Above The Law reports:
There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.) ...
Marc Randazza, who represented us in this matter, had this to say:
I’m relieved that Mr. Jones came to his senses. We were prepared to file a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions, and we were confident that both would have been successful. I am consistently unimpressed by academics and anti-speech parties who think that the courts are there for the redress of foolishness, not the legitimate redress of valid legal grievances.
We discussed this case in this thread.
Categories: Uncategorized
PeteP says:
I still think he lost a pair of pants at the dry cleaner’s recently :-)
Along with any skills he may ever have possessed in the area of writing legal briefs. His nonsensical rambling whining was worthy of the type of suits you see filed by insane inmates hoping their prose gets them a bus ride to the courthouse so they can see the sights and get a nice change of pace from group therapy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:48 pmPatHMV says:
Let’s be charitable and assume that the good professor just had a really stressful week and filed a stupid pleading without thinking it through. It’s good that he did the right thing sooner rather than later.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:14 pmChrisTS says:
I’m struggling to find the right simile. Is this like shooting yourself in the foot with blanks?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:18 pmSeamus says:
I’m really disappointed that Above the Law didn’t get to go for sanctions. I know it’s not quite sporting for Michael Jordan (in his prime) to make a slam dunk to score against a team of little old ladies, but sometime it’s still fun to watch.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:55 pmFub says:
That takes even more skill when your foot is in your mouth.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:10 pmdrunkdriver says:
I do hope the comment thread on his post is open.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:15 pmChrisTS says:
:-)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:07 pmjccamp says:
Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder why the original charges were dismissed? Possibilities include the officer not showing up for court, or more likely, the professor — as a first time offender — entering a pre-trial diversion program by pleading nolo, adjudication is initially withheld, and upon successful completion of some AIDs-related education class, a finding of not guilty is entered and the record sealed/expunged. That’s a pretty typical disposition for prostitution charges.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:15 pmSteve says:
The sanctimonious speech by the lawyer is a bit much.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:32 pmDave N says:
I don’t often agree with Steve, but I do here. The attorney was being a pompous jackass (my apologies in advance to any and all other jackasses for the comparison, whether of the two or four-legged variety).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:42 pmloki13 says:
I believe the good professor only opens his mouth to change feet.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:23 pmJ. says:
Jones took a Pretrial Diversion plea.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:49 amDudeman says:
With the Rule 11 Safe Harbor sanctions were unlikely:
Faculty Lounge, yesterday morning:
Civ. Pro. Prof: Hey Jones, dismiss that pile of crap you filed or you’re gonna pay ATL’s attorney fees.
Jones: No way man, they violated my rights!
Civ. Pro. Prof: ATL’s attorney charges $300 an hour.
Jones: I gotta go do somethin’....
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:50 amAultimer says:
Sanctimonious? I guess you haven’t read his blog then...
The title of his post on the case is illustrative -
Quote
November 5, 2009, 10:16 amrarango says:
Good to see there is some closure on this case. Professor Volokh deleted a previous post I made on this case on the grounds of pointless vulgarity–and he was absolutely correct–I admit to both charges.
I do remain curious about how the plaintiff was able to get tenure at a law school. Awarding the plaintiff tenure says little good about academic processes and calls the entire profession and academe into question.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:43 amwfjag says:
Be charitable:
1. An uncontested win is still a win;
2. The attorney needs to generate business, and what better advertising than to sing:
[cue music by The Box Tops — or, better yet, Joe Cocker]
My clients don’t need no distrain.
I don’t need no file no com-plain.
That ole suit is gone,
We’re all goin home,
I done sent the Per-fessor “a letter.”
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:05 pmCassandra says:
Sadly, I do not think that U of M has a civ pro prof that would give him that advice. Alfieri is it only one who actually knows the rules of civil procedure and he does not like Jones. The other civ pro proffs are academics on the outs with the present administration stuck teaching it, they would do no better in a real court of law than professor Jones.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:08 pmNickM says:
They could probably at least use proper spelling and grammar.
Nick
Quote
November 5, 2009, 4:15 pm