You Be the Judge

[nicely nicely]

The latest.

Motion for Discretionary Review

[SoCalMan2]

Thanks for keeping us updated.  

As a lawyer, I understand why you guys need to put all the stuff in there you put in there, but, to me, the real story is so simple and so egregious -- it should be the whole ballgame. The top court judges need to understand that this result is so absurd, the state of Kentucky should be embarrassed if it is allowed to stand.

Somebody stole something from you.  This much is not in dispute.   The only open question is what you should be paid for what was stolen from you. In the land of Kentucky, the judges so far seem to think it is reasonable for you to be paid 10 cents on the dollar for what was stolen from you.  In the rest of the sentient world, that is ludicrous. Everybody should become a thief if the consequences of getting caught are that you can buy what you stole for 90% off. I may go to Peter Lugers and walk out without paying.  Let them take me to court, and I will only pay 10% of the bill since that is what a meat and potatoes dinner costs at McDonalds?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

As much fun as Miff makes of the clueless clowns, if the current disposition of the case is not changed, the Kentucky Kourts can give the Keystone Kops and the Klueless Klowns a run for their money.  All the other stuff in the case is not relevant and  is a subterfuge to fool people about what is really going on.

[TGJB]

As it happens, the McDonald\'s analogy is the same one I used with the lawyers. It took us until recently to realize the lawyer on the other side had simply invented \"industry standard\"-- there is no such thing in Quantum Meruit law. We had been focused on proving that the \"industry standard\" was for another industry, not pointing out that it doesn\'t exist.

The Appeals Court actually did us a favor by so clearly going against existing law, making it more likely the Supreme Court will take the case (they don\'t have to). If they do we like our chances.

[plasticman]

Couldnt agree more SCM2.

Its seems that the crux of this case is the idea that Jerry\'s services would be \'lumped in\' with other standard 5% services. There\'s only one TG out there and its a company and service that is one of the unique and elite services in horse racing, the idea that its being lumped in with all the other \'5 percenters\' is outrageous.

Another ridiculous thing is that a person can just form a \'group\', get advice and then disband the group and say that since the group no longer exists, i\'m back to \'square one\'. Another absurd theory.

I think any logical person who read this entire case and had to make a guess as to what damages Lauffer was liable for, very few people would have said 25k. You would have gotten more \'full amounts\' than 25k\'s.

I think that Jerry is really allowed to charge whatever he wants to charge and if you dont like the prices, you dont use the service. Its almost if the ruling ruled with the idea that suggesting horses for purchase is just a random guess and that Jerry Brown is not much better than some guy picking horse names out of a hat.

[SoCalMan2]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couldnt agree more SCM2.
>
> Its seems that the crux of this case is the idea
> that Jerry\'s services would be \'lumped in\' with
> other standard 5% services. There\'s only one TG
> out there and its a company and service that is
> one of the unique and elite services in horse
> racing, the idea that its being lumped in with all
> the other \'5 percenters\' is outrageous.
>
> Another ridiculous thing is that a person can just
> form a \'group\', get advice and then disband the
> group and say that since the group no longer
> exists, i\'m back to \'square one\'. Another absurd
> theory.
>
> I think any logical person who read this entire
> case and had to make a guess as to what damages
> Lauffer was liable for, very few people would have
> said 25k. You would have gotten more \'full
> amounts\' than 25k\'s.
>
> I think that Jerry is really allowed to charge
> whatever he wants to charge and if you dont like
> the prices, you dont use the service. Its almost
> if the ruling ruled with the idea that suggesting
> horses for purchase is just a random guess and
> that Jerry Brown is not much better than some guy
> picking horse names out of a hat.


