06 July 2010

KingCast says "Here comes a bogus, desperate Appeal from the Defendants in Hyman/Prescott v. Lakeville Hemlock Association."

Here's the Brockton Enterprise story, which does not yet reflect the comment I just posted, as screen captured, above. I trust it will appear shortly, as it does not violate any of the Terms of Service, etc. etc., just good earnest journalism.

And here is the seminal blog entry, replete with video.

4:20p 7 July Update: Visited file room, nothing yet filed with the Court, contacted Counsel for Plaintiffs, nothing yet received.

6:30p 7 July Update: Attorney Serkey telephoned to advise that the Motion is in draft form and will be filed and cc'd to me on the day that it is filed, on or before 12 July 2010. We had an interesting exchange about reporting and integrity and I informed him that while I have developed an opinion after watching this case for more than a year, at least I am honest enough to admit my opinion, and I am going to post whatever side has to say..... would that every reporter met such standard.

KingCast: Reel news for real people.
Defendant Hemlock Association's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict/Motion for New Trial:
Chiefly it argues that there was not enough indirect evidence to infer that the Association members committed any of the violations complained of. I did not see the entire trial but I did see at least two witnesses testify that they witnessed trespass, as shown in my videos. There are also arguments that the Defense was kneecapped by not being able to introduce evidence they claim could show that "renegade motorcycle clubs" could have burned out Mr. Hyman's Middleboro home. Defendants also claim that they should have been allowed to mention Mr. Hyman's bankruptcy filing but of course if they are permitted to broach that subject then he will be permitted to delve into the attorney fees and costs he has had to pay in the other litigation that he will allege broke his wallet and left him unable to tender an effective subsequent bid on the property. Stay tuned for the Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum.

10:30 a.m. 12 June update, Plaintiff's response:
Okay, I missed several days of trial because I was traveling. Attorney Minchoff is expected to argue on the swastika/feces/urine/picnic tables through the windows that Scott Hyman did produce testimony at trial that Bren Ladino told him "I didn't do it but I'm not saying someone else in the association didn't," and that Ronald Dufresne told him "I don't know who did it but your kind is not welcome here."

This in conjunction with the now-infamous "You wouldn't want to wind up like a buoy would you.... that's a dead fucking thing that floats in the water....."

Objection! you scream..... You can't have Scott Hyman talking about the damages to his house because there's only inferential proof that anyone tied to the Association did it. Well that's a great argument..... except it wasn't made at trial, where the Defendants had only a standing objection to Hearsay. But the Hyman & Prescott observations of the degradation of their respective properties is not Hearsay.... it's a firsthand event, so now the Motion for JNOV is basically asking His Honor to strike that which was not objected to. Once the Jury had the testimony it was not unreasonable for it to find a Causal.

So I don't like Defedant's chances on that, but perhaps the Association could sue Attorney Serkey for malpractice if this is such a key point and he missed it, and then his insurance carrier could settle it up with the Plaintiffs. That would make a nice and tidy picture..... I wouldn't know, because while I was never a "Superlawyer" I also never got sued for malpractice..... I only help people recover for malpractice claims, i.e. Derrick Gillenwater v. "Superlawyer" Jeffrey Denner hahaha.... (Harvard Citizen Media blog coverage).

But alas, I digress. Also interesting is the admission that Hemlock buddy Steven Berk likely committed the arson at Mr. Hyman's Middleboro home (p. 11) but only to get rid of some DNA evidence as opposed to because of Mr. Hyman's Jewish background. Oh, okay, that's cool then..... my bad, dude.

Lastly, there is a reference at page 12 to some allegedly threatening words that Scott Hyman said to a customer about burning houses down. The Motion reads "We [were screwed] because we were precluded inquiry into an intense dispute going on in April, 2006......"

KingCast review of the matter, including a phone call to the hosting newspaper, reveals that the story was written by a reporter no longer at the paper and that the story was written on 4 June 1995. I knew that, I could tell that because of the cars involved. Fascinating.

New_trial_in_$1.7M_anti-Semitic_verdict

No comments: