Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 24: Procedural Errors

As previously noted, presiding judge Gary Feess criticized Lawrence Gordon in his summary judgment order. Additionally, Feess stated that he would hear no evidence from Gordon on the case after his order was issued. Despite the judge's admonitions, Gordon sent a letter to the judge on January 7, 2009 that explained his side of the story. Gordon's letter is floating around the Internet in some form or another but the letter will not be presented on this site until a version with no watermarks appears. Instead, here is the judge's response, which is consistent with local court rules and his original position:

Today [January 7, 2009], the Court received by fax a letter from Patricia A. Millett, Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, LLP regarding the above entitled action. Insofar as this is an improper communication to the Court, and is in fact in violation of Central District Local Rule 83-2.11, the Court will not consider this letter, or review the facts presented therein, in connection with the case presently pending before this Court. The original hand-delivered letter will be returned to Attorney Millett when it is received.

For sake of completeness, Local Rule 83-2.11 is as follows:

L.R. 83-2.11 Communications With the Judge . Attorneys or parties to any action or proceeding shall refrain from writing letters to the judge, making telephone calls to chambers, or otherwise communicating with a judge in a pending matter unless opposing counsel is present. All matters shall be called to a judge’s attention by appropriate application or motion filed in compliance with these Local Rules.

Why send a letter to the court when it is certain that it will be rejected? Answers to this very leading question are welcomed in the comments to this post. I will provide my own if asked.