\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/07/carrollton_teen_sues_over_petty_cheerleading_beef_is_laughed_out_of_federal_court.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) About the brief filed with the 5th Circuit... "Usually we do not comment on technical and grammatical errors, because anyone can make a technical mistake, but here the miscues are so egregious and obvious that an average fourth grader would have avoided most of them," the opinion says in a hilarious footnote at the end. Not often you find downright entertaining decisions handed down from the bench...but when you do, they're !@#$ing hilarious. Now I have to read the whole thing... Edit: That decision is a !@#$ing gem. Finally, Sanches cites Doe ex rel. Pahssen v. Merrill Community School District, 610 F. Supp. 2d 789, 808-09 (E.D. Mich. 2009), in which a boy threw a girl against her locker, told her he wanted her to perform oral sex on him, made sexual gestures toward her, and ultimately raped her [...] Even though Sanches claims that she “is not arguing that her experience at the District compares with cases of sexual assault,” she goes on to say that [...] “[a]nalogies will never be perfect, but the case law is illustrative.” But the caselaw she refers to illustrates only that the conduct she alleges is nothing like what was perpetrated against the plaintiffs in the cases cited. Further edit: the last page and a half are epic. Edited July 20, 2011 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 The Judge should have made all of them were Burka's for 1 year, to remember the servicemen/women who are risking their lives, so that they can exercise their "right" to tie up the legal system with such crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 "13 Usually we do not comment on technical and grammatical errors, because anyone can make such an occasional mistake, but here the miscues are so egregious and obvious that an average fourth grader would have avoided most of them. For example, the word “principals” should have been “principles.” The word “vacatur” is misspelled. The subject and verb are not in agreement in one of the sentences, which has a singular subject (“incompetence”) and a plural verb (“are”). Magistrate Judge Stickney is referred to as “it” instead of “he” and is called a “magistrate” instead of a “magistrate judge.” And finally, the sentence containing the word “incompetence” makes no sense as a matter of standard English prose, so it is not reason- ably possible to understand the thought, if any, that is being conveyed. It is ironic that the term “incompetence” is used here, because the only thing that is incompetent is the passage itself." I would term that a Judicial smack down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts