Cookie Cutter Litigators File Cookie Cutter Motions

Excerpts from Pleading Seeking Closure in a Civil Case

This response of the plaintiffs was used in a civil action, which was initiated in a State Court and removed to federal court by the lawyer/defendants in order to obtain a judge who would be favorable to these lawyer/defendants. The lawyer/defendants who removed the case to federal court were long time hefty contributors to numerous Republican Party candidates holding and seeking political offices throughout the country. The lawyer/defendants correctly assumed they could obtain judicial favoritism in federal court that was unavailable to them with the State Court judge. By using various motions and and obtaining rulings, which were not justified from the federal court, the defendants mistakenly, actually stupidly, lost their basis for federal jurisdiction. After the lawyer/defendants filed their ill advised motions, as the motions related to jurisdiction, and the Court's blunder in granting the motions, the plaintiffs moved for a remand of the case to the State Court, which was granted. The defendants through various motions literally begged the federal court to reconsider the remand order and keep the case in federal court. The excerpts included here are from plaintiffs' last federal court pleading, which was used to sustain the order of remand and thereby a settlement of the case.

The entirety of the motion can be viewed by clicking here.

The excerpts from the response follow.

The Difficulties that Removal Cases Create

     Another caveat of explanation or excuse follows for the bloodied warriors who lay strewn around the mortar shells they hurled at each other in the media of banker’s boxes of papers. This explanation follows.

     There are numerous procedural, intellectual, political and other differences that exist between litigating in federal courts and litigating in state courts. Sometimes it is difficult for advocates, i.e., warriors, to intellectually and psychologically process these differences.[1]

     Here, in an attempt to explain these differences between the two systems, we use a musical, or, maybe more accurately stated, an entertainment analogy.

     Litigating in federal court is somewhat compared to the performance of an opera, while litigating in general jurisdiction state courts is more akin to attending a rock concert. Even more different than these two systems is litigating in lower jurisdiction courts or administrative type of proceedings, which are akin to a night at the Grand Ole Opry.

     At an opera, at least in the southern part of this country, more formality and masking in the form of extravagant costumes is expected of the cast and attendees, which can also be identified as sophisticated pretense. This degree of expected formality or stuffiness and pretense at the opera adds both to the assistance of the cast in delivering its message and the fulfillment the participants wish to receive from the performance.

     At a rock concert, the attendees do, and are expected to, take a physically active part in the performance. While not all may wish, or be allowed, to participate in the tossing in the pit, certainly, most at a rock concert expect to exercise their vocal cords, wiggle a raised arm, wobble their body a bit, shake a leg and totally loosen up. Admittedly, while most of the rock concert participants would deny it, they, like the opera goers, are costumed, only their costumes are different from the costumes of the opera goers.

     This litigation began with a chiding of the litigants who, dressed for a rock concert, unwillingly and unexpectedly had their tickets to the rock concert exchanged at the door for an entry into a performance of Aida.[2]

     During the litigation, some of the exclusively Gaylon Shealy, et al. litigants thought this dispute was best suited for a stint at the Grand Ole Opry, i.e. arbitration. The planned, what would have been a very lengthy, compulsory side trip to binding arbitration was averted. A performance of sorts at the Grand Ole Opry was not averted.

     The litigants who chose to litigate this matter in federal court and thereby have their parties’ night at the opera, often expressed their feelings while in the opera house as they audibly hummed the Tennessee Waltz. This unusual conduct of loudly expressing their feelings and humming in the opera house is somewhat understandable and may have occurred because all of “them” foreign words in the operatic performance disturbed their performance of showing their social superiority to the socially and politically lowly Plaintiffs.

     Then again, maybe this unusual conduct occurred because Defendants heard the word “kingpin” used in a movie to describe an evil character, or, who knows, maybe that they thought “RICO” was an abbreviated acronym for the conduct engaged in by the character, RICO, that Edward G. Robinson played in the 1930’s movie, Little Caesar.

     Anyway, while some of the litigants were appearing in cameo performances and overtly humming the Tennessee Waltz at the opera house, and otherwise engaging in tactics to preserve their request to “save the last dance for [them],” there were other participants who were attempting to read the libretto.

     The bouncer at the opera house, if there is such a person and if the law will allow us to compare it with a bouncer, often became offended during this performance, as did other participants, because the parties forcing the crowd to the opera, instead of the rock concert that they paid their tax to attend, wished, at times, to honky-tonk around and act as if they were at the Grand Ole Opry, while the other litigants, for the most part, were left to squirm in their seats as they attempted to follow the program with a libretto.[3]

[1]    It is sad to state, but neither the state nor federal system has been proven better than the other at resolving disputes, even thought the federal system is by far the most expensive to the litigants and society.

[2] Most of the litigants do not wish to suffer the fate of Radamès, who, as the opera Aida ends, is buried alive in a crypt. Nor do most of the litigants wish to suffer the fate of Aida, who, also while alive, secreted herself in the crypt of Radamès as a sign of her love and solidarity. Most rational people would identify the crazed conduct of both Radamès and Aida as pure stupidity. As the joint burial alive ceremony occurred, Amneris, the scorned, stood above the tomb and prayed for peace. Obviously, as here, the Preliminary Planning Conference was not sufficient in the case involving Radamès.

[3] This is not to say that at times the same litigants did not attempt to put a move on one another at various times, but all participants knew these moves toward the basket were futile as the movant could not break through the zone.

*        *        *

In spite of criminal conduct, which was an initiating factor in the wrongdoing, Plaintiffs have been often attacked during this litigation for their representative’s word usage, which identified the conduct of Defendant, and Plaintiffs were even told that there is not a cause of action against Defendants for stealing, a decision they laughed about even with their very scant, formal educations.

