from the probably-not-a-good-idea dept
On July 2, 2013, the Court issued a notice (ECF No. 200) scheduling a hearing for July 12, 2013, on the undersigned's motion for reconsideration. The undersigned resides in Florida and just received notice on July 8, 2013 via U.S. Mail. The undersigned has a previously scheduled family matter that prohibits his in-person attendance at the July 12, 2013 hearing. Further, nine days' notice--over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, in particular--is a prohibitively narrow window of time for to receive notice of a hearing via U.S. Mail, and schedule travel arrangements to appear cross-country. Finally, attending a hearing in California is an extremely expensive proposition as it requires plane fare, a hotel room and other incidental expenses.Of course, as noted above, the court's rules have already made it clear that electronic notification is sufficient here, and Steele therefore should have received notice on the 2nd, not the 8th, and if he did not, it would be his own fault for not having the correct information in the system (and, honestly, does anyone actually believe that Steele is not paying attention to the details of this case, when he's been shown to pay very close attention in the past?).
Separately, the "oh it's so expensive" excuse is somewhat amusing, considering this is the same Steele who has claimed to have made millions from copyright trolling, and bragged to his critics about how he's about to go buy an expensive luxury sports car (with list prices around $100,000) with all the money he's making. That was just a few months ago. Seems fairly incredible to plead poverty months later...
It shouldn't be that surprising, then, to see that Judge Wright denied Steele's request very quickly, while also noting that Steele appears to have lied in his motion. In the original motion, Steele claimed that a Court clerk told him that he "would have to file a motion if he wished to participate in the hearing telephonically." However, in the denial of the request, Wright notes: "Mr. Steele was advised by telephone on July 8, 2013 by the clerk, that his request for a telephonic appearance regarding his motion set July 12th is denied, and did NOT advise him to file such motion as stated in his motion."
So after already being told such a request was denied, Steele files the motion claiming that the clerk told him to file a motion, which the clerk did not. Did Steele not think that the clerk would talk to Judge Wright? So, what are the odds that Steele actually shows up on Friday?