the judge is a psycho hose-beast

The other day I made a totally amazing, excellent discovery by finding the case of Noble v. Bradford Marine, 789 F. Supp. 395 (S.D. Fla. 1992). It’s a standard procedure case about subject matter jurisdiction in a removal case. I will offer a brief synopsis of the facts with actual quotations from the court’s opinion. A boat owned by the defendant caught fire and began "hurling chunks" of flaming debris into the air; this ignited the plaintiff’s vessel. The case was filed in state court, removed to federal court and remanded back, as all the defendants failed to join the removal. When all hopes of removal seemed gone, "like a winged monkey flying out of the ashes," the defendants came together to file a supplemental notice of removal. Though this removal came after the 30 deadline to remove, it was tolled because of the previous attempt to remove. "Not!" The defendants argument concerning an alternate source of admiralty jurisdiction was just "a schwing and a miss." The attempt at removal was "not worthy" and the parties were forced to "party on in state court".

It must be fun to be that judge’s clerk.

On a related note, I had an 11th grade English assignment of writing a poem. I couldn’t think of a topic, so I decided to go with a theme: I would write the poem with the sole intent of working in as many Metallica song titles as possible. I have a copy of it somewhere at home, but it ended up with about 30 songs in a single page, and wasn’t too bad. While the whole thing was a well received discussion of the perils and pitfalls of choosing a major, it came off as distinctly suicidal. My friends told me it appeared I was considering killing myself by self-immolation. I would never do such a thing because everyone knows that only anti-war hippies light themselves on fire. Losers.

I realize that was a boring story, but I needed a break from studying.

UPDATE! One of our loyal readers (codename: Smoke-Smoke) has forwarded the follow reference that she herself penned. In the case of Longoria v. Kelly Services*, 2005 WL 1866145 (S.D. Tex. 2005), one Mary Moreno Longoria filed a sexual harassment suit. She argued, inter alia, that she was offended by the use of the term “mojo”; the plaintiff believed the term to be a synonym for the main reproductive organ. Foot note 16 of the opinion, however, defines the meaning of the term and offers the following note: “‘[m]ojo was widely popularized by the movie character . . . Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (New Line Productions 1999).

I would like to applaud this footnote for two reasons. First, and certainly most noticeable, is the use of the full word “Productions” instead of the abbreviation “Prods.” To a casual observer, this is failure to properly abbreviate as per Table 6 of the Bluebook. Your humble blogger is not, however a casual bluebooker. “Prods.” is reserved exclusively as the abbreviation for “products,” and thus would be an improper abbreviation for “productions.”

Also laudable is the title given Mr. Powers. He is not simply “Austin Powers,” but “Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery,” much as my sister is Rachel Lastname, M.D. or I am Sam Jur, B.A.