How you learn that skipping Legal Writing class in law school was probably a bad idea: when your motion is denied for incomprehensibility, that’s how.
Hat tip: Lowering the Bar.
Posts by Nicole Black
-
The Ethics of Working Remotely: The D.C. Bar on Virtual Practice During COVID-19
-
Business Resiliency Planning for Law Firms – Step 5: Implement Your Plan
-
Company Announcement: AppFolio Announces Sale of MyCase to Apax Partners
-
Business Resiliency Planning for Law Firms – Step 4: Covering Your Bases
-
Business Resiliency Planning for Law Firms – Step 3: The Elements of a Successful Plan
Paulette Patricia
November 15, 2013 — 8:41 am
HAHAH This is great. I was a legal secretary for 11 years and unfortunately I never came across an Order Denying a Motion that was this funny LOL
CochranFirmDC
November 15, 2013 — 9:28 am
Would be interesting to see the actual motion that was deemed incomprehensible.
Marines1969
March 16, 2014 — 5:06 pm
Reminds me of Abbott and Costello! “Who’s on first” skit!
PATSNYC
May 5, 2014 — 4:13 pm
Bankruptcy records are public records and can be accessed online. go to PACER and search by the name of the Court District and the Case Number. You can read it for yourself.
Abort Democrats
July 9, 2014 — 10:07 am
Perhaps reading the entire motion would induce a migraine or some form of seizure. I suspect the petitioner worked on the Affordable Care Act, and is a government employee. I think the title of the motion was enough to determine incomprehensibility, i.e “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge”. It would appear that the petitioner was attempting to discharge a response to their original Answer to Plaintiff. Even if that’s what they meant, and it certainly is not clear what their intent is, the motion would be nonsensical. The order itself merely notes that the motion makes no sense. The footnote in the denial is hilarious.
Shanidar
August 5, 2014 — 2:23 pm
The incomprehensible motion was written above. It was the motion to dismiss the response to the other motion referenced, etc.
HappinessRules
November 17, 2013 — 6:16 am
ouch.
nikilblack
November 19, 2013 — 1:57 pm
Glad you enjoyed the post! It’s our goal to brighten everyone’s day just a little bit!
Huskerbob
March 7, 2014 — 5:46 am
bailiff, whack his peepee!
AlmostaCowboy
March 10, 2014 — 8:24 am
That was Obama’s submitted claim when he graduated Harvard Law.
Obama is the only President of Harvard Law Review ever NOT to receive an offer to clerk for a prestigious (or any other) law firm.
Greg Gallacci
March 10, 2014 — 11:49 am
So, D wants P’s response to D’s response to P’s discharge to do what?
Legal motions have an intent. Their purpose is to get something done.
This is just a waste of time, but hey, the lawyers got paid.
Wow, jurisprudence of the highest order…
Diane23
March 14, 2014 — 1:11 pm
Lawyers go to school for 3 years to learn how to manipulate the language so that no one (other than other lawyers) can understand what they’re saying (or writing). I will say that in this particular case this particular lawyer failed miserably.
CJS3
March 16, 2014 — 1:56 pm
Failure is always an option, and it usually requires a lawyer to achieve it.
Lammo
May 14, 2014 — 10:23 pm
Not really. The real problem is that there are appellate court opinions that tell us what those incomprehensible words and phrases mean so we keep on using them no matter how twisted (in many cases tortured) they may seem to civilians.
Jeffrey Coley
March 12, 2014 — 6:27 am
Wow – an Adam Sandler movie cited by the Judge. Nice touch!
Lammo
May 14, 2014 — 10:34 pm
I once got to quote Leslie Nielsen as Dr. Rumack in Airplane in a brief. The defense lawyer’s spell checker corrected the officer’s name from Shirey to Shirley. I had to respond with:
Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Ted Striker: Surely you can’t be serious.
Rumack: I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley.
🙂
mamapjs
May 16, 2014 — 1:57 am
I got to sneak in another of Nielsen’s quotes from Airplane in another context once. I had to go to the hospital in a minor emergency, and was late for work. I told my supervisor, and he said, “Hospital? What is it?” So, of COURSE I said, “It’s a big building with sick people…” Happily, he had a sense of humor and knew exactly what I was quoting. 🙂
bbutchb
March 15, 2014 — 8:19 am
Clearly the result of liberal education……..
Days_of_Noe
March 16, 2014 — 2:04 pm
Yet they still passed the bar. Speaks volumes about the bar.
Don Meaker
March 18, 2014 — 6:41 pm
Lawyers have a low educational standard, with only a 3 year professional degree. By contrast, physics normally requires 4 or 5 years, Doctors required that plus residency.
Lammo
May 14, 2014 — 10:19 pm
Last time I checked it’s 3 years on top of the 4 year bachelors degree. Not exactly low. Plus, the Washington, all essay, 2 1/2 day bar exam is still the craziest thing I have ever put myself through voluntarily.
juliusrosen
June 17, 2014 — 8:51 am
with a lawyer however – LIFE can be in their hands
oneiron
July 2, 2014 — 8:09 pm
BFD. 5 years past the BS for a PhD including 5 5 hour written exams, oral exam on the dissertation as well as the dissertation itself. Oh, and passing exams in two research fiedls or languages.
Lammo
July 16, 2014 — 12:39 pm
Do you want fries with that?
(Sorry, but you asked for it. 🙂 )
xenonman
July 14, 2014 — 9:31 am
When you’re sick don’t see a physicist then ! lol
CygnusTX
March 24, 2014 — 12:56 pm
Nowhere, except by the person posting this image, is it suggested that an attorney wrote the original motion. More likely the case is being handled pro se by a non-attorney.
Uncle Dave
March 31, 2014 — 8:42 am
Even if that is true, that an underling wrote the document (and it likely is), shouldn’t an actual lawyer have checked the document before it was filed at the court? I’m not a lawyer but from a management point of view, if something is being done in the name of a law office, one would think that an actual lawyer would review it before it goes out.
George
April 11, 2014 — 10:26 pm
One can always represent oneself in litigation. Although attorneys and judges are ethically required to treat them with kid gloves, litigants who choose to proceed without lawyers are held to the same standards as lawyers with regard to knowledge and procedure.
Conservative NOT Racist
July 8, 2014 — 7:29 am
I represented myself in a divorce case. It was not a pretty case either. The ex had a $350 per hour lawyer, and all I had was…..me. And lots and lots of research. If anyone can be said to have “won” a divorce case, that would be me. While “we” loss the house, I got custody of our kid, and the cheating so and so gets to pay me child support. You can BET that I wrote filings much better than the one presented here. All it takes is a FREAKING BRAIN. ‘K? Any questions?
dave
June 13, 2014 — 8:39 am
Proving the adage that the litigant who represents himself, has a fool for an attorney.
xenonman
July 14, 2014 — 9:29 am
i always thought that the saying was “has a fool for a client” lol
docwill
July 17, 2014 — 12:09 pm
You guys ever hire a lawyer with no money (really juicy, slam-dunk PI’s notwithstanding)?
Still, pro se IS a cardinal KISS situation…
The_MaD_HaCkER
June 13, 2014 — 8:49 am
It needs to be raised. 😉
dragon5126
June 28, 2014 — 9:38 pm
These days every time someone mentions passing the Bar, I no longer automatically think about the exam, I think about the limbo dance
Allan Richardson
July 5, 2014 — 4:39 pm
Or what an AA member needs to do to stay on the wagon! Actually, pass EVERY bar on the way home from work.
prometheus2
March 17, 2014 — 9:45 am
. . . is this a spoof? This appears to be something written by a team of high school gag writers.
Carl Robbins
March 24, 2014 — 10:34 am
Whats even scarier, are the chump democrat butt-kisser lawyers appointed judges, who have perverted this countries constitution from corner to corner.
I Zheet M'Drawz
May 24, 2014 — 2:45 pm
HOW? Tell US how they perverted it…bet you can’t.
