Dog Food Court: Clowncil Fires Rocky
Good news!KFI AM 640 reports that the City Clowncil has (finally) done something right, namely, canned its dog food defense lawyers. That is, the Clowncil is firing the City Attorney as trial counsel in the case of Dog Food Guy vs. Joe Taxpayer.
Rocky and friends had all but formally stipulated to the entry of judgment against the City for millions. That was the sign the City needed to hire REAL trial lawyers, who will go in and keep this case simple and clear.
Rocky's team would have had absolutely zero credibility in front of the jury, and would have had a built-in psychological incentive to lose, and lose big, so they could say, "See, we told you the multi-million dollar settlement was a good deal."
So I say, "good job, Clowncil!" Sincerely. Approving the proposed settlement was totally wrong, but this move is exactly right.
Hey, EVERYONE makes mistakes. What distinguishes one person from another is how they deal with their mistakes. Hiring new counsel is a very good way to deal with the Clowncil's previous mistake, namely, authorizing the outrageous give-away of YOUR tax-dollars for a few bites of Ken-L-Ration.
I wish I had thought of firing Rocky in this case. Oh, that's right -- I did, right here, back on December 1, 2006.
Well, it just goes to show: Clowncil Members could save time and face by coming to this site early and often, and following our recommendations.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 1/20/2007 01:05:00 PM
6 Comments:
Here's the info I left on John & Ken's producer's voice mail,,, I wonder if it was part of their segment?
At Friday's Council meeting, at the very end of the meeting, a special item blew through. Zine's motion to hire outside counsel in the Pierce case.
Councilmember Bernie Parks, the only "No" vote (9:1 in favor of hiring outside counsel) had this to say:
He was concerned that the judge would not allow for a continuance regarding the settlement, and at this late date, he didn't think there was time to start fresh, with new attorneys. Parks stated that he felt the chance of a jury awarding a settlement LESS than whatever is currently on the table, is about 50%/50%, and he is scared it could be way more. AND, they have already spent about $500,000 or $750,000 already.
So there it is Councilmember Parks...Your comments for the record, because you could be right. And I think way more people will read your words on Mayor Sam, than heard them at the last two minutes of a three hour City Council meeting, with or without TV 35 coverage. Holla at ya' boy, CM Parks!
I don't think the new lawyers will need a continuance, though the substitution should have been done sooner.
Here's the opening statement:
"The plaintiff's co-workers pulled a prank on him. He calls himself the 'Big Dog,' so they put some dog food in his spaghetti. He ate one, maybe two bites. Based on this prank, he will ask you to award him millions of dollars of taxpayer money. We will ask you to award him nothing."
You say that, nothing more, and then SIT DOWN.
The rest of the defense case will be cros-ex, which won't require much prep at all. You can wing it for the most part, in a case like this.
Introducing the prior prank photos will be the high point. You just ask if that's the plaintiff in the photo, and he says yes, and you show it to the jury. You don't argue with him. You don't ask him about it. You let the picture do the talking, and let him and his lawyers try to weasel out of it with their BS "explanations," like "That's different! That was done with love!" You just look at the jury when he says that. No need to comment.
Then you come to closing argument:
"The evidence showed that the plaintiff's co-workers pulled a prank on him, and that, as a result, the man who called himself 'Big Dog' ate one or two bites of spaghetti containing dog food. Should the taxpayers of L.A. have to pay millions as a result of this prank? Of course not. They shouldn't have to pay a dime.
"This was a prank by co-workers, not a million-dollar case of racial discrimination. The plaintiff and his lawyers saw the prank as a lottery ticket, nothing more. They hope to get a jury guillible enough to confuse this prank with real discrimination.
"Do not let the plaintiff abuse the memory of the real victims of discrimination and violence. Do not give him and his lawyers a penny."
At that point, you're pretty much done. KISS: keep it simple, stupid.
By the way, that'll cost you new attorneys $50, please.
ooops...When ZD said, Councilmember Parks was concerned that the judge would not allow for a continuance regarding the settlement. Parks said he was concerned cause the judge ALREADY HAS REFUSED a contiuance. (my bad)
P.S. I could try that case for about $25,000. However, I'd rather do it for, say, $20,000 plus 10% of the proposed settlement figure minus the actual judgment, i.e., 10% of the money I save the City.
Assuming, as I do, that the jury awards Dog Food Guy nothing, my 10% of $2.7 million would be $270,000.
Is there any chance the prior prank photos will not be admissible? I'm not an attorney, but I would imagine plaintiff counsel will fight like heck to keep them out of the trial (if this still goes all the way).
The prior photos are definitely admissible to impeach the plaintiff. If the judge excludes them, it will be reversible error.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home