Tuesday, May 12, 2015

I reviewed Jerry's Motion for Summary Judgment.  It is not how I would have written it, but it will do.  His lawyer is Nat Perez so I am certain Jerry will have a very clean and swift victory on the contempt issue.  The judge is free to order Jerry's ex wife to pay his attorneys fees.  On these type matters this is where judges compromise.  The judge will not like the writings, but will use his discretion to deny attorney fees.  So both sides will walk out of court as winners and losers.  Jerry will be free of the Motion for Contempt, but he will be caught paying his own attorneys fees.  His ex wife will find herself looking silly, and losing the weapon of contempt in the future, but not having to pay Jerry's attorneys fees.  But by not nonsuiting she could find herself owing Nat Perez a couple of thousand dollars in attorneys fees.
But this is a family law case involving a child so other things can come out of the hearing which the court deems is in the best interest of Jerry's son.  God, both sides just need to run from this and let it go.  A forced hearing will only bring more animosity which is not in the best interest of the child.  But that ball is in the hands of Jerry's ex wife.
Jerry's ex wife has been holding the possible contempt over his head as a way to keep him silent.  Using the courts as a way to silence someone does not play well with me.  A judgment against some one for damages because of speech does not keep them from speaking.  But holding a motion over some one's head which could lead to jail time can silence someone.
Free speech is not about tasteful speech.  But free speech includes being held accountable for what you say.  The latter Jerry McHale seems to not understand.
But his ex wife basically abandoned the motion to have him held in contempt.  Well Jerry has finally fought back.  He has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  I have no idea what it says.,  I do not know if he adopted the arguments I laid out on the BV. 
But first and foremost the part of the order she seeks to enforce is misquoted in the motion.  The order does not say "friends or associates."  which on its face is over broad and vague.  The order says "friends of associates,: which is even more over broad and vague.
05/12/2015  Original Answer
Gerald McHale, Respondent's Original Answer, General Denial and Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to TRCP 166a
05/12/2015  E-Filed Order
Order on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to TRCP 166a
I will try and read it today.  I need to go retrieve another lawsuit anyway.  I have no use for people who refuse to defend themselves.  So for defending himself, I say hats off to Jerry.  I have no idea if he has counsel or if he is representing himself pro se.  But I do know this - the Motion for Contempt as written is defective, and the order which she seeks to enforce is impermissible prior restraint, over broad and vague.
This was a dangerous move.
A loss by his wife opens the door to Jerry speaking even more.  But Jerry better mind this is a family law case wherein the court does have authority to take action if the court believes one parent or the other is acting in a way which is not in the best interest of the emotional well being of the child.
Smart money has his ex wife non-suiting and both going about their merry ways.  Jerry needs to move on and just enjoy the time with his son.
But watching a blogger win a Free Speech case will be a good day for blogging.   But remember Jerry you can win this battle but lose the war because the judge can still limit access to your son if he believes your son's emotional well being is being compromised over all of this writing.  That is not a Free Speech issue.
For now Jerry has been playing it smart by staying off of even Face Book.
Stay tuned for further reporting from the front.

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

Information on Jerry's private life will not be approved on the BV

Bobby WC