Law Religion Culture Review

Exploring the intersections of law, religion and culture. Copyright by Richard J. Radcliffe. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006


It's probably a good idea to file briefs judges can comprehend. Example:

"Before the court is a motion entitled “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.” As background, this adversary was commenced on December 14, 2005 with the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge. Defendant answered the complaint on January 12, 2006. Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s answer on January 26, 2006. On February 3, 2006, Defendant filed the above entitled motion. The court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant’s legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible." (Emphasis supplied.)

This is not a legal innovation to deny a motion as "incomprehensible." I handled a case some years ago where a pro per or pro se plaintiff (one representing himself) filed lengthy screeds that might as well as been written in Greek. He would cut and paste legal treatises that might or might not have any relation to the general topic area at issue. I remember one hearing where the Judge said to him as charitably as possible: "I can hear that words are coming out of your mouth. I perceive they are English. However, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Denied."

(Via (TM). Note: both the full order and the underlying motion are linked to the good professor's site.)