Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Judge Brown Vindicated; Let's Have a Bench Trial!

Judge Brown Vindication

Peter Halmos' last-ditch toe-tapping effort to have Judge Brown's order of reference vacated has been denied by Judge Martinez.

In a comprehensive order, Judge Martinez addresses specifically the "coerced consent" issue, the "mediator then adjudicator" issue, and the SIMPLY AMAZING(!) "judicial rhetoric" issue.

Here's a taste from footnote one:
Before Judge Brown asked any either party about consent individually, however, counsel represented to Judge Brown that the parties had all agreed to consent.  Judge Brown asked the parties one at a time regarding consent only after counsel made that representation.  Plaintiff's motion omits any mention of this portion of the transcript.
Translation = I've got your back!

Now go have some fun spending endless days proving up damages to a leaky boat.

7 comments:

  1. If you're going to shoot the King, don't miss.

    As long as joey does not call brown "magistrate klein," he may pull through this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A calm, articulate, well-reasoned order.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is how you write an order.

    ReplyDelete
  4. D.E. No. 1343 (!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe I'm missing something.

    Doesn't that type of consent have to be written and signed???

    Obviously, Judge Brown would either have or not have before him the signed forms. Indeed, he could simply have asked his clerk for the forms.

    Instead, sounds like opposing counsel tricked Halmos into the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The consent situation is interesting. The Eleventh Circuit will decide this one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Look at the Footnote about an ex parte communication between the judge and Halmos initiated by the judge!

    ReplyDelete