Kile
June 27, 2014 — 2:37 pm
Obamacare, to name one.
dragon5126
June 28, 2014 — 9:09 pm
“separation of church and state” which doesnt exist in the constitution, Only that the government can not establish an official national religion, and the multiple violations of the tenth amendment by creating things like the BATFE, Arming regulatory agencies, and HUNDREDS of similar cases. Remember, Just because YOU are ignorant doesnt make others just as stupid. By the way, you have Obama feces on your nose.
Steven A
July 7, 2014 — 8:38 am
The proscription in the BOR regarding religion only applies to Congress. It says nothing about the States. Thus, it is conceivable that different States could, in fact, establish different religions. Which is sort of the basis of the colonies in the first place …
LarryInIowa
July 20, 2014 — 10:32 am
Actually, some did have official state religions.
Justice PonZee
December 6, 2014 — 4:36 am
Applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Come on counsel.!
john
July 3, 2014 — 8:38 am
“Constitution of THE United States” (meaning the central government) instead of “Constitution of THESE UNITED States” (which means just that. The States are United)
athrillofhope
April 10, 2014 — 3:19 pm
Aw c’mon! Isn’t everything relative? If it makes sense to them, that’s all that matters! I thought we had a “Living Constitution”? So if the Constitution’s meaning can be made-up as we go along to fit social agendas and Global Tyranny, er “Government”, why on earth would it matter in a silly-little bankruptcy court to make any sense? Just overturn the bankruptcy, give them back their “good credit” and let me go free without consequence!
The duplicity astounds me! ;>)
Douglas J. Bender
April 10, 2014 — 7:51 pm
Is it not the thought that counts, whatever it may or may not have been, if anything?
athrillofhope
April 11, 2014 — 7:21 am
It definitely is not the INTENTION that matters, that’s for certain. If the INTENTION of the law meant anything, most of the grads from law schools could not negotiate within the “due process”. Original Intent is squarely in the camp of ABSOLUTES–either a law means ONE THING, or it does not mean anything at all.
Apply the humanist-revisionist logic to any other discipline–say, computer networking. There are “trust relationships” that servers make with other servers that grant permissions of access. What if it was suddenly decided by the protocol bodies that these standards were “living standards” that could mean whatever the “contemporary consumers” wanted them to mean? In essence, there would be NO standards.
This is exactly what they are doing in modern jurisprudence. The Constitution–long the enemy and target of these atheistic socialist/fascist–means absolutely nothing. It is the very document that forms our Constitutional Republic and wards off people like them trying to infiltrate and overtake our nation to “transform it into something fundamentally different”. Gee, what could that be? A socialist state, that’s what, in which the State = “god” and all other forms of authority, including God, the Bible, Christianity and Judaism, are basically treated as “antediluvian notions”.
Grandmaof 4
August 5, 2014 — 7:24 pm
Are you aware that socialism and fascism are polar opposites of each other? Perhaps you should look up the meaning of each.
athrillofhope
August 6, 2014 — 7:34 am
Are you aware that socialism and fascism are cousins to each other? Fascism IS socialism. The Nazis were National SOCIALISTS.
You were obviously “educated” in the public school system–the State–where the agenda was to get you to buy its revisionist history and redefinition of terms. The State–the Leftists–continue to this day redefining what “science” means, what “marriage” means, etc … and their terms have no bearing on the truth. “Science” today is simply another politically infiltrated arm of education to the Left. True science is the exploration of facts–letting facts “speak for themselves”–being truth-seeking. No political agenda. Hence, the confusion about “marriage”–the biological realities behind and how the State’s propaganda masters can hoodwink an entire generation into swallowing whole the notion that homosexuality is “biologically natural” yet pregnancy is an “unnatural biological condition”, a “disease” that requires extermination.
It seems you pull your definitions of the political spectrum from the same sources.
The communists in America were pro-Hitler in the early part of the 1930s for the very reasons that they shared the near-identical ideology: that of socialism (again, the fascist flavor adding “nationalism” to the mix). It was not until Hitler attacked militarily–after signing a Treaty of non-aggression with–Stalin did the American Left turn its back on Hitler and eventually fascism. As the American Left infiltrated the American education establishment, among the other American institutions, they were able to re-write history and redefine terms and dictate the narrative of the curriculum. And this narrative was that, as you have regurgitated, that socialism (the “left”) and fascism (the “right”) are “polar opposites”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
You have been taught to view the political spectrum as if it were a straight horizontal line. On the Far Left is Marxism/Communism, a wee bit further in to the right is Socialism. On the Far Right is Fascism (the Nazis), and a wee bit in to the left are conservative Christians.
