|
|
| |
| |
laintiff has until November 26, 2004 to correct the deficiencies. If
plaintiff does so, the other MTDs stand consideration.
HS
1 If Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies set
forth in this Memorandum through an amended pleading on or before
November 26, 2004, then the Court will reopen Plaintiffs case
sua sponte. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GORDON ROY PARKER, : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, :
:v. :
:LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al., :
Defendants. : No. 03-6936
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. M. KELLY, J. OCTOBER , 2004
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parkers
(Plaintiff) Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 2), Defendant Thomas
Geigers (Defendant) motion captioned, Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief
can be Granted, Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, For a More
Definite Statement (Motion) (Doc. No. 6) and Defendants
Amended Motion to Dismiss (Amended Motion) (Doc. No. 25), and
Plaintiffs respective Responses in opposition thereto (Doc. Nos.
21 & 30). For the reasons set out below, Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 30, 2004, pro se Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker
filed this action against pro se Defendant Geiger, Defendant
2 Rule 12(e) provides:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading
is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a
party cannot reasonably be required to frame
a responsive pleading, the party may move for
a more definite statement before interposing
a responsive pleading. The motion shall
point out the defects complained of and the
details desired.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
3 Rule 8(a) provides, in pertinent part, [a] pleading
which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain . . . (2)
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
2Learn The Skills Corporation, and one-hundred anonymous
defendants. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint seeks relief under
theories of Libel, Trade Libel, Invasion of Privacy, Copyright
Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Tortious
Interference and Civil Conspiracy, and for Federal Lanham Act and
RICO Violations. In response, pro se Defendant Geiger moves for
a more definite statement of Plaintiffs claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2 Defendant Geiger argues
that the substance of Plaintiffs claims is unascertainable from
the eighty page Amended Complaint. After reviewing pro
se Defendant Geigers argument, we also construe his motion as
seeking dismissal for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the
short and plain statement requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2).3
3II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and 8(a)(2) guard
against vague and ambiguous complaints that impede either the
defendants receipt of adequate notice of the claims asserted
against them or their ability to form a responsive pleading. See
Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publications, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798
(3d Cir. 1967). Pro se Defendant Geigers Motion argues that the
Amended Complaint does not state Plaintiffs claims with clarity
sufficient to allow him to frame a responsive pleading. We find
pro se Defendant Geigers inability to respond is due in large
part to the lack of a short and plain statement of the claims
upon which relief should be granted and, therefore, we discuss
pro se Defendant Geigers arguments under Rule 8(a)(2).
Rule 8(a) calls for a short and plain statement of both
the jurisdictional grounds and the claims supporting the
plaintiffs request for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the short and plain statement requirement is to
give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46 (1957); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 512 (2002). Violations of the short and plain statement
rule have included complaints that were too long, repetitious, or
confused. See In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d 696,
703 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding that a complaint more than 600
4paragraphs and 240 pages was too long); see also U.S. ex rel
Dattola v. National Treasury Employees Union, 86 F.R.D. 496
(W.D.Pa. 1980) (holding that a pro se complaint charging over
one-hundred defendants with several claims was too confused). In
short, as Judge Easterbrook summarized, Rule 8(a) requires
parties to make their pleadings straight forward, so that judges
and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a
bucket of mud. United States, ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin
Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is long and disorderly. The
length of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ballooned to eighty
single and double spaced pages with 320 paragraphs. As part of
his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff wrote an overview of the alleged
wrongful conduct that consists of fifty-three pages and 208
paragraphs with cross references to another eighty-seven pages of
single-spaced exhibits. A lenient reading of Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint does not reveal a short and plain statement. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (stating the
proposition that pro se complaints must be reviewed with
leniency).
While a complaints excessive length alone is not
determinative for a Rule 8(a) dismissal, its excessive length
4 By the time Plaintiff begins to assert claims against
the defendants, 232 paragraphs have elapsed from which the
defendants are to cross-reference in order to decipher the
factual support of the claims against them. In essence,
Plaintiff has created the bucket of mud that Rule 8(a) guards
against. See United States, ex rel. Garst, 328 F.3d at 378; see
also Mendez v. Draham, 182 F.Supp. 2d 430, 433 (D.C.N.J. 2002)
(finding that [o]nly through superhuman patience, effort, and
insight could any attorney review the allegations of the
Complaint and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses. . . . [T]he
Defendants attorneys do not have the luxury of clicking the
paste button on their computer; if they fail to notice that one
or two words have been varied, with meaningful import . . . they
face the risk of malpractice).
5compounded by a lack of clarity should deem it unacceptable. See
In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d at 703. Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint is marred by its near-incomprehensible
structure and content. For example, it appears as if the first
sixty pages of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are superfluous
because they consist of alleged facts with no contextual
structure. It is not until page sixty-one that Plaintiff begins
describing the twenty-three counts he alleges against the 102
defendants. Instead of plainly stating his claims against the
defendants, Plaintiff overwhelms the defendants with acronyms and
confusing cross-references to the alleged facts and anonymous
defendants.4 Therefore, throughout Plaintiffs entire Amended
Complaint, there is a complete omission of a short and plain
statement necessary to give the defendants proper notice of the
claims against them.
Although pro se complaints are held to a less stri
|
| |
| |
tick a fork in him, he's done....
I predict that he will file more garbage trying to save a lost cause. He is
doing nothing but wasting time, but then he is the biggest waste of time of
them all. A herpes infested seduction guru. That doesn't even sound
plausable does it?
What a bag of hot air....
BM
Plaintiff has until November 26, 2004 to correct the deficiencies. If
plaintiff does so, the other MTDs stand consideration.
HS
1 If Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies set
forth in this Memorandum through an amended pleading on or before
November 26, 2004, then the Court will reopen Plaintiff's case
sua sponte. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GORDON ROY PARKER, : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al., :
Defendants. : No. 03-6936
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. M. KELLY, J. OCTOBER , 2004
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's
("Plaintiff") Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 2), Defendant Thomas
Geiger's ("Defendant") motion captioned, "Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief
can be Granted, Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, For a More
Definite Statement" ("Motion") (Doc. No. 6) and Defendant's
Amended Motion to Dismiss ("Amended Motion") (Doc. No. 25), and
Plaintiff's respective Responses in opposition thereto (Doc. Nos.
21 & 30). For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 30, 2004, pro se Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker
filed this action against pro se Defendant Geiger, Defendant
2 Rule 12(e) provides:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading
is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a
party cannot reasonably be required to frame
a responsive pleading, the party may move for
a more definite statement before interposing
a responsive pleading. The motion shall
point out the defects complained of and the
details desired.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
3 Rule 8(a) provides, in pertinent part, "[a] pleading
which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain . . . (2)
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
2
Learn The Skills Corporation, and one-hundred anonymous
defendants. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint seeks relief under
theories of Libel, Trade Libel, Invasion of Privacy, Copyright
Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Tortious
Interference and Civil Conspiracy, and for Federal Lanham Act and
RICO Violations. In response, pro se Defendant Geiger moves for
a more definite statement of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2 Defendant Geiger argues
that the substance of Plaintiff's claims is unascertainable from
the eighty page Amended Complaint. After reviewing pro
se Defendant Geiger's argument, we also construe his motion as
seeking dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
"short and plain statement" requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2).3
3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and 8(a)(2) guard
against vague and ambiguous complaints that impede either the
defendants' receipt of adequate notice of the claims asserted
against them or their ability to form a responsive pleading. See
Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publications, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798
(3d Cir. 1967). Pro se Defendant Geiger's Motion argues that the
Amended Complaint does not state Plaintiff's claims with clarity
sufficient to allow him to frame a responsive pleading. We find
pro se Defendant Geiger's inability to respond is due in large
part to the lack of a "short and plain statement" of the claims
upon which relief should be granted and, therefore, we discuss
pro se Defendant Geiger's arguments under Rule 8(a)(2).
