District Court Judge William Pattinson was a bit subtle but methinks he does not like this motion for venue change. The judge denied the motion after saying it was “so incredibly asinine, ill-conceived, unfounded and personally and professionally insulting that it is unworthy of any discussion or consideration.” Yikes.
The motion was based on four affidavits, which I am trying to get. They argued that there would be bias in trying the case in a small town because the small bar and local judge would disfavor the out-of-town plaintiffs. That clearly did not go down well with the court. Notably, venue motions are always a bit sensitive with judges since they are based on the theory that the judge cannot guarantee a fair trial in that locale. It is like motions to have criminal defendants remain out of jail pending appeal because of the likelihood that the appellate court will overturn the judge’s past rulings in the case.
For the full story, click here.
9 thoughts on “Judge Denies Motion as “Incredibly Asinine, Ill-Conceived, Unfounded and Personally and Professionally Insulting””
Tom: “Didn’t the plaintiffs pick this venue when they filed suit?”
This is not clear. It is not a traditional legal P v. D action. The action has a Probate case number. It seems to be a claim by folks hoping to inherit under a residuary trust, which I think may be a trust fund that results when there is money left over after the specific bequests and taxes and costs and other stuff may have been taken care of. Claimants under a trust in state court are usually proceeding in equity, not law.
I have no special knowledge here, but most probate actions take place in the court in the district where the person died and the trustee named in the will filed the will. I would be hard pressed to come up with reasons for a change of venue in a case like that.
Can anyone come up with any more facts?
It bothers me when judges hold back like that; he needs some counselling so he can let go …
lol It does sound like the Orlybouros! Nice catch driveby.
When I read the title I thought I was going to be about Orly Taitz =)
No doubt every single word in the motion and affidavits was true.
But there are some things you just don’t say.
“so incredibly asinine, ill-conceived, unfounded and personally and professionally insulting that it is unworthy of any discussion or consideration.”
Bdarube? Were you trying to get a venue change to one where evidence wasn’t required for your outlandish and ridiculous claims?
Sure sounds like your work.
Could it be where the Cause of Action Arose or the Defendant(s) reside? Just wondering.
Didn’t the plaintiffs pick this venue when they filed suit? How did it become more biased between then and now? If it was always “biased,” didn’t the plaintiffs’ counsel discuss that situation with their clients before filing suit? Did they say “we’ve got a great plan to annoy the judge?” The mind boggles.
Methinks, that this is probably a good ideal if it is based upon bias. We have way toooooo many Demi-Gods in power already.
Think Ted Nuggents. Cat Scratch Fever.
Comments are closed.