A Henderson man who goes by the name of "John Theodore:Anderson" has sued a Utah law firm for $38 quadrillion [pinky to mouth]. From freerepublic.com:The dispute stems from a complaint Anderson originally filed against clients of the law firm of Shumway, Van and Hansen for $918 billion. Shumway said his client, Private Capital Group et al, came into possession of mining property in Southern Utah recently after the original owner of the mine defaulted on a loan. The capital group then tried to sell the property, and Anderson put a $918 billion lien on it. In response, Shumway filed a lawsuit for $10,000 in damages to remove the lien, because he said the property cannot be sold with a cloud on the title.At least one of the defendant-lawyers seems to be maintaining his composure despite facing the possibility of a judgment for more money than is currently in circulation:
Civil litigation can get redundant, Shumway said, so he said he enjoys getting cases that are off the wall procedurally. He said it provides the firm with experiences that most attorneys never deal with.
"This case, no matter how strange or funny, makes us better at our jobs because you can't just go A to Z," he said. "Mr. Anderson is throwing numbers and smiley faces into my alphabet, and I appreciate that, even though in the end I think he will be sorely disappointed with the result."
Go get 'em, Mr. Crazy Pro Se Litigant.
(FreeRepublic.com; Thanks, Tipster!)
With a name life that you know he's a sovereign citizen.
ReplyDeleteBy the way freerepublic is full of first class d-bags!!!
I think you meant "like"
ReplyDeleteWWTFD?
ReplyDeleteIf I was the judge, I would immediately call and status check, inform the attorney that he is in violation of rule 11 and give him 10 days to amend his complaint. Rule 11 is there for a reason, and if the legal community wants the stature it once enjoyed, this kind of behavior should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteBar counsel should also send a letter of inquiry.
We actually need to police ourselves people, or someone else will do it for us.
In fairness to the plaintiff, if any firm could incur $38 quadrillion in liability - it might be Shumway Van
ReplyDeletewith a lawsuit like that are you sure he isn't related to the Hansens?
ReplyDeleteMaybe this pro per can get a job w/ Righthaven.
ReplyDelete@ 8:16 - first rule of being a lawyer....read the damn article before leaving some "we must police ourselves blah blah blah let me throw in what I would do to brag about my legal know how"
ReplyDeleteThe Plaintiff is pro se. There isn't an attorney repping him. Defense counsel can bill for anytime they spend defending this bs
lesson of the day: read the article first....then proceed to blah blah legal knowledge blah blah blah
8:52 am is exactly right. I had to re-read the post to make sure it wasn't Shumway Van filing the suit (nod to 10:24 am). Those guys are retarded, and I mean that literally.
ReplyDelete8:16 here
ReplyDeleteI don't care if it is an atty or pro per. The rule applies regardless. Is it your opinion this suit was brought in good faith and is not subject to sanctions under Rule 11? If not, then what is?
8:16/10:55
ReplyDelete“I don't care if it is an atty or pro per. The rule applies regardless.”
You did say “attorney” so back off. Of course this is a rule 11 violation. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to read the article.
@ 8:16/10:55
ReplyDelete10:24 here....yes but wasn't your whole posting about policing ourselves? And as 11:12 pointed out you did say attorney. Plus let's be realistic, the judge is not going to put sanctions against this nutbag. The judge is going to wait for a motion to dismiss...that is after Shumway is through milking the billable hours and actually files said motion.
freerepublic is certainly full of something, but not d-bags. Righthaven McBlewtooth is a d-bag. let's not devalue the d-bag brand by misapplying it to any old idiots who come along.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
ReplyDelete"...Plus let's be realistic, the judge is not going to put sanctions against this nutbag. The judge is going to wait for a motion to dismiss...that is after Shumway is through milking the billable hours and actually files said motion."
Perhaps I read the article wrong, but it seems that Shumway Van is being sued and its partners seem to be representing themselves. My civil procedure is a little rusty, but are you saying that there are billable hours to be had from Shumway Van representing Shumway Van? Maybe outside defense counsel...