Rule 8(a) calls for a "short and plain statement" of both
the jurisdictional grounds and the claims supporting the
plaintiff's request for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the "short and plain statement" requirement is "to
give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46 (1957); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 512 (2002). Violations of the short and plain statement
rule have included complaints that were too long, repetitious, or
confused. See In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d 696,
703 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding that a complaint more than 600
4
paragraphs and 240 pages was too long); see also U.S. ex rel
Dattola v. National Treasury Employees Union, 86 F.R.D. 496
(W.D.Pa. 1980) (holding that a pro se complaint charging over
one-hundred defendants with several claims was too confused). In
short, as Judge Easterbrook summarized, "Rule 8(a) requires
parties to make their pleadings straight forward, so that judges
and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a
bucket of mud." United States, ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin
Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is long and disorderly. The
length of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ballooned to eighty
single and double spaced pages with 320 paragraphs. As part of
his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff wrote an overview of the alleged
wrongful conduct that consists of fifty-three pages and 208
paragraphs with cross references to another eighty-seven pages of
single-spaced exhibits. A lenient reading of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint does not reveal a short and plain statement. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (stating the
proposition that pro se complaints must be reviewed with
leniency).
While a complaint's excessive length alone is not
determinative for a Rule 8(a) dismissal, its excessive length
4 By the time Plaintiff begins to assert claims against
the defendants, 232 paragraphs have elapsed from which the
defendants are to cross-reference in order to decipher the
factual support of the claims against them. In essence,
Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a) guards
against. See United States, ex rel. Garst, 328 F.3d at 378; see
also Mendez v. Draham, 182 F.Supp. 2d 430, 433 (D.C.N.J. 2002)
(finding that "[o]nly through superhuman patience, effort, and
insight could any attorney review the allegations of the
Complaint and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses. . . . [T]he
Defendants' attorneys do not have the luxury of clicking the
'paste' button on their computer; if they fail to notice that one
or two words have been varied, with meaningful import . . . they
face the risk of malpractice").
5
compounded by a lack of clarity should deem it unacceptable. See
In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d at 703. Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint is marred by its near-incomprehensible
structure and content. For example, it appears as if the first
sixty pages
|
| |
| |
"Byte Me" <no_way@jose.com> wrote
Stick a fork in him, he's done....
ROTFL.
I predict that he will file more garbage trying to save a lost cause. He
is
doing nothing but wasting time, but then he is the biggest waste of time
of
them all. A herpes infested seduction guru. That doesn't even sound
plausable does it?
What a bag of hot air....
LOL :-)
Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.).
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton <HS3127@Intell-transport.com> wrote in
news:418021E0.259A@Intell-transport.com:
For the reasons set out below, Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
I am almost certain that ray will try to make this "without prejudice" be
seen as a victory.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton <HS3127@Intell-transport.com> wrote in
news:418021E0.259A@Intell-transport.com:
I am almost certain that ray will try to make this "without prejudice" be
seen as a victory.
--
KTO
Gordon can spin until he's too dizzy to live, but the fact remains that he
lost another case.
|
| |
| |
In essence, Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a) guards
against. "
Denise
Plaintiff has until November 26, 2004 to correct the deficiencies. If
plaintiff does so, the other MTDs stand consideration.
HS
1 If Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies set
forth in this Memorandum through an amended pleading on or before
November 26, 2004, then the Court will reopen Plaintiff's case
sua sponte. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GORDON ROY PARKER, : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al., :
Defendants. : No. 03-6936
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. M. KELLY, J. OCTOBER , 2004
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's
("Plaintiff") Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 2), Defendant Thomas
Geiger's ("Defendant") motion captioned, "Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief
can be Granted, Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, For a More
Definite Statement" ("Motion") (Doc. No. 6) and Defendant's
Amended Motion to Dismiss ("Amended Motion") (Doc. No. 25), and
Plaintiff's respective Responses in opposition thereto (Doc. Nos.
