Saturday, March 03, 2012

Judge gives Kanakuk, sex abuse victim's lawyers, deadline to set trial date

U. S. District Court Judge A. Joe Fish has given attorneys representing Branson-based Kanakuk and its CEO Joe White and the sex abuse victim who is suing them a deadline of next Thursday, March 8, to set a trial date that will work for both sides.

In the order, which was issued Friday, Judge Fish said if the two sides are unable to agree on a date, they should submit a list of dates that are not convenient and an explanation of why those dates would not work.

The trial had originally been scheduled to begin in June 2013, in U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but attorneys for Kanakuk and White said that would be inconvenient because many of the witnesses would be Kanakuk officials who would be needed to run their camps and because the lead lawyer has a vacation scheduled. The Kanakuk attorneys asked for an August 2013 trial date.

Attorneys for the Texas, who was one of the many sex abuse victims of former Camp Director Pete Newman, said the August date would not work because the victim will be starting his senior year in high school at that point.

Newman is currently serving two life sentences in a Missouri prison
at

3 comments:

  1. Ross7:03 AM

    Translation: "Hey plaintiff's attorneys, defendant's attorneys? Yeah, you guys? Build a bridge and get over it. Sincerely, the judge."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:18 PM

    Somewhat of an unfair comment Ross. Facts indicate that the scheduling order was approved by both sides prior to being submitted. What happened to that fact?

    6 weeks later Joe White and Kanakuk start this nonesense about that it is inconvient for them due to this and that.

    Why did the defendants attorneys not bring this up during the preparation of the scheduling order. Why did they wait til now.

    I can imagine the judge not being happy about these games that the defants are playing. Looks like this is why they are in court.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ross, a real member of a real state bar3:37 PM

    This is getting tiresome. "Facts Indicate"? You mean facts besides the docket sheet that's available online that indicates exactly the opposite?? I read the scheduling order, it was entered by the court without input from both sides other than the joint status report, which suggests discovery, not trial deadlines. That's not strange - this is usual practice in federal court.

    If the Turley firm filed its opposition with no mention of Shook Hardy calling them to ask if the motion to change the trial date was okay, they deserve to be taken to task, no matter how sympathetic their client is. That's simply professional courtesy.

    The judge is right. Let the attorneys handle the scheduling away from the court and come back when they're done with the temper tantrum.

    ReplyDelete