Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Amicus Curiae

n. Latin for "friend of the court," a party or an organization interested in an issue which files a brief or participates in the argument in a case in which that party or organization is not one of the litigants.

Usually the court must give permission for the brief to be filed and arguments may only be made with the agreement of the party the amicus curiae is supporting, and that argument comes out of the time allowed for that party's presentation to the court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELUSION

The City of Mentor, Appellee vs. Loretta D. Smith, Appellant

Criminal: Section #2903-13 Assault: 1st Degree Misdemeanor

The Honorable Henri Papillon

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE USENET USER COMMITTEE

Statement of case: See Loretta "Slugger" Serrano entry.

Argument:

Kent Wills - Jul 24 2006 9:38 pm
Actually, she plead no contest. Since there was no trial, she wasn't *found* anything. It's also old news. This occurred in 1998-99. To imply, as you have done, that she is currently indigent (it's 2006 now -- to save you having to look at a calendar) screams of desperation on your part.

Rebuttal: Kent Bradley Wills is the resident authority on just about any subject at Usenet. So far, he's averaged about 700 posts per month this year. If there's one thing Kent has personal experience with, it's the American justice system. On 5/6/05, Kent Bradley Wills lost his appeal to have a second-degree burglary conviction overturned. It was his contention that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure from that of the living quarters of the residence. He was also found guilty of using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense, which I believe has earned him a separate entry in The Bloggers' Hall of Shame at a later date. Iowa Supreme Court Decision: http://tinyurl.com/ma23h

Kent Bradley Wills should know that in the disposition portion of Loretta Serrano's criminal case the "G" stands for GUILTY just to the right of "Defendant found". As to RetzQ's indigent status, I don't believe anyone considers her destitute. Having filled out a few indigent forms himself, Mr. Wills doubles as Loretta's financial manager in between posts at Usenet. A few months ago, he announced she now has $12,000 in cash as opposed to the $3,000 in 1998, when Ohio taxpayers absorbed the cost of her defense. Ohio tax dollars at work. Loretta's come a long way, baby!

Kent Wills - Jul 25 2006 5:21 am
Loretta hit her once. You make it sound like Miss Loveliness was barely clinging to life.

Rebuttal: Kent Bradley Wills seemingly adheres to the "Three Strikes Rule". Did I mention that Kent is on extended probation courtesy of the Iowa court system? Iowa’s tax dollars at work.

Barbara - Jul 25 2006 5:09 pm
WHO CARES????? This is a non-issue. It's in the past. It doesn't matter. Did this "poor pregnant woman" have to seek medical attention? Was she on bedrest to prevent a miscarriage? She has blown this thing up to be a prelude to Armageddon and it's not even a blip on the radar. I'm sick to death of hearing about this as if it has any meaning for anything. It's just like Ted bringing up that stupid issue in Colorado against Ken and that phony garage break in against Kent. Give it a rest already you stupid, stupid mutts!

Rebuttal
: Misfit Barbara a.k.a. Whateva was an educator for many years before landing a position maintaining computer networking at a scholastic institution in Ohio. Barbara is married to the school’s sports coach, never misses a game, and guarantees her checks are good. She would be the person who recommends which computer programs are suitable for an academic atmosphere and spends time troubleshooting problems related to those programs as well as suitably restricted Internet access. Considering her background, Barbara should be well versed in the importance of maintaining confidentiality and a proponent of a person’s right to privacy. So why would Barbara condone Loretta’s destructive habit of posting personal information at the Usenet sewer? She loves Loretta like a sister. Ohio’s tax dollars at work.


CG - Jul 25 2006 7:11 pm
They love rehashing old cases don't they? Not so much when it hits home.
Case Information for 19xx DR xxxxxx S Party Information Assigned Judge: Jxxx Hxxxxx Case Filed Date: 3/26/19xx
Petitioner: xxxxx x xxxxxxx
Respondent: Txxxx Lxx Mxxxxxxx
Case Status
Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DISPOSED BY JUDGE 4/5/19xx
Case Information for 1998 CF xxx xxx AS Party Information Assigned Judge: TWO DIVISION Case Filed Date: 9/30/19xx
Defendant:Txxxx Lxx Mxxxxxxx DOB: x/xx/19xx Attorney: PUBLIC DEFENDER
Case Status
Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: AGGRAVATED BATTERY PENDING Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: AGGRAVATED BATTERY ADJ GUILTY 1/6/19xx
Charges (If Applicable)
Number Charge Description Offense Date
1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY 8/2/19xx
AHA---and he had a Public Defender too.
(Edited by Papillon)

Rebuttal: Pat Pritchett-Sophy, Executive Vice President in Advertising a.k.a. Country Girl, CG, Adies Gma from California. She’s a wife, mother, grandmother, businesswoman, blog mistress of Hooterville Holler, and a horse’s ass. It takes a frantic act of desperation to post the above information on Usenet with malicious intent for the sole purpose of humiliating another poster. There is absolutely no relationship between the above individual and Loretta Serrano. None, nada, zilch! Exactly what CG hoped to accomplish with her repugnant act is beyond my wildest imagination. It didn’t erase Loretta Serrano’s criminal history. That conviction remains on record at the Mentor Municipal Court in spite of CG’s perverted actions. So what was her point? Did she get a kinky thrill from doing such a loathsome thing? Was it good for you, Country Girl? When some depraved idiot returns the favor, and you’re on the receiving end, I hope you accept it with as much enthusiasm as you dish it out. In the meantime, do you feel human when you look into your grandchildren's eyes? When you look in the mirror? Is the rest of the family like you? ~ Country Girl's Anonymoused Profile: http://tinyurl.com/kbtzv

Truth Teller - Jul 25 2006 7:50 pm
And what about the other son, Dxxxxx Jxxxx? I can see there is something on him, as well. Good mother, indeed. NOT.


Rebuttal: Another country heard from. Truth Teller a.k.a. Anne Curi, Anne from Brazil operates between ten and twelve spite blogs, depending on who Loretta Serrano is ticked off at on any given day. Most of her shocking revelations are monotonous, windy, and incoherent although I’m not sure if poor grammar is the major reason. Not only is the language structure critically deficient, but a portion of the details provided are either outdated, sketchy, or completely inaccurate and lack supportive documentation. In fact, a few characters Anne chose to include in her repository are no longer living and haven’t been for some time, yet Anne reports that people still have dialogues with the dearly departed. I think Anne from Brazil has been drinking some potent potables on her coffee breaks in Sao Paulo. I will provide an anonymoused link to the Brazilian nut’s profile, however, you’ll have to supply your own NoDoz. I recommend extra strength. (My entry "Shame on Anne from Brazil" is available for your reading pleasure.) ~Anne Curi's Anonymoused Directory of Spite Blogs: http://tinyurl.com/o4qmp

Ronni
- Jul 26 2006 12:38 am
She slapped somebody's face once 8 years ago. A person who was keeping her two-year-old from her. Quit acting as if she committed murder, or felonious assault. What sort of person can't let go of a misdemeanor after 8 years? It was a MISDEMEANOR. Pleading nolo contendere and paying a fine hardly makes Loretta a criminal. You, who live an ocean away, seem to have a forgiveness problem. I can see that you're right about being an idiot.

Rebuttal: Veronica Prior is the blogmistress of Ronni's Rants and a proud member of the alleged idiot-free zone at misfitting.com.

Ken Smith - Jul 26 2006 8:20 am
Let us assume that Loretta feels that she was still justified in doing what she did. Sometimes, folks do deserve a slap in the face or a punch in the mouth, even if the law forbids it. What's your point? You don't know what actually happened, and never will.


Rebuttal: Ken Smith is no stranger to the hallowed halls of justice. In fact, Mr. Smith filed a PER CURIAM with Colorado’s Supreme Court as an appellant. The gist of his complaint is that after applying for admission to the Colorado Bar, an inquiry panel concluded that probable cause existed to believe that Mr. Smith lacked mental stability, and hence recommended that his admission to the Bar be denied. Mr. Smith subsequently filed a series of lawsuits that ended up in the highest court in Colorado. ~Supreme Court decision: http://tinyurl.com/fju9l


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is this Cybercourt's opinion that Usenet should change it's name to Losernet, which would be more suitable for the brand of clientele that frequents the uncivilized forum. First and foremost, Loretta Smith Serrano always had the option of going to the Mentor Police with visitation order in hand to ask for assistance in retreiving her child. No one forced her to go bang on windows and lean on the doorbell. She did it because she wanted to. The children were safe and being cared for in the father's home. Mrs. Serrano failed to prove there was any kind of emergency that warranted her actions. The children were witnesses to something that should have never happened. They heard it, they sensed it, and they saw the end result of Mrs. Serrano's handiwork. They were there when the police arrived, Mrs. Serrano was not.

No one seems to grasp that salient point. Not the teacher, the burglar, the executive vice president, the strange one, the Brazilian nut, or the guy who can't take no for an answer.

This is a nation of laws. When you break one, you pay.


Court's adjourned!

Labels: , ,