8:16 here:
ReplyDeleteIt is true i misread the article. You pointed out my error. I then pointed out that my idea was still valid but I ignored my original error. You acknowledged your error and once again pointed out mine. I am now acknowledging my error.
My head just exploded.
I like 8:16
ReplyDelete@11:36
ReplyDeleteYes to call the people at freerepublic d-bags is an insult to true d-bags everywhere.
Vin posts on freerepublic. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteYeah 8:16 is right we need to start policing ourselves regardless. Rule 11 needs to be enforced.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Rule 11?
ReplyDelete@ 1:02 - damn maybe everybody (myself included) misread the article...maybe the fault lies in wild wild law's writing skills. It seems that the Henderson man is suing the law firm, however, any defense of this suit could be technically billable because the lawsuit stems from Shumway's representation of Private Capital Group (or their insurance carriers). In other words, I would assume that the insurance carriers are going to reimburse for cost and expenses so to avoid being brought in the lawsuit....but I may be wrong
ReplyDeleteRule 34 needs to be enforced...
ReplyDeleteNevada Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.8(j) needs to be done away with. I work long hours, and I am one of those bitchy plaintiff CD attorneys. However am I going to get laid with that rule on the books?
ReplyDeleteAnd can someone please explain the whole "client is an organization" exception???
Rule 23 is unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteI'm only familiar with the client has a sandy vagina concept, which is rule 1.9.
ReplyDeleteThere are 11 Rules? I thought there were only 10 Commandments.
ReplyDelete2:33 PM - the corporate exception to 1.8j clearly envisions that the legal profession would fail to exist if attorneys were not allowed to screw corporate clients. It is a necessary exception.
ReplyDeleteJudge doesn't have to wait for a Motion to Dismiss if the Complaint is patently frivolous.
ReplyDeletehttp://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/916/916.F2d.725.89-5096.html
Rule 9 trumps rule 11.
ReplyDeleteI invoke law 7.
ReplyDeleteI put on my robe and wizard hat
ReplyDeleteI cast Level 3 enchantment on you.
ReplyDeleteThere has been an awful lot of discussion regarding this rule and that rule and I want to make sure we're all on the same page here.. so with that being said I took it upon myself to find a list of the OFFICIAL rules of civil procedure......... hope this helps!!
ReplyDeleteOFFICIAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
#EPICFAIL, my baddddd
ReplyDelete2nd attempt.....................
OFFICIAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
enjoy!!
8:56/9:01-
ReplyDeleteYour epic FAIL wasn't the broken link. It was the fixed link that led me to something very un-funny.
I disagree. I thought it was a little funny, but very informative.
ReplyDeleteRules 1 and 2 are still in force.
ReplyDeletem00t FTW!
Rule number 1, don't get high on your own supply. Rule number 2, never underestimate the other guys greeeeeeed!
ReplyDelete"Your epic FAIL wasn't the broken link. It was the fixed link that led me to something very un-funny."
ReplyDeleteAgreeeeeeed
Worked on a case with Lewis Brisbois associate, Jason Revzin, please excuse my spelling of his last name if not correct. He is pleasant, professional and easy on the eyes. Some nice eye candy for females!
ReplyDelete@4:28
ReplyDeleteNice try Jason Rev..whatever your name is.
Frank Flansburg is dreamy.
ReplyDeleteJason Revzin, he gonna rev rev rev your engine!!!
ReplyDeleteRule 11 calls for an eight sided die. Rule 7 calls for a twenty sided die. Get it straight people, these are the rules!
ReplyDeleteLaw 7 (of the Laws of 8) calls for a personal challenge. Winner gets to kill the loser and take over the firm.
ReplyDeleteYes! And all within must suplicate before the victor!
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear--when it comes to abuse of process allegations--Shumway Van & Hansen is one of the firms that represents Richland Holdings and is involved in the cases where there was filing of fraudulent affidavits by Maurice Carroll and On Scene. It would be ironic to hear this firm talking about filing frivolous documents with the court.
ReplyDeleteThanks a bunch for sharing this with all people you actually recognize what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also discuss with my website.
ReplyDeleteSalt Lake City tax attorney