seems weird to me.

[Coltfan1972]

Why would discovery be long? You have the dunning letter, what else do you need?.

My friend, I also have them on an overshadowing claim because they sent me the same dunning letter twice. That gave me two different 30 day windows to dispute, therefore, inconsistant and overshadowing the original notice.

They are going to obviously argue bona fide error, an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Time to fully get into their regular procedures they have in place to avoid this. No privelage, due to an affirmative defense.

They have a high burden, per courts, when claiming bona fide error. That's going to take some discovery.

[PC1978]

My friend, I also have them on an overshadowing claim because they sent me the same dunning letter twice. That gave me two different 30 day windows to dispute, therefore, inconsistant and overshadowing the original notice.

They are going to obviously argue bona fide error, an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Time to fully get into their regular procedures they have in place to avoid this. No privelage, due to an affirmative defense.

They have a high burden, per courts, when claiming bona fide error. That's going to take some discovery.

There's a good chance you were probably already planning on doing this but when they plead bona fide error if they do it very generally you may want to move to strike it and force them to replead it specifically. Just something else to consume their time and cost them more money and give you more details to target your discovery.

I cited the following cases in Ohio state court in a case I am currently involved in (because there was no Ohio case law I could find) and the Court struck the bona fide error with leave to amend. They can replead but it is going to cost them more money and time and they will have to tell me exactly who, what, when and where the mistake was made and as a result my discovery can be more targeted. There are probably some similar 8th circuit rulings out there. The second cite decision was based on Twombly and Iqbal so it would only be useful if the 8th circuit has ruled that Twombly and Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses.

Konewko v. Dickler, Kahn, Sloikowsi & Zavell, Ltd., 2008. WL 2061551 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2008):

Notwithstanding the "disfavored" status of motions to strike and the "liberal pleading standard" in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the Court concludes that the motion is well taken. Because the defense at issue deals with an alleged "mistake" -- a "bona fide error" in the statutory parlance -- Defendant is obligated to comply with both Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 9(. The standard under Rule 9( requires parties to state the circumstances of a mistake with "particularity." As the Seventh Circuit has explained, Rule 9( mandates that parties allege at the pleading stage "the who, what, when, where, and how of the mistake." GE Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078 (7th Cir. 1997). Defendant correctly points out that Rule 9( permits pleaders to allege matters such as intent and knowledge in a more general manner. However, the remaining factual details of an alleged mistake -- for example, who made the mistake and when and how it occurred -- must be set out with "particularity" in the pleading. Although Defendant has added some detail to its original effort to plead its affirmative defense, there still is work to do before the Court reasonably can conclude that Defendant has complied with its obligation to provide "the first paragraph of any newspaper story" (GE Capital Corp., 128 F.3d at 1078) setting forth with particularity Defendant's version of the circumstances supporting the defense, as Rule 9( and the Seventh Circuit case law require.

Racick v. Dominion Law Associates, __ F.R.D. __, 2010 WL 3928702 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010):

Defendants' fourth affirmative defense contends: "Any violation of law by defendants, which is specifically denied, was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." Answer [DE-5] at p. 9. Defendants have essentially copied the language in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k©, but have not provided any notice of the specific error upon which it relies to assert the defense. Consequently, Defendants' fourth affirmative defense is stricken with leave to amend to cure this pleading deficiency. See Bradshaw, _ F.Supp.2d at _,2010 WL 294818 at *4. Of course. any attempt to replead the affirmative defense of bona fide error must be in accordance with the Supreme Court's recent ruling that the defense does not apply "to a violation resulting from a debt collector's mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA." Jerman v. Carlis, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, __ U.S. __. 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1608 (2010). [Emphasis Added]

[Coltfan1972]

There's a good chance you were probably already planning on doing this but when they plead bona fide error if they do it very generally you may want to move to strike it and force them to replead it specifically. Just something else to consume their time and cost them more money and give you more details to target your discovery.

I cited the following cases in Ohio state court in a case I am currently involved in (because there was no Ohio case law I could find) and the Court struck the bona fide error with leave to amend. They can replead but it is going to cost them more money and time and they will have to tell me exactly who, what, when and where the mistake was made and as a result my discovery can be more targeted. There are probably some similar 8th circuit rulings out there. The second cite decision was based on Twombly and Iqbal so it would only be useful if the 8th circuit has ruled that Twombly and Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses.

Konewko v. Dickler, Kahn, Sloikowsi & Zavell, Ltd., 2008. WL 2061551 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2008):

Notwithstanding the "disfavored" status of motions to strike and the "liberal pleading standard" in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the Court concludes that the motion is well taken. Because the defense at issue deals with an alleged "mistake" -- a "bona fide error" in the statutory parlance -- Defendant is obligated to comply with both Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 9(. The standard under Rule 9( requires parties to state the circumstances of a mistake with "particularity." As the Seventh Circuit has explained, Rule 9( mandates that parties allege at the pleading stage "the who, what, when, where, and how of the mistake." GE Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1078 (7th Cir. 1997). Defendant correctly points out that Rule 9( permits pleaders to allege matters such as intent and knowledge in a more general manner. However, the remaining factual details of an alleged mistake -- for example, who made the mistake and when and how it occurred -- must be set out with "particularity" in the pleading. Although Defendant has added some detail to its original effort to plead its affirmative defense, there still is work to do before the Court reasonably can conclude that Defendant has complied with its obligation to provide "the first paragraph of any newspaper story" (GE Capital Corp., 128 F.3d at 1078) setting forth with particularity Defendant's version of the circumstances supporting the defense, as Rule 9( and the Seventh Circuit case law require.

Racick v. Dominion Law Associates, __ F.R.D. __, 2010 WL 3928702 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010):

Defendants' fourth affirmative defense contends: "Any violation of law by defendants, which is specifically denied, was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." Answer [DE-5] at p. 9. Defendants have essentially copied the language in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k©, but have not provided any notice of the specific error upon which it relies to assert the defense. Consequently, Defendants' fourth affirmative defense is stricken with leave to amend to cure this pleading deficiency. See Bradshaw, _ F.Supp.2d at _,2010 WL 294818 at *4. Of course. any attempt to replead the affirmative defense of bona fide error must be in accordance with the Supreme Court's recent ruling that the defense does not apply "to a violation resulting from a debt collector's mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA." Jerman v. Carlis, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, __ U.S. __. 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1608 (2010). [Emphasis Added]

While I was planning on some similar strategy, Thank You very much for the case law and advice.

I've yet to have one argue the bona fide error defense so have been getting my game plan on, again, THANKS !!