A freeper has hatched a plan:
"I think we need some pretend gays to try to force a Muslim bakery to make their wedding cake."
While I'm not sure what he thinks this will prove (nor, really, am I up on American Muslim wedding traditional foods), I am curious to know what "pretend gays" brings to the table. How about instead of "pretend gays", they use real, living breathing idiots instead?
UPDATE: Craigslist meets Freeperville:
"Is there a man near Houston who wants to go with me to a mosque and ask to be married? You KNOW well be turned down. Then we can raise hell. Maybe this should be done all over the country. And we dont have to pretend to be gay. In fact, we can scream that were straight but we want to get married in a mosque."
Now that Jan Brewer has stabbed them in the back?
For around $350 anyone, anywhere can file a document in a federal court and call it a civil complaint. After doing so, one can certainly post about it on the internet. I can file a federal lawsuit against Mitch McConnell for screwing goats if I want to. No matter that I have no standing or grounds to sue him for that, or that screwing goats is not something that I could actually sue him over, even if he did screw goats, with the minor exception of him screwing my goats. But still, I'd need to plead that I am out at least $75,000 for him screwing the goats, even if they were my goats.
So, when I see "FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST MITCH MCCONNELL FOR SCREWING GOATS!" I'm probably going to be fairly skeptical of that suit going anywhere. It's not a matter of my having any great love for Mitch McConnell. I certainly don't. And, as is obvious, at least one of his parents had a romantic interest in turtles. The point is that a dumb lawsuit filed for the purpose of publicity or feeling important is just that - no matter who it is against or what it claims.
And so we come to what is likely the last curtain call in the "Mitt Romney Sued For Racketeering" saga, involving a growing hairball of scattered and disconnected points without any real answer to the question of "what did he do to you and what do you want a court to do about it", aside from complaining about the fact that most of the lawsuit is a collection of rantings about the same claims already having been thrown out by a court which had actual jurisdiction over the bankruptcy proceeding in which the claim arose.
One hallmark of the litigant as performance artist is failure to actually serve the lawsuit on the defendants. This is not a great and mysterious task. In some circumstances, service can be effected by such complicated means as "mailing them a copy", but the local rules of any court spell out in pretty unambiguous detail what sorts of things will, or will not, be considered effective service of process. The upshot is also pretty simple - if you are suing someone, you have to let them know about it. Not DailyKos, random internet blogs and forums - the actual defendants in the suit.
When we were last updated on this performance, the court had denied the plaintiff's request to have federal marshals serve the complaint on the defendants. It's a pretty bizarre request when you consider, again, that service can often be effected simply through the mail. It's not rocket science. The federal rules give you a generous 120 days to figure it out.
And so we come to the most recent development, oddly not reported by our intrepid reporter of reports from this performance. Instead of serving the suit as the 120 day clock started to run out, our hero filed an "emergency" request to dick around with the growing mountain of paper. While it's not clear what is the "emergency", I believe we are nearing the end of the show....
02/03/2014 10 EMERGENCY REQUEST and seeking for leave to file a second amended complaint with Plaintiff's declaration and memorandum points to serve second amended complaint upon the defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven Laser Haas. Lodged Proposed Order and 2nd Amended Complaint. (pj) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
02/11/2014 11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Denying Plaintiffs Motion Seeking Leave to FileSecond Amended Complaint and Requesting 60 Day Extension of Time to Serve Complaint 10 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, and plaintiffs request for an extension of time to effect service is DENIED.: (pj) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
On October 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a 108-page Complaint citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962, and1964 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)) and naming fourteen defendants. The Complaint contained what it described as a flood of assertions against an array of extremely well-known and very powerful parties. (Compl. ¶ 3.) On November 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a 150-page First Amended Complaint (FAC) naming ten defendants. The FAC also makes an array of contentions against many parties. (FAC ¶ 4.) The Court denied plaintiffs request to order the United States Marshal to serve the FAC. (Dkt 9.)
Plaintiff has now lodged a 340-page proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) naming the same ten defendants as the FAC. In this document, among other things, plaintiff apologizes in advance to the court for the profuse, burdensome and even intrusive upon other venue issues [sic] that this case is about to present to His Honor. (SAC at 173.) The SAC alleges that this case has issues vast, of national important and significant issues, as pertains to the civil needs of maintaining a good order of society. [sic] (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to serve either his original complaint or the FAC. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21days of serving it (or defendants filing of certain motions or responsive pleadings). The Court concludes that the 2009 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) was not intended to permi tan indefinite number of pre-service amendments as a matter of course. See Koplow v. Watson, 751 F.Supp. 2d 317, 322 (D. Mass 2010) (Plaintiffs complete failure to serve the Complaint on Defendantsdoes not give Plaintiff free rein to amend the Complaint whenever he wishes.); Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1480-1483 (2010). Although leave to amend should generally be freely given when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be denied when it would be futile. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 809 (9th Cir.2004). The proposed SAC, likethe previous versions of the complaint, would be subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (Something labeled acomplaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.).
Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant a sixty day extension for service of his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant . . . but if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Good cause requires a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules. MCITelecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Whether a plaintiff has failed to diligently pursue service during the allotted period is a considerationin the good cause determination. Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1007 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs application and the exhibits in support thereof fail to show that he has diligently pursued service since filing his original complaint and the FAC, and fails to provide any reasonable basis for excusing compliance with the 120-day requirement under Rule 4(m).
For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for leave to file theproposed Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, and plaintiffs request for an extension of time to effect service is DENIED.
The word "evidence" as used by lawyers doesn't always mean what people interpret to be "proof".
"There is evidence" that Christie knew. We know that Bridget Kelly was with Christie and texting about it that day.
That fact constitutes "evidence". It is a thing which, if proven, renders a conclusion more likely. "Evidence" may render something even a teeny bit more likely, than in its absence.
For example, let's say a bank was robbed of $100 bills and you were arrested. At the time you were arrested, you had a $100 bill in your pocket.
Now, you could have a $100 bill in your pocket for a lot of reasons. But the fact that you had a $100 is "evidence" that you robbed the bank. It is by no means proof that you did.
So, whatever was meant by that line, the construction "there is evidence" doesn't necessarily mean that Wildstein is in possession or knows the location of anything in particular, and could just as easily be a careful wording that he might - and would talk about it if granted immunity. Because if he had anything in his possession, it would have to be turned over in response to a subpoena anyway.
Absent some idea of whether this is documentary evidence or merely circumstantial evidence, it's hard to say whether the letter means that Wildstein has a smoking gun.
Profile InformationGender: Male
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 07:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444
- 2020 (109)
- 2019 (139)
- 2018 (126)
- 2017 (94)
- 2016 (119)
- 2015 (96)
- 2014 (54)
- 2013 (88)
- 2012 (147)