Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

04-cv-1067-REB-CBS

WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF' R S O S E E D N ' MO I NT E L R EPAGE LIMIT ON S E P N ED F N A TS TO O N A G MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND SUPPORTING BRIEF

Pa t Wia R C d ra( lni ) lni l m . a on " a t "hereby rs o d t D fn a t D c 4 if l f i P if f e p n s o ee d n' e . , s 2006 Motion to Enlarge Page Limit Applicable to Motion and Supporting Brief for New Trial Because of Attorney Misconduct: 1. The undersigned cannot help being flattered that a $400+ per hour

p r e a o eo D n e'mo t at r t n f e v r n s s unduly influential firms for the rich and powerful should ascribe such supernatural powers of persuasion and manipulation to him. 2. If only that were so, for the undersigned would then long ago have been

able to retire to a cottage in Bodega Bay or Bretagne, or both, and devoted himself to the pursuit of matters of greater interest or consequence.

1

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 2 of 6

3.

On the other hand, the undersigned so immensely enjoyed the trial of this

action that he does not completely regret his life did not follow that appealing course. 4. Modesty requires, however, that the undersigned forthrightly and publicly

acknowledge the degree to which Defendant and its counsel bear teln share of h i' os credit for the outcome of the trial. 5. But for the abundant misconduct in which Defendant and its counsel

engaged from December 7, 2002 through the end of trial, including the commission, solicitation, or condonation of malicious prosecution, perjury, obstruction of justice, fraud, and lack of candor to this tribunal and others, the outcome might well have been different. 6. Indeed, the trial might have been averted at much less cost to Defendant,

had Defendant and its counsel simply done the right thing, instead of the bureaucratically expedient thing, when presented long ago with the opportunity. 7. If Defendant manages to devote thirty-five pages to a bill of particulars

identifying alleged improprieties by the undersigned during trial, Plaintiff will be happy to reciprocate (atu r n wta h i i efc w ri o D fn a t "i " but to p rc l l o h t e s n f t ok g n ee d n' d i ay , e, n s me) , no profitable end. 8. Whether stated in fifteen, thirty-five, or one hundred thirty-five pages,

D fn a t efrt p ra teo t meo teta a the product of the undersigned' ee d n' f to ot y h uc s o r o fh r l s i s alleged misconduct is so much railing at the wind that must be ascribed to a maleficent combination of bureaucratic [behind]-c v r ga do p s gc u s l p rn i n e o ei n p o i o n es ee n l e d n n ' a to maximize billable hours.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 3 of 6

9.

The foundation of th j y v ri is llgo n e i tefc a dte e u ' ed t od ru d d n h a t n h rs c s iy s

law. Defendant is no more likely to shake it down with a fetid whirlwind of calumny than w s h BgB dWo a l t b wd w teti ll p 'h u eo bi ! a te i a l b o l o n h h d ie is o s f r k f e o r t g t c 10. After all, the plain fact of the matter is that the jury consisted of a

remarkably mature, intelligent and diverse band of outstanding citizens who quite obviously were capable of thinking for themselves, and did think for themselves, with remarkable clarity. They included highly experienced professionals comprising an extraordinary mix of business, financial, political and, apparently, legal acumen. 11. Of course, given the complete lack of respect Defendant has heretofore

displayed for the truth, the law, or the intelligence of the jury, the undersigned is hardly surprised that Defendant persists in the childish bureaucratic game of shifting blame for its stupidity and arrogance from itself to others. 12. Apparently, the appointment of a new City Attorney and the recent

departure from his office of two of the key players in this case has done nothing to raise the level of accountability or integrity among those responsible for its litigation. 13. Defendant is simply disappointed that the jury were not more gullible and

inclined to defer to the authority of the parade of supposedly distinguished, but remarkably feckless, senior officers and officials it paraded before them. 14. Defendant is simply disappointed that the latitude this Court afforded it to

attempt to prejudice the jury against Mr. Cadorna by irrelevant reference to a domestic disturbance call failed miserably.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 4 of 6

15.

Defendant is simply disappointed that tiC ut rfs l p r t h o rs eu a t emi s ' o

Plaintiff to cross-e a n D fn a t f a p ly x mi ee d n' i l oc-making officials concerning the basis e sn i of their refusal to reinstate Plaintiff once they found he had not committed theft did not prevent Plaintiff from persuading the jury that they acted unlawfully. 16. D fn a t s ld a p i e ta tiC ut extremely wise1 ee d n i i y i p o td h th o rs s mp s n s '

calculation (that Plaintiff already had more than enough ammunition to make its case a a s D fn a th dma eh c s a a s D fn a ta dta l t gPa t ' g i t ee d n, a n d i a e g i t ee d n, n h tmi s n i i lnis n if f range of action, while affording Defendant some latitude to suggest other causes for Pa t 'tr n t n would result in an unappealable verdict) did not work more to its lnis emi i , if f ao advantage. 17. Defendant is simply disappointed that its own tactics and methods

destroyed its credibility with the jury. 18. Defendant is simply disappointed that it was completely unable to evoke

the same degree of malice toward Plaintiff as its own officials have displayed toward him for years. 19. In short, Defendant is naturally, but unjustifiably, disappointed that it was

afforded an eminently fair trial, despite its efforts to the contrary. 20. Lacking any meaningful legal grounds for setting aside the judgment, it

h p s oma eac s fr et gi s eo teb s o teu d ri e 'p ro at oe t k a e o s t t i n h a i fh n es n d es n l i ad n s g s i y and methods, on the supposition that this Court might be influenced by its

1

The undersigned must admit that he did not regard it with such sanguinity at the time, and therefore placed himself more at odds with this honorable Court than he would have had he the wisdom to comprehend its subtly beneficent purpose.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 5 of 6

demonstrated lack of patience for the un es n d p ro at p is p y r to s d ri e ' es n l , ho o h o meh d g s i y l t n ly h j y v ri by judicial fiat. o ui te u ' ed t l f rs c 21. T eu d ri e is o k d b t o s rr e , y ee d n'i ld h n es n d s h ce , u n t upi d b D fn a t mpe g s s i

atc o tiC ut j ia i e ry n rs e to tej y ytm.D fn a t t k n h o rsu c l tgi a d e p c frh u ss a s ' di n t r e ee d n has time and again demonstrated its willingness to stop at nothing to defend the dishonorable conduct of its officials, whatever the cost to their constituents. 22. I s m, lni mu t p o eD fn a t Moi t E l g ,o i io l n u Pa t i f s o p s ee d n' t n o n re frt l n f s o a wl y

mire this proceeding in further delay and expense, to no good end. 23. Plaintiff understands that this Court must let Defendant have its say,

however pointless, so as to leave no doubt that it afforded Defendant every possible means, however frivolous, to overcome the consequences of its own stupidity and arrogance. 24. Yet, at $400+ per hour, opposing counsel ought to be brilliant enough to

say everything he needs to say in no more than fifteen pages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court deny D fn a t Moi fr n re n. ee d n' t n o E l g me t s o a DATED this 7th day of December, 2006. Respectfully submitted, /S/

Mark E. Brennan

Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, CO. 80161-2556 (303) 552-9394 (office) (303) 797-7687 (cell) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff 5

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 207

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on this 7th day of December, 2006, he served a copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Enlarge on the following person(s) via electronic mail: Christopher Lujan, Esq. 210 W. Colfax, Dept 1108 Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected] Richard Barkley, Esq. 410 17th St., No. 2200 Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected] /S/

Mark E. Brennan

6