CourthouseObserver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had a couple of hour-long break in my schedule
> this morning, and so I decided to drop into
> Fairfax County Circuit Courtroom 4F to observe as
> much as I could of today's proceedings in the case
> of Misery v. Eesh.
>
> My Bottom-Line take on the situation is that Eesh
> is in a lot of trouble here.
>
> First, the atmospherics...
>
> The court was entertaining pretrial and
> interlocutory motions, rather than conducting
> trials and so, for the most part, those present in
> and addressing the court were attorneys for
> plaintiffs and defendants who were arguing their
> motions before the court.
>
> Eesh was there, accompanied by Lizzy, and they sat
> together in the back row until their case was
> called.
>
> Eesh was smartly dressed, with well-pressed Khaki
> pants, a blue blazer, a dress shirt and tie. Lizzy
> was conservatively dressed in black in what
> appeared to be business attire and running shoes.
> While Lizzy sat beside him for much of the time
> that the court was in session, she left the
> courtroom occasionally (to make phone calls, I
> believe) and returned each time. Indeed, she
> actually was out of the courtroom when the Misery
> v. Eesh case was called before the judge and
> missed most of the proceedings.
>
> Someone who I assumed was Misery was there, as
> well, sitting by himself dressed much more
> casually.
>
> Misery's attorney was unconventional in his
> appearance, in that he had long, flowing hair and
> a good amount of facial hair. But he was
> professionally dressed in a dark suit, dress
> shirt, tie, and pocket square, and he comported
> himself well professionally during and after the
> proceedings.
>
> The biggest surprise for me, though, was that Eesh
> was appearing pro Se, which (for the few FFX
> Underground users who are not attorneys) means he
> was without counsel.
>
> The purpose of today's proceedings was for the
> court to hear arguments and rule on a motion by
> Eesh's attorney for summary judgement in the case.
> As best as I can understand it (I did not speak
> to any of the parties after the proceedings to
> confirm this), the motion was predicated on the
> fact that Eesh did not file a response to the suit
> within the time period required by law and still
> had not filed a response. As a general matter,
> when this occurs, a plantiff (the charging party)
> will ask the court to enter a summary judgement
> against the defendant (the person who is being
> sued) and in favor of the plaintiff.
>
> Eesh's "defense" to the motion for summary
> judgement was to file a motion of his own, asking
> the judge to quash service (ask the judge to rule
> that he, the defendant, had not been properly
> served or given notice of the suit and/or not
> given proper notice of the motions filed by the
> plaintiff).
>
>
> Misery's attorney presented a compelling case in
> favor of his motion for summary judgement,
> asserting that the suit and notice had been
> properly served by the Sheriff, offering the court
> proof of the same, and asserting that Eesh had not
> responded to the suit in the proper timeframe. He
> asked that, in the alternative, if the judge
> declined to make a summary judgement in favor of
> Misery, that she award Misery $1,900 in attorneys
> fees and costs that had been incurred so far to
> research, prepared, file, and argue the motions
> and that said fees and costs be paid as a
> precondition to allowing Eesh to continue in the
> case without summary judgement.
>
> Appearing on his own behalf, Eesh offered no
> defense to not having responded to the suit.
> Instead, contended that he had not been properly
> served and asked the judge to quash service.
>
> The judge agreed with Misery's attorney that
> service had been properly made; that Eesh had not
> responded at all, let alone within the timeframes
> required by law; and that grounds were there for
> summary judgement. She indicated however, that
> she was reluctant to do so in this instance at
> this time, in part because Eesh was appearing Pro
> Se. She castigated Eesh for not responding to the
> suit, as well as for his motion to quash service
> -- both on the merits of the motion and for his
> failure to properly file it.
>
> Eesh appeared confused about the legalities of the
> situation he is in and of what he needs to do in
> order to defend himself, saying several times that
> he has no legal training; that he is attending
> school on the GI Bill and has no money for
> attorneys; and that he had consulted an attorney
> who wanted $10,000 from him to take the case,
> which he did not have.
>
> The judge was having none of it.
>
> She told him that he was gambling by not having
> counsel and that, at the very least, he needs to
> talk with one. She quizzed him on several aspects
> of court procedure. He was unable to
> satisfactorily answer her.
>
> In the end, she cut him a MAJOR break.
>
> She denied both the motion for summary judgement
> and the motion to quash service. However, she
> gave Eesh ten days to either respond to the suit
> or properly file a motion to quash service,
> whichever he chose to do. On the request by
> Misery's attorney for attorneys fees, she denied
> that request without prejudice, saying that the
> attorney could bring that up again at the
> appropriate time.
>
> Eesh is in trouble.
>
> My free legal advice to him is ...
>
> First, get an attorney. If you cannot afford one,
> SURELY you can find a First Amendment attorney
> (ACLU, perhaps?) who would do it for free. This
> is a significant case that could have implications
> far beyond FFX Underground, and I am sure that
> there are attorneys and organizations out there
> who, notwithstanding his bad behavior, would take
> on this case. Misery's attorney is good. You
> have little hope of prevailing if you are not
> represented, as well.
>
> Second, stop posting on Fairfax Underground until
> this suit is over. Nothing you could possibly
> post can help you. But you have no idea how
> things you might post might hurt you.
>
> Third, as wonderful a person as Lizzy might be (I
> offer neither an endorsement nor a commendation of
> her), you might not want to show up with her in
> court. If you want her to be a witness for you,
> she might not be permitted to testify on your
> behalf if she has been prejudiced by viewing prior
> proceedings. And she DOES have pending felony
> charges against her (although, from what I can
> tell, those charges might well be bogus).
>
> More later...
Attachments: