Boris and Natasha, Westlaw-style

You know it’s going to be an awesome case when the defendant’s name is listed as follows:

Theresa Marie Squillacote, aka Tina, aka Mary Teresa Miller, aka The Swan, aka Margaret, aka Margit, aka Margret, aka Margrit, aka Lisa Martin, aka Resi, aka Anne, Defendant-Appellant (and Kurt Alan Stand, aka Ken, aka Junior, aka Alan David Jackson, Defendant-Appellant).

And it is. In your leisure time, I highly recommend taking a look at U.S. v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 2000).

German intelligence agencies? Liberation movements? Going to law school to further your career as a spy? (And here I thought that going to law school on a dare was bad enough.) False flag operations? Friendly overtures?

Someone should make a movie out of this.

 

Best concurrence ever.

In doing some legal research (story of my life these days), I came across the following concurrence:

“I join the majority opinion except that third sentence of p. ##. I don’t use the A-word. For the reason set forth, I write separately.”

 

An overly opinionated opinion

Judge Kent’s opinion regarding a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue:

“Manifestly, any person with even a correspondence-course level understanding of federal practice and procedure would recognize that Defendant’s Motion is patently insipid, ludicrous and utterly and unequivocally without any merit whatsoever…. Defendant’s obnoxiously ancient, boilerplate, inane Motion is emphatically DENIED. Moreover, Defendant’s present counsel-of-record, Mr. [redacted] is determined to be disqualified for cause from this action for submitting this asinine tripe.” Labor Force, Inc. v. Jacintoport Corp. et al., G-01-058 (S.D. Tex., 2001).