In certain circumstances it is acceptable and we found an example on PACER this morning on USA v Perdigao where the combatants have agreed to reschedule a hearing. Here is the motion.
sop
8 thoughts on “Speaking of Ex Parte Communication and Jamie Perdigao”
Comments are closed.
Within the context of a motion, ex parte has a different meaning; it simply means that it is not a contradictory motion. The other meaning described an improper communication with one side by a judge.
Trahant:
Don’t trouble these people with knowledge of the law: it just confuses them.
and, a good morning to you too claimsguy!
“These people” seem to have more knowledge of the law than many lawyers do. You have to admit the infomation comes at blazing speed.
Thanks Rick for the compliment and Mr CG for starting his day out with us.
As always we never claim to be lawyers. Many times the legal docs do a good job speaking for themselves.
I have a post in the works on Mr Sholes substitute at Traffic Court also fixing tickets. Yeah you guessed it, another A&R partner.
sop
My thanks, too, Rick; and, Sop, some don’t just speak, they “holler”. Sounds like you’ve found one of those. Can’t wait to find out about the new “keeper of the parking perk”. You’d think a valet was an affordable alternative that would solve the problem for staff, family and special friends.
claimsguy — for talking down to people — you are owed one “Jesse Jackson.” Better go hide your ball.
So for now, the U.S. attorney and defendants have requested September 10 as the hearing date for the motion to reconsider the order denying recusal and requesting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of recusal — that was supposed to be heard in the first place but never was heard.