TAKE THE HIT: A saying used by Defense attorneys and state attorneys that means waiving speedy trial, and or taking the continuance.

COMES NOW: An unnecessary beginning to every motion filed in court, and used nowhere else ever, and never used in any conversations anywhere.  (In fact, one time when I had a case where I was representing an auto repair shop against a Pro Se client, the Pro Se Client thought my name was “Comes Now” and he addressed all correspondence to me as “Mr. Comes Now” and he wasn’t trying to be funny, he just wasn’t that bright.  Of course he had the last laugh as the Judge ruled in his favor. “Mr. Comes Now” lost to “Mr. Pro Se.” But at least he didn’t know my real name. So he could only brag that he prevailed over an attorney named “Comes Now.”

WHEREFORE: An unnecessary beginning to the conclusion of just about every motion written by attorneys.

WHEREAS: A word that is only, and unnecessarily, used and found in Court orders. Otherwise never even thought of or spoken.

WHEREBY: See meaning of Whereas.

HEREBY: See meaning of Whereby.

HEREIN: WHEREIN: Whyin do we need these words?

HERETO: See Heretofore

HERETOFORE: WHERETOFORE: THERETOFORE: Whoknowstofore. Words only uttered by snobby-stuffy aristocratic people, and also only written in legal orders for no good reason.

HENCEFORTH: See meaning of Forthwith.

FORTHWITH: A word found only in the works of Shakespeare, and some Final Judgments.

WITNESS OUR OR MY HANDS: What about the rest of you or me? Is this really necessary to say?

BY AND THROUGH: Is the “By” really necessary. “The Defendant, through undersigned, states the following:” In fact, do we really even need to say “through undersigned?” Isn’t it obvious when the motion is signed by the attorney.

THIS MATTER: Doesn’t it make more sense just to say what the matter is?

HAVING COME ON TO BE HEARD: How about: The motion (put what the motion is) was heard.

WELL, FULLY, DULY, ADVISED: Isn’t it just assumed if a Judge is signing an order that the Judge was properly advised? If these words aren’t mentioned are we to think that the Judge was only poorly or partially or “not so really” advised?

ADVISED IN THE PREMISES: Not “On” the premises.  Or “outside” the premises. None of these phrases make sense or are necessary. Isn’t just using the word “advised” enough? Actually, even “advised” is unnecessary.

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN: Isn’t just mentioning that it is attached to the motion/Complaint enough to say?

STRICT PROOF THEREOF: An unnecessary phrase used to intimidate for no apparent reason, when a simple “Denied” or “Deny” will do. More than just a denial. Like “I really deny that one.” Or “I dare you to prove it.” When it is not said people incorrectly believe that the burden of proof disappears. People also think demanding “proof” or just regular old-fashioned “non-strict” proof is not enough. They wrongfully think by demanding “strict” proof that it raises the burden of proof.

PROOF EVIDENT PRESUMPTION GREAT: An almost impossible burden to meet, which Judges routinely find has been met. Treated by the Judiciary as though it is a slightly stricter form of probable cause, as opposed to being a standard greater than reasonable doubt. Could use a better name though, and then perhaps it would be given the respect it deserves.  Like: Much, much, more than really, really strict proof thereof, without a doubt evident, Presumption very, very, great.

THE TIPSY COACHMAN (TO BE RENAMED: THE DRUNK LIMO DRIVER): The ends justify the means. Even though you’re wrong, you’re right albeit for a different reason. In math how you get to the answer is what counts sometimes even more than the answer itself. How you did the “work” to get to the answer is what the math teacher cares about.  Not just the answer.  In law, the “Tipsy Coachman” allows someone else to do the work for you. All that matters is the result, not how you got there. An example: A police officer arrests a person. The reason he gives for the arrest does not establish lawful probable cause for the arrest. However, the Assistant State Attorney points out a different reason for why the person could have been arrested that the police officer never thought of, and the County Court Judge agrees to uphold the arrest on that new and different reason. So for the wrong reason the police officer made the right arrest. Henceforth, thus, hereby, thereby, whereas, comes now, the Defense Attorney who thinks the police officer, the Assistant State Attorney, and the County Court Judge are all wrong, and appeals to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court Judges agree with the Defense attorney that the original reason for the arrest given by the police officer was wrong, and they also agree with the Defense attorney that the Assistant State attorney’s alternative reason for the arrest that was favored by the County Court Judge is wrong.  Unfortunately, two of the three Circuit Court Judges agree with the state’s appellate attorney who has come up with a brand new reason why the arrest should be upheld, and the one Judge who doesn’t agree writes a concurring opinion with his own brand new reason why the arrest should be upheld, and thanks to “The Tipsy Coachman” all the new reasons brought up for the first time on appeal can be used to affirm the County Court Judge’s decision since the result below was correct even if the reasoning was flawed. So now the Defense Attorney not sure what the reason is for anything anymore appeals to the Fifth DCA whose Judges agree that the reason for the arrest given by the Police officer, the Assistant State Attorney, the County Court Judge, the state’s appellate attorney, and all three Circuit Court Judges were all wrong, but a panel of the Fifth affirms the result because they found a different reason to uphold the arrest. And once again the Tipsy Coachman Doctrine foils the Defense. Wheretofore, heretofore, theretofore, comes now, the Defense Attorney once again, and appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, whose Judges agree every persons reason thus far to uphold the arrest have been wrong, but they found one that works so they affirm. Alas (unnecessary word alert), the years have passed, the case has gotten older, and finally The Supreme Court of the United States accepts writ and declares that the reason given by the police officer, the Assistant State Attorney, the County Court Judge, the state’s appellate attorney, all three Circuit Court Judges, the panel of Fifth DCA Judges, and yes, even the Florida Supreme Court Justices, to affirm the decision of the County Court Judge that there was probable cause to arrest have all been wrong. And in fact, they can find no reason themselves to uphold the arrest, but since the Defense Attorney for the first time on this last appeal is arguing a different reason why the police officer’s original grounds for probable cause were wrong, they are not going to let him be heard because the Tipsy Coachman Doctrine only applies to affirm a correct result found on incorrect grounds, not to overturn an incorrect result on grounds that the Defense attorney did not properly preserve by neglecting to argue from the beginning. No Reverse Tipsy Coachman Doctrine exists for the loser at the trial level. And the case is therefore affirmed even though it is wrong. The Tipsy Coachman Doctrine’s name shall be officially changed to keep up with the times to: The Drunk Limo Driver.

ANDER’S BRIEF: Applying “The Tipsy Coachman” or “The Drunk Limo Driver” doctrine to avoid writing an appeal. Getting someone else to do your work for you.

WHY WE HAVE LEGAL SLANG: Many lawyers, myself included, when we need to draft certain motions, orders, and forms sometimes borrow these forms, motions, and orders from other lawyers, who have borrowed them from others, who have… Well, you get the picture. And then the borrowers add to what they have borrowed. But since the forms, motions, and orders have been handed down since time began the legal slang that was in the very first motions, orders, and forms borrowed remains, because everyone is afraid to get rid of the words that they do not understand and or seem unnecessary for fear if they do, the motions, orders, and forms will be stricken or rendered null and void.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply