Re: Frivolity and the Law
- From: Thom E. Geiger <ThomEGeiger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:20:56 -0500
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:13:30 +0200, Jürgen R. <jurgenr@xxxxxx> wrote:
The following is from wikipedia, so don't take it
as absolute truth without confirmation, under the
heading 'frivolous litigation':
"In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a
litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other
paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and
belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law or the establishment of new law".[3] Monetary civil penalties
for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or
the attorney under Rule 11.[4] In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an
order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be
fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[5]"
Relevant text from 'Rule 11':
"The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the
signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that
to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing
law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such
as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost
of litigation... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in
violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative,
shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an
appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or
parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing
of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's
fee."
From this follows immediately that Sloan and Parker ought to be liable forthe costs incurred by their victims.
As for the swearing under penalty of perjury, true facts, best of
knowledge and so on and so on, Porker lied dozens of times on official
court filings, in every kooksoot he filed, with no intention that his
crap would ever see the inside of a courtroom. He, himself, said
before he filed his first kooksoot against LTSC, it was all about
harassment by frivolous litigation, predicting each defendant would
spend at least $20K defending themselves against his stupid serial
litigation. I spent less than $2K and I beat him twice on
jurisdictional MTDs and once for not filing a clear and precise
complaint.
I don't know about Sloan, but Gordon Roy Parker has refused to pay
court ordered costs to the defendants (which include me) from his
appeal of his LTSC III kooksoot.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics.
groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
- References:
- Frivolity and the Law
- From: Jürgen R .
- Frivolity and the Law
- Prev by Date: Re: Why it's important to have Gordon Parker be specific
- Next by Date: Re: Ray files new EEOC charge re. FSS
- Previous by thread: Re: Frivolity and the Law
- Next by thread: USCF intransigence likely to be its undoing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