21 & 30). For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 30, 2004, pro se Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker
filed this action against pro se Defendant Geiger, Defendant
2 Rule 12(e) provides:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading
is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a
party cannot reasonably be required to frame
a responsive pleading, the party may move for
a more definite statement before interposing
a responsive pleading. The motion shall
point out the defects complained of and the
details desired.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
3 Rule 8(a) provides, in pertinent part, "[a] pleading
which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain . . . (2)
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
2
Learn The Skills Corporation, and one-hundred anonymous
defendants. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint seeks relief under
theories of Libel, Trade Libel, Invasion of Privacy, Copyright
Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Tortious
Interference and Civil Conspiracy, and for Federal Lanham Act and
RICO Violations. In response, pro se Defendant Geiger moves for
a more definite statement of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).2 Defendant Geiger argues
that the substance of Plaintiff's claims is unascertainable from
the eighty page Amended Complaint. After reviewing pro
se Defendant Geiger's argument, we also construe his motion as
seeking dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
"short and plain statement" requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2).3
3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and 8(a)(2) guard
against vague and ambiguous complaints that impede either the
defendants' receipt of adequate notice of the claims asserted
against them or their ability to form a responsive pleading. See
Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publications, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798
(3d Cir. 1967). Pro se Defendant Geiger's Motion argues that the
Amended Complaint does not state Plaintiff's claims with clarity
sufficient to allow him to frame a responsive pleading. We find
pro se Defendant Geiger's inability to respond is due in large
part to the lack of a "short and plain statement" of the claims
upon which relief should be granted and, therefore, we discuss
pro se Defendant Geiger's arguments under Rule 8(a)(2).
Rule 8(a) calls for a "short and plain statement" of both
the jurisdictional grounds and the claims supporting the
plaintiff's request for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the "short and plain statement" requirement is "to
give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46 (1957); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.
506, 512 (2002). Violations of the short and plain statement
rule have included complaints that were too long, repetitious, or
confused. See In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d 696,
703 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding that a complaint more than 600
4
paragraphs and 240 pages was too long); see also U.S. ex rel
Dattola v. National Treasury Employees Union, 86 F.R.D. 496
(W.D.Pa. 1980) (holding that a pro se complaint charging over
one-hundred defendants with several claims was too confused). In
short, as Judge Easterbrook summarized, "Rule 8(a) requires
parties to make their pleadings straight forward, so that judges
and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a
bucket of mud." United States, ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin
Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is long and disorderly. The
length of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ballooned to eighty
single and double spaced pages with 320 paragraphs. As part of
his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff wrote an overview of the alleged
wrongful conduct that consists of fifty-three pages and 208
paragraphs with cross references to another eighty-seven pages of
single-spaced exhibits. A lenient reading of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint does not reveal a short and plain statement. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (stating the
proposition that pro se complaints must be reviewed with
leniency).
While a complaint's excessive length alone is not
determinative for a Rule 8(a) dismissal, its excessive length
4 By the time Plaintiff begins to assert claims against
the defendants, 232 paragraphs have elapsed from which the
defendants are to cross-reference in order to decipher the
factual support of the claims against them. In essence,
Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a) guards
against. See United States, ex rel. Garst, 328 F.3d at 378; see
also Mendez v. Draham, 182 F.Supp. 2d 430, 433 (D.C.N.J. 2002)
(finding that "[o]nly through superhuman patience, effort, and
insight could any attorney review the allegations of the
Complaint and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses. . . . [T]he
Defendants' attorneys do not have the luxury of clicking the
'paste' button on their computer; if they fail to notice that one
or two words have been varied, with meaningful import . . . they
face the risk of malpractice").
5
compounded by a lack of clarity should deem it unacceptable. See
In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, 90 F.3d at 703. Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint is marred by its near-incomprehensible
structure and content. For example, it appears as if the first
sixty pages of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are superfluous
because they consist of alleged facts with no contextual
structure. It is not until page sixty-one that Plaintiff begins
describing the twenty-three counts h
|
| |
| |
wonder how long it will take Google's lawyers to pick up on this? 10
seconds? 20?? Or will they take advantage of the Problem Child and kick
his ass on the merits? Hmmm.....Interesting....
