First thing filed with the tribunal is a report so we have an agenda at 2:30 pm tomorrow for our conference call:

Report to the tribunal for June 13, 2013–organized

Next is my Motion for Interrogatories, because I have no idea which or what statements they claim on the blog are either “false or made with reckless disregard for the truth”

I have asked them numerous times for these and they respond with everything else but a listing of what they want to use.  I can’t make an exhibit list for my rebuttal, if I don’t have a list already of what items they will use.  It will be like tacking jello to a tree.

Proposed Interrogatories to Tribunal

Motion to file Interrogatories

And  finally, my favorite preparation for trial —

43 facts the KDD tribunal just got plain wrong.

Because I don’t have a list of what they will use, I guess I will have to use the 43 fact the KDD tribunal screwed up on.

One of the things that is interesting is that the letter today from the ARDC’s Sharon Opryszek complains I didn’t list the “addresses and phone numbers of witnesses.”

I don’t have them.  I only use email.  I think they have Gloria’s and Ken’s.  And I’m not too sure I should or can go out of my way to get them.  Cell phones cost money by the minute and I think the ARDC should show some respect and just email.

One of the things about the ARDC cases is that they are unlike any other litigation any attorney has ever experienced in these ways:

1.  You can’t file any dispositive motions, that is, motions that dispose of one or more claims.  (rule 235), but in directly another rule the Chair is directed to narrow issues for trial 260 (b) 1 to 2.

Do they even read their own rules?  This seems like a direct conflict to me.

2.  No one can file interrogatories, except with leave of court.  Of course, interrogatories are tools used to narrow issues for trial, so it’s strange these are limited.

3.  Requests for admission. It says under rule 251 you can get these, but when we served them, the ARDC refused to answer 90% of them.  Of course, they’re deemed admitted by that action, but still it doesn’t look good for the ARDC to be so evasive.  And now they’ve limited them to 30–rule 216 (f) which is no where near the number needed to be an effective tool in litigation any longer.  I believe it’s from attorneys who do not wish to type.

And I bet if I ask the ARDC tomorrow if I can serve another 30 more, it will be a resounding NO!

Anyone want to take up the other side of that bet.  I give you 10 to 1 odds.

The first set was enough trouble with them.

Further Ken said he only got a certain number of days to put on his defense–two days and they don’t give any more than 2 days.  But the rule 274 says trials continue from day to day until complete.

Another extremely troublesome matter with the tribunal is the inability to file motions, bring new cases to the attention of the Tribunal or discuss legal issues at all due to Rule 235 which forbids this.

All highly unusual, if you ask me.

It’s such as shame that the lawyers that people depend upon most, will be subject to such scrutiny and such dire tactics and such desperate unevenness when dispensing any meager attempts at justice upon their own.

I suggest this highly contributes to the sorry state of lawyers being in the bottom most portion of ethics and trustworthiness surveys.

It’s such a shame.

But at least you heard it here.  You can see what the state of the system which is apparently run by a machine has denigrated into.

An interesting experience.

JoAnne