In his third count, the plaintiff alleges that,
“[t]estimony will reveal that Officers of the Political Defendants did all approach Plaintiff in a menacing and threatening manner, and did put their hands on him as he tried to roll video. He was placed in serious apprehension of his safety.” Amended Complaint, at p. 19. A promise to provide facts to support a claim does not come close to meeting the requirements of Rule 8. Moreover, the acts depicted on the plaintiff’s imbedded video cannot, as a matter of law, constitute assault.
Oh, really Counselor? Well first of all, there were more acts than shown in the embedded video but we will need Discovery to get into that won't we? Moreover:
United States v. Lee, 199 F.3d 16; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32449 (1st Cir. Mass, 1999) Appendix___
1 comments:
it is simply amazing the bullshit that big-shot lawyers get away with. You can see right here that my pleading met the standard because I generally know WTF I am doing.
And what I am doing right now is putting this crap down because there are two Cardinals in the backyard film and pictures at 11.
C
Post a Comment