PRESS RELEASE: Gordon Watts to call in to WGUL-AM-860

[Boohil]

Continuing....

And on to the Florida 2DCA.

First, for the 2DCA docket search, go here:

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds _docket_search

Looks familiar, and works the same way for the 2nd DCA that the docket search for the FLSC and the 1DCA worked. Your result will be 3 cases. Click on the "3" and you'll get the list of individual cases. Click on any case number, and you'll get the docket for that case.

If you want to see the court's documents regarding their decisions, then you need the 2DCA opinions page, here:
http://www.2dca.org/opinions.htm

Again, though, because there are limits on the archives (and because all of the 2DCA's opinions in Gordon's cases were simple per curiam affirmances of the lower court decision, and not written opinions), there is no documentation available on the website related to Gordon's 2DCA cases.

If I lost you somewhere along the way, or you have questions, pbfa, let me know!:-)

Boo

[WSage1]

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure (except for the Baker Act incident...that information came from Gordon himself)...

I must make an exception to the "quit posting rule":

Unless you have proof, I suggest you review your case law on slander, libel, and defamation of character, counsellor, hint, hint.

[pbfa]

Boohil wrote:

Continuing....
And on to the Florida 2DCA.
First, for the 2DCA docket search, go here:
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds _docket_search
Looks familiar, and works the same way for the 2nd DCA that the docket search for the FLSC and the 1DCA worked. Your result will be 3 cases. Click on the "3" and you'll get the list of individual cases. Click on any case number, and you'll get the docket for that case.
If you want to see the court's documents regarding their decisions, then you need the 2DCA opinions page, here:
http://www.2dca.org/opinions.htm
Again, though, because there are limits on the archives (and because all of the 2DCA's opinions in Gordon's cases were simple per curiam affirmances of the lower court decision, and not written opinions), there is no documentation available on the website related to Gordon's 2DCA cases.
If I lost you somewhere along the way, or you have questions, pbfa, let me know!:-)
Boo

Wow, Boo, thank you for all your work on this. I've bookmarked the info and will be able to review it in more detail, but at this point, I'm feeling just this weird sadness/creepiness/contempt mixture. Whatever the truth of grody's being Baker Acted is, it seems real clear to this layperson that there's some kind of serious mental illness at work there. Whether it's as simple as a social disorder or more serious, I have no idea. He is one I wouldn't feel safe around - there are just too many things wrong.
Thanks again. I really appreciate the time you took.

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

<quoted text>I must make an exception to the "quit posting rule":
Unless you have proof, I suggest you review your case law on slander, libel, and defamation of character, counsellor, hint, hint.

You make me laugh.

Just the thought that you would want to be deposed on your mental health issues has me ROTFL.

Besides which the public damage you've done to your own reputation and character coupled with your frivolous filings and the rest of your public conduct, not to mention your web site and your postings on various forums: lets face it there really isn't anyone that isn't aware that you have mental health issues. YOU have more or less made that a matter of public record.

Thanks!

When and if you ever grasp the most basic of legal concepts the humor of what you posted above will be readily apparent. Until then please review:

friv·o·lous

–adjective

1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3.(of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

[WSage1]

(partial quote)

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
On a personal note, I see that the FLSC stomped on your latest (unemployment) frivolous case today. I hope, since that issue is now closed and therefore cannot provide some excuse for your wasting time while pretending to be productively occupied (if not actually employed, and thus still living off the public dole) that you will give your parents (especially your father) and the taxpayers a break and get--maybe even keep for more than a few months--a job. Sincerely.
Boo

Since I have had to come out of retirement (see prior post), I think I will comment on this post too:

"your latest (unemployment) frivolous case"

*** How would you assume to know whether a case if "frivolous" without actually seeing the arguments and facts?

To begin with, as a lawyer, you are supported to have ethical standards, probably including that you don't wish any harm upon any person, which is what it appears here by your clear language ("frivolous, stomped," etc.)

You, if you are ethical, are also supposed to not pass judgment on a case without actually seeing it -which is what you appear to have done here.

I tell you what: I'll post my briefs:

www.GordonWayneWatts.com/UnemploymentComp

In the folder are the briefs on the merits and the jurisdiction, as well as supplamental notes on case law I had overlooked 1st time around.

It appears the courts have violated federal case law in regardss to sufficient notice as it implicates due process; do you dispute that?

(PS: Please spare me the arguments about how I must be wrong if the court ruled that way; such an argument merely begs the question but does not address the merits of the argument: If the court says so, then it must be so -and since it must be so, the court has a right to say so -I am not convinced by such circular reasoning.)

As I said above, how would you assume to know whether a case if "frivolous" without actually seeing the arguments and facts -which, because the court did not post my briefs, you could not have seen it?

[WSage1]

ps: It seems mighty funny, BOO, that you were able to see the court's ruling the very day it posted -while it is not impossible for you to check online, what are the odds that you check the very day it posts.

Now, the comments by friends of mine that lawyers "run the court" make me wonder if you had a hand in this matter behind the scenes.

care to comment?

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

ps: It seems mighty funny, BOO, that you were able to see the court's ruling the very day it posted -while it is not impossible for you to check online, what are the odds that you check the very day it posts.
Now, the comments by friends of mine that lawyers "run the court" make me wonder if you had a hand in this matter behind the scenes.
care to comment?

Paranoia is a mental health issue, especially when it rises to the level of seeing conspiracy everywhere you look. Feeling as though dark legal forces are arrayed against you Gordon???

Now that is funny!

It couldn't possibly be that your own incompetence at representing yourself leads to failure? With friends like yours who needs enemies?

[WSage1]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Paranoia is a mental health issue, especially when it rises to the level of seeing conspiracy everywhere you look. Feeling as though dark legal forces are arrayed against you Gordon???
Now that is funny!
It couldn't possibly be that your own incompetence at representing yourself leads to failure? With friends like yours who needs enemies?

Since you have nothing of substance to say on the merits of my post (regarding my unemployment comp lawsuit), you resort to an "ad hominem" attack on the person.

That is low.

I thought you could do better than this, but I guess I was wrong.

[WSage1]

72.201.142.133 --[07/May/2008:21:47:55 -0700] "GET /UnemploymentComp/Jurisdiction al-Supreme.doc HTTP/1.1" 200 68608 "http://www.gordonwaynewatts.com/UnemploymentC... ; "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14" www.gordonwaynewatts.com

72.201.142.133 --[07/May/2008:21:51:47 -0700] "GET /UnemploymentComp/Merits-Supre me.doc HTTP/1.1" 200 75264 "http://www.gordonwaynewatts.com/UnemploymentC... ; "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14" www.gordonwaynewatts.com

HEY, BOO!

You forgot to look at the "SupplamentalCaseLaw " doc, in which I find state case law supporting the court -and Federal case law opposing it.

Here's the link again:

www.GordonWayneWatts.com/UnemploymentComp

or

www.GordonWatts.com/UnemploymentComp

or

http://gordon_watts.tripod.com /UnemploymentComp/

[Walter In Tx]

WSage1 wrote:

<quoted text>I must make an exception to the "quit posting rule":
Unless you have proof, I suggest you review your case law on slander, libel, and defamation of character, counsellor, hint, hint.

I have one thing to say about that. Bye Again!

[Walter In Tx]

WSage1 wrote:

<quoted text>
*** How would you assume to know whether a case if "frivolous" without actually seeing the arguments and facts?
As I said above, how would you assume to know whether a case if "frivolous" without actually seeing the arguments and facts -which, because the court did not post my briefs, you could not have seen it?

“Frivolous” Gordon Watts as said before; you’re known as a fool in the Florida’s real legal profession for your “frivolous” filings.

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

<quoted text>Since you have nothing of substance to say on the merits of my post (regarding my unemployment comp lawsuit), you resort to an "ad hominem" attack on the person.
That is low.
I thought you could do better than this, but I guess I was wrong.

Imagine this: the courts have rules, procedures and policy. These are in place for a variety of reasons. One of the prime reasons is to maintain order, discipline and case flow or work flow from intake to disposition.

Now imagine that the courts are unwilling to waiver from the well established, long standing and widely known rules and procedures.

In particular, due to the fact that a court calendar must be maintained and the courts time must be scheduled and organized and EVERYONE having business with the court should be shown a certain amount of respect and be given fair opportunity to have THEIR case heard- filing deadlines are not optional and filing deadlines are not something you can simply choose to ignore or claim not to understand or claim don't apply to YOU or YOUR case based entirely on your own singularly unique interpretation of law, procedure or rule.

Somehow you seem to miss deadlines, notification requirements, hell, you even fail to list proper respondents or prove (or even attempt to articulate) your standing and you fail to detail a proper cause.

Given all the above who the hell cares whether you think your case or your arguments have merit? I mean if you don't demonstrate that YOU care enough to properly deal with the preliminaries then why should the court give a tinkers damn?

There are plenty of litigants with good cases who actually care enough to follow the procedures and the rules necessary to have their filings accepted.

Let me just restate the obvious:

friv·o·lous

–adjective

1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3.(of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

[Peppermint Patti]

Thanks Boo. Most interesting look at the court system of documentation.

My neighbor says she can no longer file for free as indigent. Is that true?

[WSage1]

In case you missed it, Einstein, the courts, not I, violated the rules regarding timliness.

That is possible, is it not?

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Imagine this: the courts have rules, procedures and policy. These are in place for a variety of reasons. One of the prime reasons is to maintain order, discipline and case flow or work flow from intake to disposition.
Now imagine that the courts are unwilling to waiver from the well established, long standing and widely known rules and procedures.
In particular, due to the fact that a court calendar must be maintained and the courts time must be scheduled and organized and EVERYONE having business with the court should be shown a certain amount of respect and be given fair opportunity to have THEIR case heard- filing deadlines are not optional and filing deadlines are not something you can simply choose to ignore or claim not to understand or claim don't apply to YOU or YOUR case based entirely on your own singularly unique interpretation of law, procedure or rule.
Somehow you seem to miss deadlines, notification requirements, hell, you even fail to list proper respondents or prove (or even attempt to articulate) your standing and you fail to detail a proper cause.
Given all the above who the hell cares whether you think your case or your arguments have merit? I mean if you don't demonstrate that YOU care enough to properly deal with the preliminaries then why should the court give a tinkers damn?
There are plenty of litigants with good cases who actually care enough to follow the procedures and the rules necessary to have their filings accepted.
Let me just restate the obvious:
friv·o·lous
–adjective
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3.(of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

[Boohil]

pbfa wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, Boo, thank you for all your work on this. I've bookmarked the info and will be able to review it in more detail, but at this point, I'm feeling just this weird sadness/creepiness/contempt mixture. Whatever the truth of grody's being Baker Acted is, it seems real clear to this layperson that there's some kind of serious mental illness at work there. Whether it's as simple as a social disorder or more serious, I have no idea. He is one I wouldn't feel safe around - there are just too many things wrong.
Thanks again. I really appreciate the time you took.

You're welcome, pbfa.:-)

Boo

[Boohil]

WSage1 wrote:

ps: It seems mighty funny, BOO, that you were able to see the court's ruling the very day it posted -while it is not impossible for you to check online, what are the odds that you check the very day it posts.
Now, the comments by friends of mine that lawyers "run the court" make me wonder if you had a hand in this matter behind the scenes.
care to comment?

Paranoia strikes deep; into your heart it will creep...

Gordon, I have a couple of clients' cases filed and pending in the FLSC. As a matter of course, and as an ordinary part of doing my job, I check the FLSC website a couple of times a day to see if there is either a disposition order on the cases, or if they have been granted review.

In addition to that immediate reason, an important part of doing my work properly is staying abreast of case law. One of the easiest ways to do that is to read through the FLSC (as well as the five DCAs) case disposition orders and the issued opinions.

Are you really so narcissistic and deluded that you would imagine that I was looking specifically for *your* case? Are you really so egotistical that you would imagine that I would lift a finger (one way or another, even if I could) to affect *your* case?

Perhaps if you actually got a job, you'd have a little less time for your paranoid, self-important fantasies, as well as actually making some contribution to the society to which you've thusfar only been a parasite.

Boo

[Unreal]

WSage1 wrote:

In case you missed it, Einstein, the courts, not I, violated the rules regarding timliness.
That is possible, is it not?
<quoted text>

nutcase!

[Boohil]

Peppermint Patti wrote:

Thanks Boo. Most interesting look at the court system of documentation.
My neighbor says she can no longer file for free as indigent. Is that true?

PP, the Florida statutes still provide for the opportunity to access the courts with waiver of fees, if the person meets the "indigency" requirements contained in the law. You can read the statute here:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm...

(I'm assuming here that your neighbor is not an inmate or adjudicated criminal in a 'house arrest' or 'monitoring' situation, so I've provided the statute applicable to civil actions and indigency, rather than criminal court actions.:-)).

The requirements for indigency status ("in forma pauperis") are extremely stringent. Perhaps your neighbor does not meet those requirements and is barred from the waiver of court fees for that reason.

Boo

[pbfa]

funny stuff.
Grody tries to use his failed interference in the Schiavo matter to prove he "understands" the law:
When “pro se” Appellant makes claims to understand certain portions of the law, it should be remembered that he is well versed in some aspects of the law, as shown by his recent Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE “TERRI” SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing, which did markedly better then The Governor’s similar programme, In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing.

He also uses his phony, pretentious British spelling throughout. No wonder the courts keep laughing at him. I wonder how much money his little hobby has cost taxpayers - you know, people who work and aren't parasites.

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

In case you missed it, Einstein, the courts, not I, violated the rules regarding timliness.
That is possible, is it not?
<quoted text>

I never pretended to be a famous genius theoretical physicist.

YOU on the other hand like to pretend to be a lawyer.

I'm guessing you still like to play dress up also. Your moms clothes still a little big on you? What does she say NOW when she catches you with her things?

You will have made progress when you realize that playing dress up and getting caught is working as well in your life as pretending to be a lawyer and getting laughed out of court.