No - don't acknowledge that the attorney was never suspended as a matter of law, my money depends on it!

There can be stupid.

And there can be STUPID.

And there can be VERY STUPID.

The EXTRA VERY STUPID is what I saw today in the "legal" argument of attorney Woodruff Carroll, lover of teen chats, the one who "lacks a filter" (not my expression).

By the way, Carroll's enthrallment with sex got the better of him when he used a sexual term "quickie" in a Memorandum of Law - claiming that he has made a "quickie motion".

I will repeat here Carroll's statements that I already posted earlier which prompted observers of his failed election campain for a City Council state that Carroll "lacks a filter" - and that's a huge understatement:



 

Carroll, together with former magistrate Peebles (whose term expired on May 16, 2016, but Peebles still continues as the Magistrate of the Northern District of New York) did employ that tactic - 

"scare 'em a little bit and get 'em motivated" 

with the indigent plaintiffs of the Argro case.

In fact, Carroll used that strategy beautifully where the Plaintiffs went to the hearing to finally kick Carroll out and ended up settling the case for "quick cheap money" (Carroll's words, not mine) 
after a "brilliant speech of Magistrate Peebles) (Carroll's words, not mine, repeated at least 3 times in his pleadings), and after Carroll told them that Peebles will be pissed off with them if they do not settle (Carroll's words, not mine).

To say that Carroll is exceptionally stupid, even for a privileged attorney, is an understatement of the century - he admits A LOT that a corrupt, but "prudent" attorney would prefer to conceal.

But, Carroll surpassed even his own record level of stupidity in his pleading when he claimed that my suspension should not be "reversed" (or deemed as "never happened" because there is no public order of suspension, as I argued) - because Carroll bet money on my suspension.

Carroll does not even try to call me by name, I am "she" and "her" in the majority of his sentences in the pleadings.

Here is Carroll's argument, in all its unadorned glory:

  Carroll argued the above on behalf of the person who provided to the court an affidavit that she wanted to hire me (with or without a license) and provided a written statement that she wanted to fire Carroll - which the court did not allow her to do, and forced her to accept Carroll's services anyway.

Carroll  states in his "affidavit" - without supporting affidavits of his coerced clients - that now the very people who told me that they are prejudiced by my suspension and want me back on the case, license or no license, actually do not want my suspension to be deemed what it is - a nullity - because they will be financially hurt then.

Just imagine that.

Do not apply the law, your Honor, it will hit me in the pocket.

Lacks a filter, indeed.