To the Moon, Gleason!


In a follow up to the response to order to show cause heard 'round the world, SD FL bankruptcy Judge Olson -- surprise -- didn't seem to like the tone of Gleason's response:
Because Gleason has repeatedly raised arguments unsupported by law or the record and engaged the court in a disrespectful tone, the court finds that Gleason’s behavior demonstrates bad faith supporting the imposition of sanctions under the court’s inherent authority.
The Court reserved on the appropriate sanction to be imposed and will be holding another hearing.

Someone posting as Kevin C. Gleason made a reference to Proverbs 27:17 in our comments section -- I suspect Kevin will need to refer to the Good Book a few more times before this whole thing is done.


  1. I do not agree with Gleason's response. It is just not right and totally inappropriate. But, putting aside that minor point, let's face it. He expressed on paper something that every lawyer in town has wished he or she had the cojones to do at least once. To tell a pompous judge to take his order to show cause and basically shove it up his derrier gets a huge plus in my book. I have printed out his response and keep it in my desk drawer. My clients love it. If he gets hit with a punitive type of fine, I suggest there be a fund to donate to defray the cost to him. While every lawyer dreams of being a literary version of Lou Piniella when opining about a judge's ruling, there is only one of us who has had the guts to make the fantasy come true.

  2. Notwithstanding the tone, I think most are missing what Gleason is saying:

    His actions were deliberately misstated by Judge Olsen; The law was not followed based on some "inherent power" theory — which, of course, repeals the law ... arbitrarily.

    Unfortunately, if Gleason is correct, unlike a Florida state court judge, there is no way to get rid of Judge Olsen. So we, the citizens of Florida, have to put up with a miniature, arbitrary "pasha," who dispenses arbitrary law. Forever.

    Reminds me of the famous head chopping scene in Apocalypto.

  3. Shoot the Lawyers:

    I found the Court's order to be rather well-restrained in light of the rude, disrespectful tone and perjorative language contained in Gleason's response. I do take issue with your characterization of this jurist as "pompous." I have appeared before him several times and have always thought the judge was courteous to all parties and extremely intelligent. Where does the "pompous" come from? Have you had a different experience?

  4. My apologies. I do not know Judge Olson and have never heard anything negative about him until this episode which is a one man attack. My comment was directed at a pompous judge that is perceived to be so by the attorney who wants to counterattack. I am not judging either side but just remembering the number of times where I have witnessed other attorneys and myself get hammered in public by a judge who is just trying to be malicious and sadistic or trying to impress the peanut gallery with his supposed legal wisdom. I liken this to watching some kid get his hands whacked with a ruler in first grade and then watch the kid grab the ruler and nail the teacher across his knuckles. He may have deserved the punishment and the teacher may have been 100% justified in meting it out but having been there oh so many times in the early 60's, there is a certain joy in watching the roles get reversed.

  5. 4:12 be trolling.

  6. The writer is totally right, and there is no skepticism.

  7. buy tramadol online mastercard overnight - tramadol hcl 650

  8. Good day! I just want to give a huge thumbs up for the good information
    you will have here on this post. I will likely be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.

    Feel free to surf to my site - seo package prices in india


Post a Comment