Thaddeus Sory to Dame: You’re still crying —and even more incongruously —Part 1

“How can I be obsessed with a lawyer I taught elementary civil procedure in open court just last October?” — Thaddeus tackles Dame in the latest episode
Friends and family, thank you sincerely for your advice and support. If I’m continuing this public exchange, it’s for two clear reasons: first, there are glimmers that the “Cry Baby” is beginning to learn, offering a sliver of hope that he may eventually mature. Second, and more importantly, we do not indulge spoiled children. Discipline must be served—especially when egos run amok in public office.

Cry Baby screams back
In response to my last post, Cry Baby didn’t just whisper—he howled:

1. That I’m obsessed with him.

2. That my criticism is unethical.

3. That under his watch as Attorney-General, the judiciary has been more independent and resilient—contradicting public opinion and polling data.

4. That I’ve distorted the facts.

5. That I lost a case against him—though conveniently, he omits the name and details.

6. That he never claimed to have never lost a case—another classic deflection.

The curious case of incongruent logic
Here’s what puzzles me: Cry Baby admits I have clients aligned with the NPP, yet told Joy FM that, because I represent someone petitioning the Chief Justice, it must be an NDC-driven plot. This contradictory logic casts doubt over whether he even wrote the response. If he did, then his reasoning is as twisted as his temper.

When he objected, then complained
Let’s not forget last October. He screamed in open court that I shouldn’t represent the Speaker of Parliament. I respected his objection and stepped aside. Days later, he screamed even louder, demanding I be sanctioned for not showing up. Make it make sense.

The media meltdowns
On each occasion, he ran to the media with breathless outrage. That’s when I decided—fine, let me feed his obsession. Apparently, I succeeded. In his last Joy FM interview, he couldn’t even sign off without dragging my name into the conversation.

The response was a reaction
Each time I’ve mentioned him, it’s been a direct response to his refusal to keep my name out of his endless media tirades. His obsession with me is less of a fixation and more of a condition. Who is truly obsessed here? Newton’s third law comes to mind.

A lesson in the Law
Cry Baby thinks I’m obsessed? With someone I had to correct on basic civil procedure in open court last October? Come on.

Even after that, he flubbed a fundamental rule of injunction practice, prompting a judicial rebuke from Amadu JSC in the Assafuah case. Check paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment. The receipts are public.

When the flaws show
Let’s talk about the Jakpa case. His charge in that case—a case he called “controversially decided”—was exposed as flawed. The legal point the Court of Appeal upheld? That was mine. And now he claims the Supreme Court would have overturned it, if not for a withdrawn appeal? Cute. The notice of appeal was incompetent. I’ll explain why if he’s curious.

Obsession or projection?
He accuses me of obsession but reaches back to a 2009 case he can’t even name just to claim victory over me. Meanwhile, I was in court last year—Jakpa, remember? Who was the lawyer there? You got it.

Ethics and irony
He questions my ethics? Seriously? This is a man who regularly litigates cases on radio and social media. Rule 38 of our professional conduct guidelines explicitly prohibits this. Still, not a peep from the General Legal Council.

Is it ethical to lose in court, then publicly attack the judges without even reading the judgment? Which rule covers that? I’d be happy to help.

The echo chamber of delusion
His response reads like a tribute to himself. It’s self-praise masquerading as rebuttal. If he truly wrote it, he needs a firm reset. Reality is not kind to those who confuse applause with echo.

Once again, dear friends and family, I apologize for the noise. It’s a bit of mischief on my part—but not of the malicious kind. Sometimes, a little satire is necessary to expose inflated egos. Sometimes, you need to knock a Cry Baby’s head with truth.

End of Part One
More soon, unless he finally learns to keep quiet.

Read Thaddeus Sory’s full rebuttal to Dame’s remarks

1. Friends and family, thank you sincerely for the advice. I truly appreciate it. If I’m doing this, it’s for two reasons:

i. There are signs that the Cry Baby is learning, so there’s hope he might eventually turn around.

ii. We do not suffer spoilt children.

2. In a response to my last post, he screamed that:

i. I’m obsessed with him.

ii. My criticism of him is unethical.

iii. As Attorney-General, the judiciary has shown better steel and independence, never mind the many polls that say otherwise.

iv. I’ve distorted facts in my criticism.

v. I lost a case against him, the title of which he neither mentions nor clarifies.

vi. He never claimed that he’s never lost a case.

3. I honestly don’t believe Cry Baby wrote the response. For if he did, it’s quite incongruous how he admits I have NPP-affiliated clients, yet in an interview with Joy FM, insists that because I represent a client who has presented a petition against the Chief Justice, the petition is NDC driven? This is incongruous logic.

4. If he indeed wrote that piece, then it’s even more absurd that he forgot how, in October last year, he screamed in court that I couldn’t represent the Speaker of Parliament, then later screamed louder that I should be sanctioned for not showing up, after I heeded his own objection.

5. It is despicably incongruous that he forgets how, on each of these occasions, he went hoarse in the media, ranting about it. That’s when I decided to feed his obsession with me by giving him something to chew on. And clearly, it worked.

6. That’s why, in his last Joy FM interview, he couldn’t end without mentioning my name. That’s how Cry Baby earned my last response.

7. Every time I’ve written about him, it has been in reaction to his refusal to leave my name out of his media outbursts. My name grips him like an epileptic seizure. So again, who’s obsessed with whom? To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

8. And I’m obsessed with you? How can I be obsessed with a lawyer I taught elementary civil procedure in open court just last October?

9. Even after that a public lesson, you goofed again on the most basic principle on injunction law, and practice, prompting a judicial correction from Amadu JSC. See paragraphs 31 and 32 of his judgment in the Assafuah case.

10. And really? I’m obsessed with a lawyer whose charge against Jakpa in a case he described as “controversially decided” was exposed as flawed? Who raised the legal point the Court of Appeal upheld against you? That was me. Do not let put out the charge sheets

11. You claim the decision would have been overturned by the Supreme Court if not for the Attorney-General’s withdrawal of the appeal…. That certainty is revealing. Let me just add: the notice of appeal was incompetent. If you want to know why, I’ll be happy to explain.

12. Like the word “incongruous,” Cry Baby must have a severely warped understanding of the word “obsessed.” Imagine reaching all the way back to 2009 to dig up a case whose title you can’t even name, just to prove you beat me in court. Meanwhile, the Jakpa case was just last year. Who was Jakpa’s lawyer? You are right, that was me…

13. And to think that Cry Baby’s vocabulary warehouse stocks just one word… you know it. How could I possibly be obsessed with him, let alone jealous?

14. Did Cry Baby really say my criticism violates professional ethics? Another reason to doubt he penned that response himself.

15. What could be more unethical than a lawyer who takes to radio and social media ALL THE TIME, to prosecute his cases in public? There’s a specific rule that forbids it. See Rule 38 of our professional conduct guidelines. Yet somehow, you’ve never been sanctioned by the General Legal Council [GLC].

16. What rule says you can’t knock some sense into a Cry Baby’s head? Still waiting to be disciplined. Is it ethical for a lawyer to lose a case in the Court of Appeal and without even reading the judgment take to the radio to criticise and literally vilify the Judges? Not sure which rule covers that? Ask me, I’ll tell you.

17. Reading from the Cry Baby, you can’t help but sense his delusion. He needs a serious resetting. The entire response is an exercise in self- adulation. Reality is coming and the next parts will help him find it.

18. Once again, friends and family, sorry I had to do this. Please forgive me. It is just me being silly, but not in a hard way.