Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Pursuing romance with a friend’s ex-wife might put a strain on the best relationship, but Ryan Anderson doesn’t seem to see things that way. After his buddy Jason Pollard got a divorce he was interested in pursuing a relationship with his BFF’s ex. Pollard wasn’t nearly as accommodating as Anderson might have liked though and he cut off communication with his former friend, according to the decision in the Tenth Circuit case of Anderson v. Pollard.
Whatever Anderson’s faults, a lack of tenacity doesn’t appear to be one of them. Rather than accept the fact that he’d overstepped his relationships bounds he took to the courts, accusing Pollard of opportunity loss and lowering his quality of life. While he was at it he decided to try airing out some other dirty laundry, accusing Pollard of money laundering and tax evasion.
Anderson’s pro se action was dismissed by the district court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, holding that he had failed to state a valid claim for relief. It’s unclear whether the opportunity lost was a potential romance with Pollard’s ex, or whether Pollard lowered Anderson’s quality of life by cutting of their friendship, but the court did its best to find a cognizable cause of action, since there isn’t a law pertaining to either claim.
They eventually settled on a request for damages based on the tort of “intentional emotional abuse.” Although Anderson’s appeal didn’t respond to the court’s criticism about the construction of his claims he did repeatedly assert that he’s entitled to money damages. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals summarily accepted the district court’s analysis of the claim, finding it without merit.
As to Anderson’s allegations of Pollard’s involvement in money laundering and tax evasion, the court footnoted a comment that no private right of action exists for either charge. The court refused oral argument in the appeal, stating in a footnote that it would be unnecessary to materially assist the court in rendering a decision in the case, but one can’t help but wonder how he logically connected such disparate accusations.
The greatest tension that remains in the case is the one between the brevity of the decision itself, whose subject matter is humorous and interesting enough to deserve considerably more analysis, and the Honorable Judge Bacharach’s sagacity in marking the decision for publication… which is at least suggestive of the fact that he considered its contents valuable for study.
Although the case offers precious little of value as regards legal precedent it stands as a stern reminder that the courtroom is an ineffective place to seek redress for matters of the heart, and that consulting an attorney before attempting to settle your grudges in court can save you a fair bit of time and expense.