You're in good company, Geoff :-). Here are some examples:
1. A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, when ordering me to file an affidavit of damages against Rea and Trading Places during default proceedings, stated, "My clerk is very concerned that you're going to file two dozen boxes of evidence." I stated that I had by that point learned that there is such a thing as filing too much into evidence during pretrial proceedings, and the judge kindly stated, "OK, it doesn't overwhelm but under-whelms, keep that in mind."
2. Berber and Moor complained about the length of my amended complaint in the Western District of Texas, but this time I modeled it after a successful RICO complaint filed by the Department of Justice, which was almost 100 pages and accompanied by hundreds of exhibits; mine was 83 and contained critical allegations all of them (I've learned that if someone says something better than you, better to heed that lesson and stick pride in the backseat; in fact, my former counsel CMHT filed a complaint in federal court against Philip Morris et al that pretty much was a carbon copy of what DOJ filed, same exact language throughout much of the complaint)
3. Virginia Circuit Court judge made clear that in state court pleading requirements don't require certain details and so I redacted a great deal of the kinds of text that Judge Sparks in Texas called "substantial surplussage," which was among the more kind comments he made considering I spent too much time going over Berber's so-called charitable works and false statements about his philanthropy (hint: he claimed on CNBC, Fox, local Austin TV, NY Times, LA Times - which paper exposed him for a liar - that he had made "an initial donation of $100 million" to his so-called charity when in fact he only gave the INTEREST on $100 million, not quite the same thing now is it).
So you learn that long stories in courts don't always aid a plaintiff, but on the other hand - and the EDVA magistrate judge did hedge his statement on large-volume-evidentiary filings saying this much - some things absolutely should be filed, the key is selecting the exhibits carefully, and also keeping your powder dry and not bombarding the courts with motions. Berber and Moor made that mistake by filing for sanctions, injunctions, vexatious litigant, etc., filing I don't know how many of my admittedly direct e-mails in Court, and then complained in Court oral argument about them not once but twice. The first time Judge Sparks said those e-mails were just huffing and puffing; not leaving well enough alone Berber/Moor counsel got exasperated and raised the e-mails again, complaining "But Judge did you read the e-mails?" Judge Sparks said yes he did including the one where I referred to myself as "we," signing that one "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" - I have kept my sense of humor during this litigation I hope, you have to in litigation like this (one partner of Arnold & Porter said to me, when I said I was heading out for a round of golf and that that was a lot less stressful than litigation: "Major surgery is less stressful than litigation"). Well, Judge Sparks said move on and he was not going to enjoin further legal action at this point but would see how this action progresses. You won't see me loading the docket with sanctions motions and dozens of exhibits. In fact, I didn't relate that here but Berber and Moor counsel showed up in Court with one of those heavy-duty hand-trucks loaded with about 7 huge boxes, wheeled that right up to the defense table, theatrical as can be, obviously trying to send the message that I flood the courts with frivolous documents - thought they didn't provide any during the entire hearing. Right now, Berber and Moor have been flooding the court, the obvious plan being to exasperate and overwhelm the court.
Having said that, I think it's important for those of you here who are keeping an open and objective mind to know about the proceedings against Berber and Moor, because the fact is they operated - and no doubt through aliases continue to operate - at Silicon Investor, their deceiving the public is ongoing, which is one of a number of reasons I am requesting they disgorge all of their ill-gotten gains: to prevent and restrain further racketeering violations in the future, because their racketeering has not stopped, has continued throughout this litigation, up to and including the present. Both of them in fact tried to defraud me through one of Washington's most well-respected law firms, in a completely outrageous proposed settlement agreement with a third-party (I hope and doubt that the DC firm drafted it), which issue I raised in the amended complaint.
Oh crap, I knew I shouldn't have said anything.....<g>
Olivier, that's an awful lot to read.<ggg> |
