Thanks for your answer and for the link. I happen to be a lawyer and in my 22 years of practice, including a fair amount of time in court, years of research, brief writing, etc. one of the pillars of our system is a preference for judging cases on their merits. Now some will laugh because we have lots of anecdotal evidence that cases get tossed on flimsy procedural technicalities all the time. This is true, but still, decent fair minded judges I’ve appeared before are loath to throw something out completely on procedural grounds unless the rules, statutes or other procedural dictates leave no room to do otherwise.
Which is where I’m going with these questions. This lawyer letter is filled with smoke, half-truth, venom, vilification and procedural obstacles.
Just this once, or any time, I’d like to hear a judge say: “Mr. Jablonski, I am not compelled by your arguments or your authorities to dismiss this case. None of the cases and rules you cited force me to make such a ruling. On the other hand, we denizens of the courts - lawyers, judges, journalists and the like - love to talk about assuring citizens “access to the courts”. One of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to have your plea heard in a legitimate legal dispute and to have it adjudicated in accordance with a transparent set of rules that apply equally to everyone. On that basis, and considering that no court has seen fit to do so before, I am ruling that this case should be heard on the merits. I realize that I will be targeted for ridicule and calumny, but that is no reason for me to shirk my duty to follow the law and to let an undecided issue of vital importance to be heard.”
So Ordered.
I can dream, can’t I?
Just this once, or any time, Id like to hear a judge say: Mr. Jablonski, I am not compelled by your arguments or your authorities to dismiss this case. None of the cases and rules you cited force me to make such a ruling. On the other hand, we denizens of the courts - lawyers, judges, journalists and the like - love to talk about assuring citizens access to the courts. One of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to have your plea heard in a legitimate legal dispute and to have it adjudicated in accordance with a transparent set of rules that apply equally to everyone. On that basis, and considering that no court has seen fit to do so before, I am ruling that this case should be heard on the merits. I realize that I will be targeted for ridicule and calumny, but that is no reason for me to shirk my duty to follow the law and to let an undecided issue of vital importance to be heard. So Ordered.
I can dream, cant I?
It appears that we will get to see how close to your dream this situation will play out.