From Rhett R. Smith v. Iowa Republican Party, an unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion from last week:
Smith ... filed an Amended Complaint containing only three paragraphs of allegations. In those paragraphs, he complained that his right to be a candidate was violated by the defendants and that the defendants acted “under color of law.” He asserted vague constitutional rights. Further, he alleged his “First Amendment right to protection from Zionism and/or Christian-Zionists” under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. “Plaintiff further asserts an implied principle of ‘fairness in communication’ in that the Defendants ... have acquiesced to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and have allowed only Zionistic campaigns within the (two major political party) campaign coverage.”
Smith has wholly failed to allege claims stating a case for relief against any party. Despite clear and specific directives from the Magistrate Judge, he has filed a conclusory pleading without any of the information necessary to state a claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the Amended Complaint....
Well, yeah, that would be what they'd say, right?
I'll finish my comment as soon as I get rid of that encyclopedia salesman that's knocking at my d@#$&|^*=%)*& NO CARRIER
If the judge is a henchman of the Illuminati, obviously. The hard copy of the order was probably written on Bavarian Poison Paper, its delivery via certified mail by a postman conditioned as a manchurian candidage.
Or about to be.
I have faith in the man from what I've already heard.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
But even if the flag is correct, what kind of decision can you expect from a ZOG Court.
It would probably be affirmed on appeal. But mostly the judges sort of feel sorry for the people who file stuff like this, and would rather just get rid of the case via 12b6 or some other summary disposition; it's not like dealing with a lawyer or competent pro se litigant, where the threat of sanctions can contain their behavior. PLUS, if you just dismiss the case and get it off your docket, rather than keeping it hanging around for a sanctions hearing, the quicker the litigant is out of your life.
This guy was more competent than many such people, he seems to have understood the rudiments of procedure such as requesting leave to file amended complaints, and taking an appeal. I guess if you have a person who repeatedly files lawsuits they would (and have) start looking at sanctions.
in fairness, if a legal argument takes several hours of reading and thinking through before you decide it's wrong, is it really frivolous?
TerrencePhilip, I'm not sure there is any such thing as a legal theory that is so frivolous that a reasonably competent, creative legal mind couldn't put lipstick on and dress up in such a way that it's not obviously frivolous. Remember, there is a difference between "frivolous" and "obviously frivolous."
You start by dissembling about what your argument actually is; if the court has to wade through twenty pages to even figure out what your legal theory is, that goes a long way toward disguising its lack of merit. You then argue that precedent that is squarely on all fours is somehow distinguishable by inventing the most strained distinction imaginable that only barely passes the straight face test. You rely on dicta that is irrelevant if not actually contrary to the actual holding, and you limit to its facts precedent that the Supreme Court clearly intended to be wide and sweeping.
The one that stands out most in my mind was a dispute between two Fortune 100 corporations. I had to read the oversized blue brief twice to even understand what they were arguing, and once I boiled it down to its essentials, the obvious answer was that there wasn't even any federal jurisdiction to start with. I would estimate the chambers I was working in could have flushed 100 frivolous prisoner or pro se appeals in the time we spent flushing that one.
It's easy for politicians to gripe about frivolous prisoner lawsuits and greedy plaintiff lawyers, and they're right. On the other hand, the real drains on the system aren't the frivolous prisoner suit you can spot at 500 paces and take almost no time to toss; it's the big guns working for corporate heavyweights that bog down the system. Just one former extern's opinion.
Civility is an American expectation due to our Rule and Court's of Law. Being snide and rejective has become a Federal National passtime.
The case we have been fighting for many years does involve pretense, "color of law" as well as many other efforts that are arbitrary &capricious for the benefit of powerful politicals who assert the fact that they are Above the Law.
It is highly unlikely that we will ever see any honorable, empirical, studies of "pro se" pleadings that have merit.
More importantly, you are likely, never to see, any studies upon "color of law" adjudications that are clearly biased.
As remarked above, just because a person is irate [or worse] does not settle the issue.
We have adjudication upon the merits as a system.
When that system seeks to punish, harshly, the very citizens who foot the bill for their profession, things are most certainly skewed awry.
Stand up and fight for your American way of Life
or
LET IT GO!
(Note to self: At next meeting of International Jewish Conspiracy find out who leaked the truth to this guy and congratulate agents on making him look like a nut.)
Not necessarily.
I believe the correct term in that particular case is "bullshitting."
You write a long brief filled with impenetrable rhetoric, cite lots of cases with similar subject matter and assert that they strongly support a particular point, but never pinpoint cite them. Add in a lot of "pounding the table" (when neither the facts or law are on your side) and voila, you've got a 30 page brief that's absolutely as frivolous as a "Johnathon Lee Riches tm" complaint, but takes 3 hours to read and the client was billed 15 hours to prepare it.
His allegations against my clients consisted of
Defendants XXXXXX and YYYYYY [I'm not going to put their real names in here] have violated California law in that ___________________________________________________________.
That's not a misprint by me. He had a blank for the allegations. Unfortunately, he voluntarily dismissed the case a few hours before I could file a SLAPP motion.
Nick
In the same maneer all the obvious, biased, counsels here seek to defeat the pro per case, all those statements could be utilized as substance For the Etoys item.
The case needs more review.