In reality, a true graphical representation of the political spectrum (save going to a 3D version) would be to take that horizontal line and to bend it into a NEAR CIRCLE with the “Far Left” and the “Far Right” end nearly touching each other. This accurately places the atheistic, BIG GOVERNMENT ideologies together, as they should be shown.
So what is the polar opposite of atheistic BIG government ideologies? Well, conservative Christianity. So, accurately, you would place conservative Christians at the complete opposite “side” of the near-circle, to show that conservative Christians are polar opposites of BIG Government, anti-God, State-run ideologies.
Brian Lake
April 11, 2014 — 1:51 pm
I suspected that this may have been a fake, but I checked on PACER and this Order was in fact entered in the case.
Brian Lake
April 11, 2014 — 1:56 pm
I found the motion as well. It is two pages long, and was filed pro se by the debtor, a non-attorney. And I must say, it truly is an incomprehensible mess.
BK Martin
April 12, 2014 — 7:25 am
Something from the Law Offices of Monty and Python???
Rich Dudley
July 8, 2014 — 8:37 am
Dewey, Cheatum and Howe!
uglyamerican
July 16, 2014 — 8:46 am
Ditcher, Quick & Hyde, Divorce Attorneys
tagalog
May 1, 2014 — 6:27 am
The Court’s order says, “…this adversary was commenced on December 14, 2005…” Doesn’t the court mean “this adversarial proceeding?” C’mon, Judge, if you’re going to deny a motion for incomprehensibility, you’ve got to be more comprehensible than that…
Notthistime
May 12, 2014 — 7:09 am
I recall an incident in which a young officer was applying for leave to his superior, for the 3rd time, in very flowery language, which would have made any lawyer proud. The CO s responce was, ” I told you twice, damnit, no. ”
It s nice when a judge finally says to a lawyer what the rest of us already know. You lawyers are frigging idiots. I think we should make graduating from law school a misdemeanor, and passing the bar a felony.
Pam
May 17, 2014 — 1:54 pm
I actually understood that – if you break it down into chunks, it does make sense. But the judge was correct to stop it – it was basically a back and forth, nobody-wins fight.
mcd1948
May 21, 2014 — 11:16 am
Its no more incomprehensible that Justice John Roberts opinion on Obamacare. lol.
jawja
August 2, 2014 — 4:29 pm
Anyone ever hear Justice Thomas speak? He never does from the bench.
gbp
August 5, 2014 — 3:46 pm
And because of that, he has the net most spoken wisdom.
Soundstorm
June 3, 2014 — 3:02 pm
A sterling justification for throwing out the entire IRS code.
JimB
June 7, 2014 — 7:29 am
Reminds me of when I was General Counsel in the 70’s of a company to be named later. The younger lawyers simply could not write briefs that spelled out their arguments clearly. And legal memos often were a mishmash. Thought things would get better, but..at age 83, things seem to be worse. Not even the SCOTUS can write an opinion that holds water. Vide, ACA is a tax…damn.
Stephen L. Hall
July 18, 2014 — 6:06 am
I blame Oliver Wendel Holmes for promoting precedent over reason and principle. Or the law schools for recruiting political science majors.
fafhrd
July 21, 2014 — 9:38 am
So, let’s see if I understand this correctly.
First SCOTUS determined that the ACA wasn’t a tax, for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
And then, instead of calling it an unconstitutional use of the Commerce clause, we’re going to let this monstrosity of a law continue, giving deference to Congress, we’re now going to call it a tax (contrary to all the political promises up to this point that it isn’t a tax) to allow it to be Constitutional under taxing powers. (I apologize for the run-on sentence.)
But my question is, when did SCOTUS acquire the power to re-write a law?
