Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Liz
The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch

Har! They mis-spelled "self-aggrandizing publicity hounds"!

9 posted on 09/07/2003 5:02:51 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cincinatus
Never woulda happened with a spell-check. LOL.
14 posted on 09/07/2003 5:09:52 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus
Har! They mis-spelled "self-aggrandizing publicity hounds"!

Har indeed.

Check out this post from a few weeks ago concerning JW's representation of a Clinton protestor who was beaten by Union thugs, specifically these passages:


"On the plaintiffs' side, an ugly dispute erupted late last year when plaintiffs Don and Theresa Adams, who are siblings, decided to hire new lawyers to replace a team of lawyers from Judicial Watch, a nonprofit firm in Washington, D.C., that says its goal is 'to hold government officials and others accountable for breaches of the public trust.'

"The dispute went public when the Adamses' new lawyers--Samuel C. Stretton of Philadelphia and Joseph M. Adams of Doylestown--complained in court papers that the Judicial Watch lawyers had refused to turn over their files unless they were paid. They asked Yohn to terminate Judicial Watch's attorney retaining lien.

"In response, Judicial Watch attorneys Paul J. Orfanedes and Larry Klayman told Yohn they had a valid claim for more than $208,000 in fees and expenses 'for the tremendous time, effort and resources it expended,' including 30 depositions, hundreds of interrogatories and successfully defeating several motions for dismissal.'

"In their agreement with the Adamses, they said, any termination by the Adamses 'entitles Judicial Watch to be compensated immediately on a quantum meruit basis.'

"Stretton and Joseph Adams argued that since Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, public interest firm, it is prohibited from demanding fees from its clients. The only way it would be paid, they said, would be a court award of fees if the Adamses won the case.

"But Orfanedes and Klayman argued that the new lawyers were missing the point of the termination clause.

"'When plaintiffs terminated Judicial Watch, they [also] terminated Judicial Watch's ability to apply its substantial skill and expertise to achieve this outcome,' they wrote.

"Court records show that Yohn denied the motion filed by the new laywers 'without prejudice,' meaning that he would consider it later if the new lawyers raised ths issue again."


"Ugly dispute" hardly begins to describe it. Some "public interest firm." More like HUCKSTERS.
24 posted on 09/07/2003 5:42:41 AM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus
lol!
51 posted on 09/07/2003 7:33:51 AM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus
While I was reading this I had to go back and check and make sure that it wasn't newsmax that wrote this piece. The Post reads like newsmax these days?
53 posted on 09/07/2003 7:35:25 AM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson