Attorney-at-Law

POWER OFF

In Uncategorized on 10/15/2021 at 08:59

The Plot Thickens

Back in August, 2019, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley didn’t designate his order in Michael D. Tringali & Kathleen L. Tringali, Docket No.15592-17, filed 8/29/19*, so I never blogged it. But that order revealed whose Dad filed the allegedly bogus petition.

M & K claimed “… that this case was initiated without their knowledge and that petitioner Michael D. Tringali’s father has established a post office box to receive and intercept mail related to this case.” Order, at p. 1.

OK, so if there had been an order directing M & K to ratify the petition, they never would have seen it. Except a docket search reveals no such order. Most unusual, unless Mike’s Dad is a USTCP or admitted attorney. In that case, he had better look up ABA Model Rule 8.4(c), which Rule 201(a) makes applicable to non-attorney practitioners as well as the rest of us. And CSTJ Lewis (“What A Name!”) Carluzzo might well ask Dad for a Rule 201(b) statement.

Well, unless there is a Rule 161 recon or Rule 162 vacation, or even less likely a disciplinary order, we will never know why no order directing ratification was sent to M & K, even if Dad could have intercepted it.

But I’m prepared to make a modest wager that Dad is a FL attorney.

*M & K Tringali 15592-17 8 29 19

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: