The judge dismissed the lawsuit today.
Why this decision took more than a month is another question entirely.
December 8, 2011:
Jesse Dimmick, a murder suspect who abducted a Kansas couple while he was on the run in 2009, is now suing his former hostages for breach of contract.
Well, “breech of contract,” actually, according to his complaint.
Why yes, in fact, he is acting as his own attorney.
Dimmick was arrested when his hostages, newlyweds Jared and Lindsay Rowley escaped after he fell asleep. He was injured when, after his arrest, a police officer’s rifle accidentally discharged and shot him in the back, resulting in hospital bills of over “$160,000, which I have no way to pay.”
(Wouldn’t either the police in Kansas, where he was shot, or the prison system in Colorado, where he was returned to stand trial, be covering these expenses?)
Dimmick claims that he had a verbal contract with the Rowleys, by which they’d hide him from the police in exchange for money. They reneged on their agreement, he says, resulting in his arrest and injury, and he wants $235,000 in damages.
The Rowleys had previously sued Dimmick for $75,000 for home invasion and emotional distress. If there’s any actual reason to Dimmick’s lawsuit — other than the fact that the next few decades of his life look to be somewhat uneventful — he might be hoping that a judge will simply throw out both lawsuits at once.
For now, at last report, a Shawnee County, Kansas judge is still considering whether to throw out Dimmick’s suit.
Used to say “Anyone who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client”. This guy’s changed it to “Anyone who acts as his own attorney has a fucking nervy deluded asshole as a client.”
You aren’t entitled to a lawyer when you want to sue someone, or when you get sued, in civil court. Rather, you are entitled to the legal representation you can afford, and if you’re broke, and you can’t get a lawyer to volunteer to represent you for free, then tag, you’re it.
Dimmick claims that he had a verbal contract with the Rowleys, by which they’d hide him from the police in exchange for money.
Was he pointing a gun at them, when this “verbal contract” was made?
And it sounds like the deal was: If they hid Dimmick from the police, they’d get paid. Nothing about what would have happened if they turned him in.
Dumass — er, I mean Dimmick — was injured when, after his arrest, a police officer’s rifle accidentally discharged and shot him in the back
Too bad that the rifle couldn’t have accidentally discharged and shot him in the head instead.
I’m sure it is illegal to hide a fugitive from the police in exchange for money. A contract to violate the law is unenforceable. This is in addition to the problem of making an agreement under duress.
As to why the case took a month to dismiss, I assume it’s because that’s where it was in the pile of stuff the judge had to deal with. Probably took about eighteen seconds once the judge actually got to the point where he or she had a chance to look at it.