Monday, May 9, 2016

Can the 4th DCA Save Us From Donald Trump (Or, at Minimum, From Lazy PCAs)?


Much like the mixed and complex political reaction to the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany (too much?), this buffoonish yet quite possibly dangerous demagogue who may soon be our President did have vocal detractors who early on warned everybody and took this bozo on.

Two of whom being Elizabeth Lee Beck and the bearded one, Jared Beck, who uses his FB page to Bern-out but also recount his tale of Trump woe:
In another of our cases, there were several irregularities in the trial court, including an instance of blatant unjudicial conduct by the judge while Trump was on the witness stand – the judge shared multiple jokes with Trump and even lent him the glasses off his face at one point. Imagine if you were suing someone for fraud and the judge did this in your case! After two days of deliberation, the jury found for Trump. Based on a question from the jury deliberation room (it begins with “If the jury believes that advertisements may have been misleading”), I am convinced it agreed Trump’s representations were false or misleading but was led astray by the judge’s erroneous evidentiary rulings.
We appealed. Two weeks ago, the appellate court (Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal) issued a decision upholding the verdict for Trump. For me, this wasn’t the disturbing part. What bothers me is that the court declined to write a written opinion explaining why it believes the trial was fair or that Trump was entitled to the verdict. This is the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America, and the court won’t let us know why it thinks Trump is not legally liable for fraud! It seems to me that the citizens of a true democracy are entitled to such information. (We have filed a motion with the court requesting an opinion or, in the alternative, to hold a rehearing before the full court).
So here is the motion asking that the dreaded PCA be replaced with an actual written utterance opinion, because "DEMOCRATIC TRANSPARENCY HANGS IN THE BALANCE WITHOUT A WRITTEN OPINION BY THIS COURT REGARDING TRUMP'S DEALINGS."

Come on 4th DCA -- SAVE US PLEASE!

2 comments:

  1. Beck and Lee. Fearless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Remember, ``per curium, affirmed'' is Latin for ``It is 9.30, tee time is 10.00, and we have a bunch of cases we need to take care of before we leave.''

    ReplyDelete