Lawyer Pulls No Punches in Scathing Response to Judge's 'Half-Baked' Order to Show Cause
Via the South Florida Lawyers blog I came upon an extraordinarily misguided bold Response to a bankruptcy judge's Order to Show Cause filed by a Florida lawyer named Kevin C. Gleason. I don't completely understand the underlying ruling, but I don't think I really need to in order to get the point that Gleason really disagrees with the judge's "conduct" and conclusions.
As SFL notes, Gleason's response "would have made a really great first draft" -- i.e., one that allows you to vent your anger before it is immediately shredded and deposited in the circular file. But Gleason decided to go with it as his Response to the Order to Show Cause. It appears that there was a subsequent hearing on the matter (on April 20) which must have been quite tense, but I have not seen any coverage of it.
In any event, here are quotes from some of Gleason's Greatest Hits in his response, including the entire opening paragraph which sets the tone:
-- Opening paragraph: In your fourth published example of “Ready-Fire-Aim” against this attorney, it is obvious that you have not reviewed the record in this case which does not support the purported findings of fact. It is further quite obvious that you do not believe that the same respect mandated to be shown to you should also be shown to me. Your conclusion that Mr. Denison’s attempt to exempt his commissions as the head of a household is not supported by law is belied by the language of the actual statute. Your conduct in this case was been without citation to any authority for the propositions that: your jurisdiction is never ending and without geographic bounds; your unconditional releases are meaningless; and pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court are mere suggestions.
-- Footnote 1, page 1: Also see Adv Pro 09-01974-JKO where a mis-calendared hearing on a matter where an agreed judgment was submitted in favor of my client was treated as though a surgeon removed the wrong leg.
-- Page 1: In the Order to Show Cause [ECF 588] (hereinafter OSC) at pages 1 and 3, you “found” that “Denison had already admitted he owed those commissions to the Plan Administrator under the Debtor’s confirmed Chapter 11 Plan.” Wrong. Denison admitted that he was overpaid through a mathematical error not of his making.
-- Page 2: In the OSC, at page 3, you found that “During the January 4, 2011, hearing on the sanctions motion, Gleason made no attempt to assert that the Claim was proper (he actually conceded to the fact that it was improper by an agreed order to strike the Claim on December 6, 2010)...” Now I have ordered the transcript to demonstrate that you have “misremembered” the hearing....
-- Page 3: In the OSC, at page 7, you have, once again, proven that the superficially sound logic of the OSC is specious by stating...., “Gleason’s frivolous Claim was stricken by agreed order on December 6, 2010...” ... [T]he claim was not frivolous. What is frivolous is your grabbing of funds without any statutory grounds for so doing, and calling a garnishment by another name.
-- Page 3: The fiction continues on page 8 of the OSC, where you write, again, “Gleason has already stricken the offending Claim by agreed order."
-- Concluding sentence, page 4: It is sad when a man of your intellectual ability cannot get it right when your own record does not support your half-baked findings.
There's much more. You can read Gleason's full Response here.
Posted by Bruce Carton on April 26, 2011 at 06:12 PM | Permalink
| Comments (11)