<snipped silly blathering>Let's see, the word "ridiculous" was used for an earlier observation... Ludicrous? Well, at least you avoiding using "ridiculous" for a third time...Ludicrous, (again), stupid (again, twice in same sentence!).
Unfortunately for Judy, ludricrous, ridiculous and stupid are the three most appropriate words in the English language to describe the nonsense that she spouts both on the internet and via her frivolous lawsuits. I could add many synonyms but it wouldn't change reality. You shouldn't blame others for the failings of Judy Wood and her lawyer, nor should you blame others for the proper use of the English language in describing the failings of Judy Wood and her lawyer.
<snipped more silly blathering>No sanctions of any kind were imposed, precisely because the case was sufficiently substantiated to have made it improper for sanctions to be imposed.
That is not true. Both the court of first instance (in its initial decision and in its decision on the request for reconsideration) and the appellate court specifically held that the pleading advanced on behalf of Ms. Wood was so poor that it could not even meet the very low threshold required to survive a motion to strike, without the defendants even having to file a defence to the ridiculous, ludicrous, and woefully drafted Complaint.
Both the court of first instance and the appellate court held that the pleading was so woefully inadequate that it could not even make it past the very lowest hurdle to even require a defence to be filed by the defendants. The courts held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring certain of her putative claims, and that she failed to plead any legally coherent claims in her Complaint (i.e., the claims were frivolous, and grossly improperly pleaded).
Both courts also held that the Complaint was not even worthy of being permitted to be amended because it was so hopelessly inadequate that even amending could not salvage it. That is about as bad as it gets - not even being able to draft a Complaint that can make it past the very low standard that it had to meet at the pleadings stage. Yikes!
The appellate court specifically held that:
Appellate Court said:
We have considered all of Wood's arguments bearing on the adequacy of the pleadings in the Amended Complaint and Wood's request for leave to amend. We find them to be without merit and, as such, the district court's dismissal of Wood's claim with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) is AFFIRMED.
That is pretty much the
worst of the worst kind of failure that a plaintiff and her lawyer can achieve.
By the way, you didn't mention that sanctions were asked for at the district court level and at the appeal level and were DENIED all the way through.
It is a serious failing of the civil court system in NY, in my view, that sanctions are almost never imposed against parties who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits that are so bad that they cannot even state a claim or assert appropriate jurisdiction and are so badly drafted that even amending would not cure the deficiencies. In the jurisdiction in which I live, the general rule is "costs follow the event" which means that a plaintiff bringing a frivolous, nonsensical, and bound-to-fail lawsuit (such as the one that Judy Wood brought) would result in costs payable by the plaintiff (or her lawyer) to the successful defendants on a motion to strike. That is the standard here, and it is a good one.
That aside, the only motions for sanctions in which I've been interested in this case were those being sought by a couple of non-government defendants against Ms. Wood's lawyer (as the government defendants did not seek sanctions and the non-government defendants did not seek costs against Judy personally) and I recall asking you quite some time ago to substantiate your claims about other sanctions being sought, but you never did. I take your failure to provide evidence of your claims to mean that you cannot do so. I will, of course, revisit that should you ever provide evidence in support of your claim in the future.
In any event, the defendants apparently recognized Judy's serious difficulties and chose not to proceed with a motion for sanctions against her on that basis, but felt that it was worthwhile to pursue taking her lawyer to task for his shameful role in the debacle, possibly because of the strong wording used by the District Court.
It's a shame, really, that the courts in NY are so gun-shy, though, and that they seem to often speak a good game but then not follow through, and Judy's lawyer was lucky that the appellate court let him off the hook with only a warning. I do not know, obviously, but reading between the lines, I am guessing that the court may have concluded that her lawyer was not exactly firing on all cylinders himself, and felt kind of sorry for him too.
But in no way whatsoever did either the court of first instance or the appellate court say or even
hint that "the case was sufficiently substantiated to have made it improper for sanctions to be imposed" as you stated above. To even
suggest that is an out and out lie, frankly. The courts specifically denounced the pleading and the appellate court specifically denounced the lawyer for bringing such a ludicrous and frivolous appeal but cut him a break by not imposing sanctions against him personally, quite possibly because they felt a bit sorry for him, too. But they were absolutely clear that the case was NOT substantiated in any way, shape or form and that if he tried it on again, they would smack him down six ways to Sunday.
Why are you trying to misrepresent the court judgments in this case, particularly when the documents are readily available to prove the extent of your misrepresentation?
Finally, last I heard, Judy sought leave to appeal to the SCOTUS and leave was summarily denied. So, in the result,
every single court that ever dealt with the matter said that it was so woefully inadequate that it could not be saved even by amending it; in other words: ludicrous, stupid, ridiculous, and beyond hope from the outset. Those really are the best words to describe it.
Dr. Judy Wood merits respect.
One has to
earn the respect of others, and Judy Wood has not done anything to earn my respect. In fact, in light of the manner in which she disrespects the deceased and their families with the patent nonsense that she promulgates so hurtfully and hatefully, she has actually
earned my disrespect. My disrespect for her would, of course, be tempered with compassion if she is, indeed, mentally ill. In my view, the mentally ill deserve compassion and deserve to have their actions viewed in a different light than the actions of those who are fully capable and cognizant. However, if she is
not mentally ill, the fact that she continues to peddle her hurtful and hateful nonsense would mean that no such tempering with compassion would be warranted at all and full-on contempt and loathing would be the order of the day.
