Pat Reacts to the Election »« Herman Cain: Time for a New Party

Bradlee Dean Loses Again on Attorney’s Fees

Wingnut preacher Bradlee Dean has lost yet again in his lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and my former employer, the American Independent News Network. The judge in the original suit, which he tried to withdraw, ordered him to pay more than $24,000 in attorney’s fees for the defendants. He then asked for that order to be stayed and the judge to recuse himself, though not for any valid reason (he just didn’t like the judge’s rulings). The judge has now ruled on those motions, denying all of them and ordering Dean to make those payments. He’s represented by the colossally ridiculous Larry Klayman.

Comments

  1. Ben P says

    Granted, it’s rare that you have a valid basis to file recusal motions. Big corporations occasionally do if the judge owns more than a token amount of stock in that corporation. Family members, friends etc. are valid reasons but don’t happen often and get resolved without the need for a formal motion.

    That said, it’s just about the most fundamental rule of filing a motion to recuse, that is, if you’ve got a basis to ask the judge to recuse you have to do it BEFORE any ruling. If you get in front of a judge that you think is your buddy, you can’t then ask him to recuse because he’s your buddy after he rules against you.

  2. says

    What’s that term for taking pleasure in another’s bad fortune? Shittenfroody? Yeah, I’m feelin’ that!

    You know what the dollop of whipped crap on top of that shitsundae of teh burnin’ stoopit is? Bleater Deen can either pay the fine, to avoid jailtime and stiff Larry Klayman; or he can pay Larry the K and they can duke it out with another judge. Maybe they can get Orly T. to help with their legal problems.

  3. says

    @democommie #2 – I think you misunderstand: Dean has been ordered to pay the attorney fees of Rachel Maddow and the American Independent News Network. In the US, it is a pretty common judgement for one party to pay the attorneys of the other party; in this case, it serves as a penalty against someone who filed a frivolous, baseless lawsuit against innocent people.

    Whether or not Dean pays Klayman is not (yet) a matter for the courts to decide.

  4. DaveL says

    Bleater Deen can either pay the fine, to avoid jailtime and stiff Larry Klayman; or he can pay Larry the K and they can duke it out with another judge.

    Not to be pedantic, but this isn’t a fine. These are actual costs Dean has forced other people to incur as a result of his shenanigans.

    Of course, it might be more accurate to say it isn’t a fine yet.

    On another note, this language referring to the judge as “a woman scorned” rings a bell – hasn’t this come up in one of these wingnut motions before?

  5. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    He’s represented by the colossally ridiculous Larry Klayman.

    That shouldn’t matter since God is supposedly on Bradlee Dean’s side against liberal secularist Rachel Maddow; and yet Mr. Dean loses. Hmmm . . .

  6. DaveL says

    Whether or not Dean pays Klayman is not (yet) a matter for the courts to decide.

    Is there any precedent for courts allowing litigants to withhold fees from their attorneys on the basis of seriously sub-standard advice?

  7. says

    It’s like he thinks disagreement is prima facie evidence of malice. Rachel Maddow did a negative story on him, so it must have been defamatory. The judge ruled against him, so she must be biased.

  8. Ben P says

    Is there any precedent for courts allowing litigants to withhold fees from their attorneys on the basis of seriously sub-standard advice?

    In the context of sanctions yes, not typically in the context of a normal case. (and a contract suit over fees is another matter)

    I’ve seen a court order sanctions against an attorney, and in the order granting sanctions specifically direct that the attorney show the order to his client, and that the attorney not pass the cost of sanctions on to his client.

  9. Trebuchet says

    It’s like he thinks disagreement is prima facie evidence of malice. Rachel Maddow did a negative story on him, so it must have been defamatory. The judge ruled against him, so she must be biased.

    The defamatory part, IIRC, was that she quoted him as saying something despicable, and then showed the tape of him actually saying it.

    Rachel Maddow, by the way, is by far the smartest talking head on TV. No wonder she scares conservatives.

  10. Michael Heath says

    Trebuchet writes:

    Rachel Maddow, by the way, is by far the smartest talking head on TV. No wonder she scares conservatives.

    She might have the potential to be, but from my perspective she fights way under her weight. Her framing is conveniently narrow to the point its frequently biased, and she needs to rely more on expert perspective to illuminate her audience, not merely leverage them to make a narrow point. I’ll take Fareed Zakaria, Anderson Cooper, and Chris Hayes over her. I actually enjoy her show more when Mr. Hayes subs.

    I find Ms. Maddow’s performance frustrating because I think she has the potential to be better than all of the above with the exception of Mr. Zakaria. To match him she need to bone-up more on economic theory, global economics – especially current events, and foreign policy.

  11. says

    @3:

    I may not have been clear. I am aware that the payments ordered were for Maddow’s, et al legal fees. I just think it’s likely that Bradley Deen has a case of the cash shorts and that Klayman or the courts might get paid, but not both of them.

Leave a Reply