Shanidar
August 5, 2014 — 2:32 pm
My question has been, How can you tax a non activity? How can a tax be applied to Not doing something? And is there now an open door to tax us for not doing any number of things?
M75462
June 17, 2014 — 8:30 am
Your Honor! I object. this courtroom is out of order. This whole trial is out of order
Attica Attica Attica
I did my best
juliusrosen
June 17, 2014 — 8:50 am
what lawyer was allowed to graduate ?
oldoldtimer
June 26, 2014 — 7:07 am
Sounds like something Obama wrote. His briefs when he was a firm lawyer were so bad and childish they had to be rewritten by a para-legal.
uglyamerican
July 16, 2014 — 8:42 am
Obama actually WORKED for somebody else as a lawyer? I don’t know anyone who could tell! I pity the clients he had.
IH8PROGS
July 17, 2014 — 11:21 am
…until he was disbarred…then politics!
fafhrd
July 21, 2014 — 9:30 am
He was involved in suing Citibank to open housing market to low income people in Chicago.
His side won their case. Citibank provided mortgage loans for 287 people. 284 of those wound up in default.
docwill
July 17, 2014 — 12:17 pm
Is there really a paper-trail of these originals that can be referenced(?!)
Warren Wilson
June 26, 2014 — 2:44 pm
The footnote could apply to much of what comes out of the Obama administration.
Justice PonZee
June 27, 2014 — 9:37 pm
I am a state supreme court justice. Our court believes almost unanimously that we are on the brink of another revolution just like the one we had in 1776. The public has no trust or confidence in the current government from top to bottom. We need to quickly clean them all out and start over again. It will be messy for a while but then it will straighten out. Many officials will be arrested. Unfortunately the military will be the only major organ to defend the rights of the people. The alphabet cops, FBI, DEA, IRS, etc, will support the government because they are highly paid by it and want to keep their jobs intact. Selfish reasons. The military will not follow this course. They will win. All I can say is: Keep your head down.
Rich Dudley
July 8, 2014 — 8:31 am
I would rather die FIGHTING and STANDING on my feet than to spend even one second on my knees before any government.
Bring it on!
Branden Gradin
July 4, 2014 — 11:02 pm
I am a law student and I have half a mind to send this to every single law student at my school.
smkj4
July 16, 2014 — 7:25 am
When you get a whole mind you might want to rethink your position
Billiardgirl
August 4, 2014 — 7:33 am
Priceless!
Allan Richardson
July 5, 2014 — 4:48 pm
A young couple died in a car accident while planning their wedding, and when they got to Heaven, they asked St. Peter if there were a way they could get married there. St. Peter said go on in and wait, and he would see what he could do. Two years later they were married. Ten years after that, the wife goes to St. Peter and says she cannot stand her husband and wants a divorce. St. Peter says it may take 100 years. Why so long, she asks. Because it took us two years to find a PRIEST up here; how long do you think it will take to find a LAWYER?
A group of Harvard law professors were on a Caribbean cruise, and the Dean of the law school fell overboard. Some of the other professors wanted to jump in and save him, but the captain said no, it was too dangerous. These waters are full of sharks and they have probably already eaten him. Just in case he comes back up, we’ll throw a life ring in the water. Two hours later, there is a tug on the rope, and they see the Dean coming out of the water, grabbing the ring in one hand and a briefcase in the other. They pulled him up and asked what happened, and how he got that briefcase when he didn’t fall in with one. He replied, the water was full of sharks but they didn’t eat me. Then what’s in the briefcase? APPLICATIONS!
jawja
August 2, 2014 — 4:23 pm
Way I heard, sharks don’t bite lawyers; professional courtesy.
fedupintx
July 21, 2014 — 10:30 am
In other words: “What you talkin’ ’bout Willis?
sanderdog
July 27, 2014 — 7:45 am
The difference between a lawyer and a criminal is the width of an ink line on a piece of paper. Most politicians are lawyers. Hence the mess we are in today.
Matthew Carothers
August 5, 2014 — 2:06 pm
Let me guess, the legal argument consisted of something like, ” Nuh-Uh!! Uh-Huh!! Nuh-Uh!!, etc…”