Chicago lawyer deploys distractionary dumplings A couple of Chicago lawyers are engaged in an unseemly scrap over a busty paralegal, which one claims the other is using in court as a jubular distraction. Attorneys Thomas Gooch and Dmitry N Feofanov are facing off in a small claims case over a used car. Gooch has objected to the presence in court of Feofanov's assistant …
I've said it before and will say it again;
Grown men turn into boys at the mere hint of a sight of boobies.
And as it's friday I can say;
was looking at mine just now in the shower........
and yes there really girls on the internet, who do you think posts all the Cat piccys?
If 1960's stereotypes of women as fluffy, cute and unfit for anything practical offend you (as they do I) then please don't imply men are base, drooling apes.
I freely admit we can act pretty dumb at times, especially in groups, but under it all we really are not that simple[*].
[*] YMMV unfortunately.
At first I used to think that Judge Judy had the specially selected end of society. However this case shows that such litigants are really quite common in the USA. What the heck is wrong with the objector? Unless you read the news story first no one would even notice either of the people in the photograph on the linked page. Perhaps the case should be decided on its legal merits of the car's bumpers not on baseless considerations of someone's 'bumpers'?
It could be that she's a girl who happens to have big tits who wants to do a normal job, like any number of other girls of a wide range of cup sizes. Presumably the guy thinks she belongs in porn and has no business in a respectable line of work with those things on her.
Shitbag.
...on how she was actually dressed in the courtroom. The given picture of the young lady with her boss has her dressed in a somwhat conservative style. If this is how she was in the courtroom then you're right, this guy is a shitbag. However, we don't know that this is how she was dressed. Maybe she was sat there in a low-cut top, and mini-skirt, provocatively leaning forwards to display her assets, as it were, to all and sundry. The point is, we don't know. I suspect the truth probably lies somewhere between these two, but if this is so, then you have to wonder why someone trained as a lawyer would so blatantly grasp at straws in an attempt to gain an advantage in his case when he runs the risk of the judge finding him in contempt for it...
First, you have to question why she is wearing those Harry Carry glasses. (Its a Chicago reference...)
While I don't know either lawyer, one has to ask why they are in small claims court and why would a lawyer bring in a paralegal to such a case?
So please don't get your panties in a twist.
And how is this IT related other than your porn reference cause everyone knows that Al Gore created the internet for porn....
Personally, I do consider porn a respectable line of work - for people (women /and/ men) who want to persue that option, voluntarily. After all, a lot of people are willing to do all sorts of fascinating things and broadcast it on the 'net for free - at that point, I know /I/ wouldn't mind getting paid for it.
However, I sincerely doubt that someone who is accusing a woman of posing as a paralegal just to distract the jury is going to feel the same. No, I strongly suspect that Ms. Bee's comments are, in essence, correct. This supposition is lent support because few judges are particularly friendly to legal professionals who act in a such a grossly unprofessional manner - and dressing to deliberately distract the jury would most certainly count.
-d
I sometimes think that the last decade has seen a serious reverse in sensible attitudes to women. I call it the virtual burkha syndrome.
For heaven's sake, no-one has ever suggested that I should stick to a career in Porn, and I would be offended if they did. No matter the qualifications, I'm a better engineer.
Either she's not a proper paralegal or her breasts are there purely for distraction purposes.
Non story unless the complianant makes his mind up abotn that he's actually protesting about.
Next week -- Objections as a well-turned out man is objected to as he might distract the jury?
Sexism, alive and well and the judge needs to give Gooch a fucking slap.
We need the "after" pic.
That's after she's removed the specs, shaken her hair out (coincidently allowing her shirt to gape in the process) and the Leading Man has said; "Why! Ms Atencia, you are beautiful."
The unexpected plot twist here is that she's not a librarian.
Hollywood studios wishing to avail themselves of my scriptwriting services may reply below.....
Indeed it is, but what did El Reg expect the reaction to this story would be? Don't like, don't post.
What's more, posting the story when it is only half way through, ie before the Judge has answered the question, does make it inevitable that people will fill in the blanks in different ways, and therefore see the story in very different ways.
I find it unlikely that this is anything other than a diversionary tactic.
There are usually rules about how to dress in court and
I'm sure that doesn't include substantial amounts of cleavage
She just looks like a suitably dressed woman from the picture. Women have breasts,
many of them quite large - it's not exactly rare.
Even if she has an ample helping of devils dumplings, there's
this commonly used feat called 'self control' most of us have..
Christina Hendricks....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391193/Thomas-Gooch-objects-busty-woman-court.html
It's possible I guess but hard to tell given the photo. Clearly she's not dressing like that at the bench or there'd be no complaints anyway.
In picture as given, she looks like any other lawyer, or banker or stockbroker or whatever. Dressed smartly; although she quite clearly would look beautiful under the business suit and glasses, she's not making anything of that in this image.
If dressed improperly in court, that's a matter for the judge. Move along please, nothing to see here.
...it's kind of hard to tell from the foto at the Sun-Times. I'm sure her boss had her dress a bit frumpy on purpose for that foto, adding the dorky horn-rimmed glasses to make her look more "lawyerly". I need to hit Google Images to see if there's any other fotos of her that show her a little more clearly.
Speaking of which... whatever happened with that other woman -- in NYC, I think it was -- who worked at a bank, and who sued her employer claiming her boss tried to fire her for being "too hot". I forget her name, although she did go on to be known simply as "the Hottie Banker". Gawker covered that story extensively, complete with fotos which plainly showed her to be -- shall we say -- titanic.
Where's the IT angle? Ask me if I care. Ph'waahhrrrr.
...and it wasn't much help. An exact-phrase search on "Daniella Atencia" gave me about fifty different copies of that same foto from the Sun-Times, sized and cropped in various ways, so I guess we'll never know for sure.
Regardless, it seems the complaining attorney is simply clutching at... uhh, straws... in an attempt to muddy the waters.
Actually, attorneys end up in small claims court more often than you would think. To begin with, anyone can file a claim in small claims court, including an attorney. Second, while individuals usually file claims and represent themselves, businesses which find themselves defendants in small claims court usually find themselves needing a paralegal at minimum, and often a full attorney. Finally, in every jurisdiction of which I'm aware, there is nothing preventing either the plaintiff or defendant from seeking representation if they so choose. Since an individual unschooled in law is at a distinct disadvantage against an attorney, this frequently results in both parties retaining counsel even in small claims court.
-d
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
