You Be the Judge

[moosepalm]

Home cooking.

[rezlegal]

Having had more than a passive involvement in this litigation Moosepalm is likely spot on. The decision to unpublish the previous decision is likely the result of several of the Supreme Court justices who wanted to hear the appeal(Jerry needed 4)imposing that requirement. Present company excepted, Jerry was well represented throughout and the system simply failed him. As I know from 44 years of litigating in our civil judicial system, it usually, but not always gets it right. Jerry got screwed, plain and simple.

[Boscar Obarra]

Haven\'t read Kafka for years, but in the intervening time I have concluded that he was a bright eyed  optimist after all.

[SoCalMan2]

rezlegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having had more than a passive involvement in this
> litigation Moosepalm is likely spot on. The
> decision to unpublish the previous decision is
> likely the result of several of the Supreme Court
> justices who wanted to hear the appeal(Jerry
> needed 4)imposing that requirement. Present
> company excepted, Jerry was well represented
> throughout and the system simply failed him. As I
> know from 44 years of litigating in our civil
> judicial system, it usually, but not always gets
> it right. Jerry got screwed, plain and simple.


Home cooking is one of the things I suspected.  I am sure you guys did a great job, but it was (unfortunately) irrelevant.  Actually, it was probably your good job that shamed them into unpublishing the lower court opinion.

I realize what I am about to say is way way way out there, but I wonder if it is possible that there is a commerce clause claim out there? I am far from a constitutional lawyer, so bear with me as I do not know what I am saying. But, basically, the rendering of services across state lines is interstate commerce.  If different states could price services at prejudicially inconsistent rates, the whole federal commerce system would not work.  If this Kentucky case is constitutional, then what stops somebody in Alabama from hiring a New York lawyer, then suing in Alabama to have Alabama legal rates apply to the services instead of New York rates?  Apologies if this is just crazy, but it just seems this homecooking situation is fundamentally wrong and the constitution is supposed to forbid this sort of thing from interfering in interstate commerce (whiskey excepted, I think).