July 30, 2008

That Was

Opposition to Demurrer, served ??? (see last post):
DEFENDANTS argument here must fail since PLAINTIFF has shown that was an employment contract between the parties.
I am picking on the same plaintiff's attorney too much, but the guy really is a goldmine. This is from the same case as the last post. Bonus points for screwing up a possessive!

July 29, 2008

Take Likely and Conducts (Redux)

Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion, served ??? (see below):
Courts do not take likely the conducts shown by the Defendants where Plaintiff was asked to testify falsely in a courtroom.
As you may surmise, this is from the same attorney quoted in the last post. However, its from a different case. I told you "conducts" wasn't a typo!
As for the service date, that's a longer story. This opposition was due to be served and filed on July 23, 2008. This opposition showed up today, on the 29th, in an envelope postmarked July 28. However, the proof of service claims that it was served July 18. Hmmmmm.

July 28, 2008


Quote from Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion, served July 15, 2008:
It is not enough that Defendants cite case laws which have no relationships to the issues in Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants must overcome the heavy burden and show that their conducts which is the basis of their claim was an act in furtherance of a constitutional right.

The above-quoted darling was the inspiration for this blog. Lest you think "conducts" was the result of an errant slip of the finger, I assure you that it is used throughout the pleading.

July 26, 2008

First Things

I am excited about this project. Until now, these delightful little numbers were only shared with friends, via email. But now, with the power of blog harnessed, I can share the idiocy I face everyday with the whole world! I realize I must rely on my friends on the plaintiff's bar to keep the goods coming. However, I am quite without fear that they will let me down.
[UPDATE: grammatical error corrected. I really need to be careful with that here, seeing as the purpose of this thing is to make fun of grammatical errors. Error-free ball from now on!]
[FURTHER UPDATE: grammatical error in update corrected. I think I may need to discontinue this project.]