Object Lessons

Last week, I was at the Federal Circuit arguing a case. While waiting for my case to be called, I watched two other arguments. As usual, one was a patent case. It had to do with whether a company trying to sell bingo-style games had infringed a patent. I started wondering if the trial had included expert witnesses on bingo. I suspect that testimony would likely come from senior citizen women and Catholic priests. The second case involved attorney's fees in an appeal by a veteran who was originally denied benefits for injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange but got the case remanded for further investigation.

This post is primarily for my students and associates in my office (who I know are reading this blog). The message is simple: Preparation Matters! The guy arguing the veteran's case did a fine job. He had a folksy country-lawyer way about him and was obviously comfortable before the court. The issue was whether a remand makes the veteran a prevailing party. The Court seemed skeptical, but the lawyer held his own. Until a fact question came up.

Toward the end of rebuttal, a judge asked the lawyer whether the first part of his client's claim had been denied. The lawyer admitted that he did not know but pointed out that the claim is unitary and that the individual elements cannot be denied separately. The judge jumped all over him. "Really," the judge asked, "you don't know?" Another judge asked whether the case was being handled pro bono. It was not. The first judge circled back, "How could you not know?" Turns out that the lawyer making the argument was filling in for a colleague with a medical issue in the family. That did not sway the Court.

The judge then asked government counsel the status of the claim. She stated that the claim had been heard and was being appealed administratively. Then agency counsel, who was with her, corrected that answer and stated that the case was still under review by the regional office of whatever organization reviews these things.

It was brutal to watch. I think the lawyer did a good job, really. He knew the law and his theory made the question irrelevant, since it is all one claim. But, not knowing something from the record is going to create a bad situation if it comes up. This was a classic example, if a bit unfair, of being caught with one's pants down.

It is a simple thing to say: Facts matter. The record matters. Don't say anything you can't support with a cite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more