Delay

I'm told that Lancaster & Anastasia "pulled another 'fast one' on Judge Strobel", saying they got delivery of her Statement of Decision by the US Postal Service, and therefore they are entitled to an extra five days to respond -- i.e., Tuesday, November 17. How this affects the date on which Judge Strobel's decision will be final, or the date of the hearing on disposition of the related cases, was not clear.

Playing games with the Postal Service is not a new tactic for Lancaster & Anastasia. The link and the news of the new delay raise an interesting question: according to their former web site (still down), Lancaster & Anastasia LLP is located at 350 S Grand Ave #2360, Los Angeles, CA 90071. This is in the California Plaza, an extremely prestigious address, and in fact only a few blocks from the county courthouse, where they could presumably have gone to pick up the judge's decision in person.

However, the rent at that building would be prohibitive for a law firm that can most charitably be characterized as struggling. The explanation is almost certainly that "Suite 2360" at that address is some type of mail drop, or mail drop-cum-phone mail facility. I tried a web search for "virtual office" at that location but couldn't come up with a specific link, but there are web sites for similar facilities located at prestige buildings all over downtown, Century City, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, and so forth, which suggests to me that Suite 2360 is something cheap and discreet. Philip Marlowe would have known all about it.

The more I look at Lancaster & Anastasia, the more I get the impression that they rely on a limited number of tired strategies to pursue the few cases they get. Quite possibly their mail drop does take days to forward things to them at home, although when they want to, they can apparently move much faster. On one hand, they need five extra days due to "postal" delay, while on the other, as we see in the link above, they create their own delays as it suits them to do so.

The Plaintiffs [Lancaster] demonstrably know how to mail a letter to get it delivered within one day, or three days.

They do not always choose to do this.

The Defense [Fr Kelley] offers in evidence Exhibit A and offers Exhibit B. Exhibit A had allegedly been mailed before the last hearing, and before Plaintiffs were aware the Court would examine this issue, yet had not arrived as service at the time of hearing, which Plaintiff's counsel did not mention to the Court. (Oddly not mentioned as it still had not been delivered as of that last hearing, and so was not viewed by the Defendant at the hearing, yet it was presumed part of the hearing.)

Yet Exhibit B, mailed after the hearing, was delivered earlier than A, to the same addressee.

Another repeat strategy, which we saw in the case of Becerra v Jones, Bell earlier this year, is to take a bad-facts case and try to turn it into a First Amendment issue. Lancaster lost that one, as well as the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, on appeal.

Doesn't Mr Lancaster turn up someplace in The Big Sleep? The High Window? Seems like I have it someplace. . . maybe not.