From Above the Law
On Wednesday, we told you about Alabama defense lawyers who filed a motion to continue based on a conflict with the BCS title game. The judge has said he will grant the motion, even though the judge is an alumnus of Alabama’s arch rival, Auburn. Deadspin explains this miscarriage of justice perfectly:
If you’re going to start creating judicial precedents on the basis of college football schedules, then shouldn’t you also conform those judgments to reflect a more proper demonstration of your allegiance? An Auburn judge should not only deny any motion filed by a U of A attorney, he should hold them in contempt of court and make them swear to tell the truth under an oath to Pat Sullivan. That’s some smash mouth law makin’! Instead, Circuit Judge Dan King says that a man who has waited four years to see the memory of his dead mother honored in a court of law can wait a few more months, because “If I didn’t, they’d say, ‘He just didn’t grant it because he’s an Auburn fellow.'” Yes, “they” might say that. They might also say that “He’s an adult who doesn’t think that educated professionals should get the day off every time they want hold recess outside.” The Crimson Tide will solider on just fine without eight extra lawyers getting hammered in the Rose Bowl parking lot.
Auburn fans, it looks like Judge Dan King needs a friendly email reminder about which side his bread is buttered on.
It’s not like the motion went unanswered — plaintiff’s attorneys filed a response.
The plaintiff’s lawyers make a lucid — and utterly humorless — argument (PDF):
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE Comes now the plaintiff in the above-styled cause, and in response to the Motion to Continue filed by the defendants, says as follows:
1. Twenty days prior to the last trial setting, the Defendants moved for a continuance of this case, and again twenty days prior to this trial setting, Defendants are moving for another continuance of this case.
2. The plaintiff has already secured vacation time from his job in order to attend trial.
3. This case is a very serious case involving the death of the plaintiff’s mother. The case was filed in 2005, and is ready to be tried. All discovery and other matters have been completed.
4. Simply stated, some things are more important than football. Plaintiffs’ counsel would respectfully argue that Mr. Traywick’s right to his long-awaited day in court fits squarely within that category.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the defendants’ Motion to Continue and allow the case to be tried at its current setting of January 4, 2010.
/s/ Rip Andrews
Moms in my high school used to die all the time, it was no big deal; but ‘Bama hasn’t won a national championship since Mike Tyson got punked by Desiree Washington. (You see what I did there? I was callous about dead mothers and rape victims in the same sentence. Too soon?)
The Birmingham News points out that at least the defendants were honest about the reason for their request:
Judge Scott Vowell, the presiding judge in Jefferson County and also an Auburn alumnus, said he’d never before seen a motion that requested a continuance because of a football game. “There’s been some motions for continuances and I’ve suspected what the real reason was,” he said. “But this is the first one I’ve seen that was this honest and candid about the reason.”
Maybe there is a lesson here for Yankees (Metses?) like me. Honesty appears to be the best policy.
Earlier: Best. Motion to Continue. Ever.