     Regardless of the mistreatment suffered by Plaintiffs that gave rise to this litigation, they have been willing to forgive, not tell and move on.

     As much as this response is designed to protect the flight of the dove and allow this matter to be resolved, all should know that Dwight Redding has reason to feel that tens of thousands of dollars have been added to the cost of a resolution to his dispute, because, in his perception, Defendants’ political and social status tainted his opportunity to protect his personal belongings from debts collectors that used the courts to assist them in permanently depriving him of the last vestiges of physical attachments to his daughter, who was killed in an unfortunate car accident.

     The dove of peace should be given a chance to deliver its long overdue message. Hopefully, dignity can be restored to all who both witnessed and participated in this arduous attempt at dispute resolution. The time has arrived for this matter to conclude.

Conclusion

     While the Plaintiffs wish to attend a rock concert, and the original Defendants wish a night at the opera house, in reality, both attempt to convert this forum into a night at the Grand Ole Opry. In Grand Ole Opry style, the Plaintiffs attempted to explain their complaints against Defendants with the same type of explicit words that allow the Grand Ole Opry tunes to be so expressive. At the same time, the Defendants attempted to showcase their defenses and power in the splendor of the fancy mobile vehicles used by many of the Grand Ole Opry performers to enter into the side doors of the arenas.

     Regardless of the accuracies of the comparisons, in the terms of vintage Grand Ole Opry comparisons, a few flashbacks make an appropriate reflection for the conclusion to this response. Here goes.

     While the Saturday night crowd of over three thousand enthusiastic show-goers packed into the old Ryman Auditorium is about to complete their dream evening of entertainment after hearing their favorite Grand Ole Opry performers, it is becoming later in the evening. The late night radio signal of WSM is just beginning to come in clear and strong without the frequent crackle and pop that accompanies the broadcast earlier in the evenings. The old WSM clock on the wall is telling the story that this Saturday’s performance is about to end.

     The performance is about to end for those who paid nearly the entirety of a week’s wages to travel to Nashville to be at the Grand Ole Opry and it is ending for the tens of thousands more listeners who gathered around their home radios to end the week with their greatest listening pleasure.

     While there are miles to drive before they rest, this evening of listening pleasure is also about to end for all of the truckers who listened as WSM faded in and out. It is also about to end for an extremely few happy truckers who planned all week to be coming through Nashville on Saturday night so they could blast their air horns as they passed outside the Ryman Auditorium and a few seconds later enjoyed the pleasure of hearing the sound of their horns come in on their truck radios.

     After hearing from the wonders of Martha White Flour, Prince Albert Tobacco and Purina during numerous breaks and hearing all of the evening performers, the time always comes for the Grand Ole Opry to sign off the air and the Ryman Auditorium to empty.

     When the show nears its end, Earnest Tubb could be seen wiping down the sweat from his face, which is covered with a smile, as he knows he gave the crowd their money’s worth as they got to hear his immortal words about “Walkin' The Floor Over You . . .” Minnie is putting back on her hat to once again go out and tell the crowd, howdeeee, thank-you and good-bye. Hank will put aside his prescription of Dr. Jack Daniels long enough to make it back to the edge of the stage; just the sight of him will make the crowd yell and yearn for to hear a few more lines about the “love sick blues.” Bill Monroe, as the other Blue Grass Boys, is still attired in his string bowtie and ten gallon hat. He will bow to the crowd with his mandolin close to his chest, while Earl Scruggs and the other Blue Grass Boys give him front stage. Everyone wants Patsy to sigh again, oh, what they would give to hear just a few more lines from “Crazy” or, “I Fall to Pieces.”

     Regardless of the yearning, all know that the WSM clock, not their applause, controls the ending of the Opry. The Little Jimmy Dickens fans are politely yearning for just one more, but it is not to be. Not even Roy Acuff, or Chet Atkins could stop the hands on the WSM clock. For over seventy continuous years it has been done the way that the “the solemn old judge,” George Hay, started the show – every show had a predetermined time for finality.

     Like a Saturday night at the Grand Ole Opry, this show too has an end. Let’s all hope it is near. Excepting an extended performance, certainly none of us brought to this show what Uncle Jimmy Thompson brought to George Hay and the millions who have enjoyed the Grand Ole Opry.

     Again, to borrow from this scribe’s all-time favorite, Lewis Carroll,      

Creative Motions to Balance the Scales

Action Motions Plus Y2K9, 

as an Effective Component of Conflictineering

Millard Farmer

P. O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301

(404) 688-8116

millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com

A paper on Action Motions Plus Y2K9 and Conflictineering follows the index.

This paper and many related matters can be accessed on the Internet. The complete

materials may be accessed by going to the either of the following websites.

http://www.goextranet.net

or

http://www.millardfarmer.com

After reaching either of the above websites, go to the right column

of the first row of the website and locate Seminar Materials, then

proceed as follows.

(Under the right column heading) Seminar Materials

(Click on)    Texas

After clicking on Texas, you should reach the page asking for

your Username and Password. Use the following username and

password.

Username        Texas

Password        Seminar

At this  point  you  will  reach  the Program  Schedule.  Scroll  to 

the

8:00 am time slot on the Program Schedule, and

click on

Storytelling: How to Do It, and Why it's Crucial

If you cannot negotiate the Login screen, it is probably because you do not have

java scripts enabled on your computer. As a workaround, you can insert the

following URL and enter the website.

http://www.goextranet.net/Seminars/TX2004/Agenda.htm

If you encounter additional troubles, feel free to call 404 688-8116 or e-mail

millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com