Here is my take....yes, the laugher guy pulled a fast one with the -- watch this --  \"now I am in this group\" and \"now I am in this other group\"....but...all that is about is WHETHER he stole the goods.  There is no question he stole the goods.  Whether he stole them by accident, as a really bad actor, or somewhere in between, that is not really relevant to how the stolen goods should be valued.  If you went into Peter Lugers and never saw a menu (which is often the case...I have never seen a menu at that restaurant -- although I haven\'t been there in 30 years) and then were honestly shocked that a steak could end up costing $100, does that mean Lugers should give you a discount?  If you should get some good will discount, what would that be?  10%, 20%, maybe even 25%.......how on earth do you get off with a 90% discount.  You say gosh I could have gotten that steak for $10 at Gristede\'s and cooked it myself?  My view is that the guy took and used stolen goods.  The goods are good stuff.  Even trying to make the thief as accidental and innocent as possible, where do you get off with a 90% discount?  I think the court in Kentucky has to realize that if they let this stand, they are going to look ludicrous if this gets into the hands of a true journalist as opposed to a senseless hack.

TGJB\'s point that the lower decisions had legal errors in the other points and that is how we get the top court\'s attention is right from a legalistic standpoint...but....the court needs to know that their entire state court system is on the precipice of looking like a banana republic if they do not catch the insane real world result the lower court decisions entail.

[Rich Curtis]

JB: What percentage of appeals do they take?

[TGJB]

Ordinarily about a third, but our chances should be a lot better. They have two major issues tough to ignore-- the decision was a published case, and would set a  precedent re partnership law that is contrary to all legal history, and they have two Appeals Court rulings in the last 18 months on UE/QM that exactly contradict each other. If they don\'t settle that last one it\'s sure to come up again, and would be a coin flip-- you get one Appeals Court panel you win, another you lose. They would have to take it at some point.

[plasticman]

I love your Peter Luger analogy, very good one.

If JB was a medical doctor or lawyer who spent a bunch of money on medical/law school and Lauffer was his patient/client, somehow Jerry might have done better in the courts. But, because Jerry learned his expertise thru the school of hard knocks and has no \'formal schooling\' or an official \'license\' like a Doctor or lawyer has, somehow his information is worth \'less\' according to the courts.

[20kbrew]

JB experienced opportunity risk by not being able to present
the purchase of Rachel to another client because of the theft. There
is risk at every turn.

[SoCalMan2]

20kbrew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JB experienced opportunity risk by not being able
> to present
> the purchase of Rachel to another client because
> of the theft. There
> is risk at every turn.

Wow!  Never thought of that, but it is a good one.  One more reason to point out why the result reached is so ludicrous.

[TGJB]

The Kentucky Supreme Court decided not to hear our case, which pretty much ends things.

The kicker is they unpublished the Appeals Court decision. Trial court decisions can\'t be used for precedent, those from Appeals and Supreme courts can. So they recognized the problems with the decision and didn\'t want anyone to be able to cite it, but declined to right the wrong.

I think that\'s the textbook definition of adding insult to injury.

[magicnight]

Nice timing. 4th anniversary of her Woodward on Saturday. What\'s that they say about the wheels of justice?

[TGJB]

I gave Mitchell some comments for Blood-Horse, TDN next.

Where is Kafka when you need him.

[magicnight]

\"Where is Kafka when you need him\"?

Right here:

A man from the country seeks the law and wishes to gain entry to the law through an open doorway, but the doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says that it is possible. The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man that he accepts them \"so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.\" The man does not attempt to murder or hurt the doorkeeper to gain the law, but waits at the door until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. The doorkeeper answers \"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.\"

[SoCalMan2]

Downright shameful.  I have worked in some screwed up legal systems (e.g. practiced law for 12 years in Putin\'s Russia), but it is possible that Kentucky\'s takes the cake (it makes banana republics look good).  As far as I can see, the only possible explanations are -- (1) corruption or (2) prejudice.  I would like to believe that it is not possible to buy the Kentucky Supreme Court, so I am just guessing it was more important to them to make sure the Yankee lost than it is to reveal themselves to be a collection of jackasses.  What is truly mindblowing is that the undisputed record shows that a bad guy got away with a b*llsh*t scheme to con an innocent victim out of money.  Even the jackasses do not disagree with that assessment.  They just have the nerve to hide behind the theory that the stolen goods are not worth their market value but are rather worth some arbitrarily-arrived-at miniscule value.  I do not think that Putin could steal from an oligarch better.  The unpublishing of the lower court decision shows they know that they did something to be ashamed of.