BM
"In essence, Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a)
guards
against. "
Denise
|
| |
| |
In clpi3r$13rj$1@news.iquest.net,
Denise F. Hayden <dfhayden@iquest.net> shared the these words:
"In essence, Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a)
guards against. "
Denise
The silence from a particular newsloon is DEAFENING.
I do believe I recall a thread where Denise pointed out how Gordie's
pleading was not well formed, and he took quite an exception to the critique
of what he obviously felt to be his best work ever.
I have no doubt that RICO II was Gordie's best. But the best lump of coal is
still a lump of coal.
--
Rusty
The preceding message reflects my beliefs and opinions. Veracity of
statements is left to the common sense of the reader.
|
| |
| |
I must apologize for the format of the previous message. I was informed
a corrected copy is available for viewing at
http://www.yourpublicedocuments.com\Decision1.htm
or
http://www.yourpublicedocuments.com\decision1.html
HS
|
| |
| |
In article <dPXfd.4050258$6p.674794@news.easynews.com>, "Rusty"
<Rusty@nym.alias.net> wrote:
In clpi3r$13rj$1@news.iquest.net,
Denise F. Hayden <dfhayden@iquest.net> shared the these words:
"In essence, Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a)
guards against. "
Denise
The silence from a particular newsloon is DEAFENING.
I do believe I recall a thread where Denise pointed out how Gordie's
pleading was not well formed, and he took quite an exception to the critique
of what he obviously felt to be his best work ever.
I have no doubt that RICO II was Gordie's best. But the best lump of coal is
still a lump of coal.
But a lump of coal can still be burned for heat, and thus is useful. The
remaining ashes can be compressed and used in a writing utensil to
communicate ideas or to create lasting works of art which can be
appreciated by many.
The US Ray's legal brief was a waste of resources, much like the US Ray
himself. My thoughts regarding people who have a firm belief that women
deserve to be raped, abused and murdered is well known and documented. I
am not ashamed of my words, even if others have called me "sick." I stand
behind my convictions.
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton <HS3127@Intell-transport.com> wrote in
news:418021E0.259A@Intell-transport.com:
On December 30, 2004, pro se Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker
filed this action against pro se Defendant Geiger, Defendant
I want to know where Ray got his time machine! That sounds much more
useful than any seduction library he's come up with ...
Roy
|
| |
| |
But a lump of coal can still be burned for heat, and thus is useful.
Awww, give the poor "genius" a break. The amount of paper he generated
with this lawsuit could heat his mom's apartment for a month!
|
| |
| |
But a lump of coal can still be burned for heat, and thus is useful.
Awww, give the poor "genius" a break. The amount of paper he generated
with this lawsuit could heat his mom's apartment for a month!
His mom doesn't have to buy coal or burn paper to have all the hot air she
needs in her apartment. He has been spamming groups today that don't know
him as well, and posing as different people. Sounds to me like he wittle
feelings are hurt. Oh the horror......
I was chatting with one of the lawyers in the company the other day about
him and his desire to have a woman from overseas. Did you know that the
Government won't allow you to sponsor the immigration of another person into
the USA unless you can prove sufficient income to be able to support that
person? Now since he lives with mommy, has a disease that nobody wants, and
has income below the poverty line, how can he hope to be able to support
another person? Yet in his aol profile, that is what he says.....
I think the white coats are getting closer...
BM
|
| |
| |
"Denise F. Hayden" <dfhayden@iquest.net> wrote in message news:<clpi3r$13rj$1@news.iquest.net>...
"In essence, Plaintiff has created the "bucket of mud" that Rule 8(a) guards
against. "
I have to say that I had rarely seen a judicial opinion that made me
laugh as hard as Easterbrook's comment that judges and adverse parties
"should not have to fish for a gold coin in a bucket of mud".
Until I saw this one. Congratulations, Mr. Parker! You've created
the proverbial "bucket of mud"!
T.
|
| |
| |
|
