Friday, May 14, 2010

BDG (Barefoot Dirty Girls) Episode # 1,723

A plaintiff's brief filed in advance of the case management conference scheduled for Monday, May 17, 2010 indicated that - absent a settlement by the defendants - the plaintiff is ready to go to trial.

It is hard to imagine that any normal, rational persons, who had TWO lawsuits filed on them for essentially the same thing, that those persons would fail to take immediate corrective actions.

Catherine Cass was just such an irrational [person]. Her instructive case arose in Southern California. Only one of many incidents cited was:
Cass's constant noisemaking had prevented the Wallaces from enjoying their property. The signs Cass posted caused Jim Wallace humiliation and embarrassment, requiring him to constantly have to explain the situation to fellow church members who were frequently at his house for meetings. Over the years, he had several times tried to talk to Cass about the problems, but she would just spit at the ground and walk away. After he told Cass he would resort to the legal system if she did not stop, the signs came down for one day. The next day, a new sign appeared saying "the only reason my signs are gone is because my neighbor threatened me." The signs then started to be put out again. Just before the original trial date set in this case, the signs came down, but the incessant noises continued. (emphasis added.)
(I'll be damned if that doesn't sound, word for word, action for action, exactly like Lynda! Maybe they're sisters!)

Just like Catherine Cass, the BDGs seem incapable of grasping reality. I really love reading the court's opinion of this miserable old screwed up witch  case. Just as the BDGs' continuous icemaker and business noise drove the civil noise nuisance suit on them, and just as their retaliation of playing continuous radio noise drove the misdemeanor complaint on them, this trio of bright lights seems to think nothing will come of any of it.

I hope they realize that to have a chance in hell  of prevailing, in either case, depends on two things: 1) they have a more concrete defense than Cass (she had none), and 2) they have a better lawyer than Cass (she represented herself.)

The appeals court sustained the damages and modified the wording of an injuction against Cass, but otherwise ruled:
The trial court entered judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor on both causes of action.

As modified the judgment is affirmed.

Ready whenever you are... Cass times 3.


No comments: