Comment: From a Cursory View, I See Nothing Wrong

(See in situ)


From a Cursory View, I See Nothing Wrong

I've read your reference post and am confused about your problem with this complaint. While there may be something simple that I am overlooking, you have turned it into a guessing game. Below, I have listed your statements, followed by my comments.

"It's so obvious to anyone with one operating brain cell".

Based on that logic, I do not have a brain cell. Now that we have that fact resolved, I did not see any obvious spelling errors. Please list page number and exact terms that are misspelled. If there are any, why do you believe that a few bits of ill-grammar are enough to kill the complaint?

"can only be described as an argument DESIGNED TO LOSE THE CASE."

As I read it, the complaint is a summary of alleged facts. If there are any attached briefs, I did not see them at your link. What is the losing argument and why do you believe that it is a losing situation? Also, without any first hand knowledge of the evidence that will back up the allegations, how can you say that the case is lost?

"Well isn't that interesting when the named plaintiffs are not parties to this statement."

The plaintiffs are named in the header. I did not see any obvious problem here. Are you saying that the court does not have jurisdiction? If not, why not? Your objection is unclear to me.

"There are so many holes in this suit, it's DOA."

That is your conclusion, not an argument. You do not list any facts or logic to back it up. Why do you believe that this complaint is "DOA"?

I guess, if I spent a day to two in the law library, I might be able to come up with something. But, as you stated, I have zero brain cells, so I would not know what I am looking at.

So, my question remains - what is the problem?

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.