Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:07-cv-03742_de197> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-03742_de197 RegisterActionDate "2010-11-02" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-03742_de197 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Status conference held on the record. Mr. AFAE622 appeared from his place of confinement in Milan, Michigan by video conference. The parties are in essentially the same position they were when settlement discussions were held many months ago, notwithstanding certain representations made by the defendant to Judge Dow regarding his willingness to consent to the entry of judgment in light of his claimed impecuniosity. The representations made to Judge Dow in this regard proved to be "a promise to the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent bequest in a pauper's will." Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 186 (1941) (Jackson, J., concurring). Mr. AFAE622 was adamant that although he has "no assets," he would not agree to the entry of judgment in any amount. The claim that he had no assets was inconsistent with his representation today that he had funds in offshore accounts. When asked about those funds, he was adamant that he did not know the amount, if any, that he had not had any communications with the offshore trustees for the last six years, and that he did not receive statements from the trustees. He claimed that his attorney had been attempting for the past nine months to "repatriate" the funds and turn them over to the United States of America, specifically the SEC. He claimed that despite those efforts, neither he nor his attorney had any idea how much money, if any, was in the offshore accounts. I suggested that he could enter into a settlement agreement that would provide for a settlement in an amount to be agreed upon today if sufficient funds remained after paying the government. If no funds were left, the settlement agreement would have been complied with and the plaintiff would dismiss the case. Mr. AFAE622 refused, saying there would be no money because the government was going to get it all. When I asked how much he was going to pay the government, he simply repeated whatever was there. In any event, he was adamant that he would not agree to the entry of a judgment in any amount and that he would never pay the plaintiff anything, because "I don't owe him anything." The best Mr. AFAE622 would say is that he would be willing to walk away from the suit if the plaintiff would. He did say, however, that he would certainly agree to take money in settlement from the plaintiff. Mr. AFAE622 offer was rejected. Even pro se litigants have an obligation to abide by rules and to conduct themselves fairly and with candor in the dealings with the other side and with the court. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir.2008); McKinney v. Guthrie, 309 Fed.Appx. 586, 590, 2009 WL 274159, 3 (3rd Cir. 2009); Korsunskiy v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2006). The defendant's volte face regarding apparent representations to Judge Dow relating to settlement are troubling, to say the least. What is certain, however, is that settlement in this case is not feasible. There is a final point that should be mentioned. I called to Mr. AFAE622 attention the fact that his IFP application was insufficient because he did not list his assets or state that he did not have any assets. Mr. AFAE622 first said the IFP application was sufficient but then blamed Mr. Goble, counsel for the plaintiff, for not having mailed him a new IFP form. It appears that Mr. Goble, hoping to get the case to its ultimate conclusion, agreed to send the defendant a new form. Mr. Goble says he has done so twice. Mr. AFAE622 claims not to have received them even though Mr. Goble says he has never received either of them back by return mail. I have expressed the view to both Mr. Goble and the defendant that as counsel for the plaintiff and given the circumstances surrounding this history of the case, Mr. AFAE622 ought to communication directly with the Clerk of the Court. This will avoid any slippage in the future, which seems inevitable to occur as things how stand. Mr. AFAE622 is an exceedingly sophisticated individual who is more than able to handle his own affairs without assistance from Mr. Goble or anyone else. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-03742_de197 AdministrativeID "196" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-03742_de197 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.