HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Congratulations, everybod... » Reply #10

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Mon Jun 24, 2019, 05:16 PM

10. Mad as a box of frogs, that one...

I used to have a whole collection of court opinions addressing bizarre pro se lawsuits brought by people who were pro se for good reason - wish I could find it. A couple of my favorites that I can remember are Mayo v. Satan, here: https://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Mayo_v_Satan.pdf (lawsuit against Satan dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction) --

We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

and Searight v. New Jersey, https://lawandlogic.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/searight-v-new-jersey.pdf (plaintiff claimed the State of New Jersey unlawfully injected him in the left eye with a radium electric beam, with the result that someone was talking to him on the inside of his brain; dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction):

But, taking the facts as pleaded, and assuming them to be true, they show a case of presumably unlicensed radio communication, a matter which comes within the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, 47 U.S.C. s 151, et seq. And even aside from that, Searight could have blocked the broadcast to the antenna in his brain simply by grounding it. See, for example, Ghirardi, ‘Modern Radio Servicing’, First Edition, p. 572, ff. (Radio & Technical Publishing Co., New York, 1935). Just as delivery trucks for oil and gasoline are ‘grounded’ against the accumulation of charges of static electricity, so on the same principle Searight might have pinned to the back of a trouser leg a short chain of paper clips so that the end would touch the ground and prevent anyone from talking to him inside his brain. But these interesting aspects need not be decided here....

The judges seemed to find these cases interesting, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
jberryhill Jun 2019 OP
SouthernProgressive Jun 2019 #1
brooklynite Jun 2019 #2
madinmaryland Jun 2019 #5
Thomas Hurt Jun 2019 #3
2naSalit Jun 2019 #4
unblock Jun 2019 #6
rampartc Jun 2019 #7
Shrike47 Jun 2019 #13
underpants Jun 2019 #8
jberryhill Jun 2019 #9
underpants Jun 2019 #11
LineNew Reply Mad as a box of frogs, that one...
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #10
FakeNoose Jun 2019 #12
LuvNewcastle Jun 2019 #14
jberryhill Jun 2019 #15
Please login to view edit histories.