As Magistrate Judge Brown continues to weigh the evidence and come to a ruling in the epic broken yacht saga, pro se plaintiff Peter Halmos seeks to be (re)heard over a long-simmering document sanctions issue.
Here are some choice snippets from his reply:
Plaintiffs have been sanctioned and, among others, denied their rights to fully and fàirly present their case due to their alleged inability to rebut ACE et al's Fed R Civ. P 60(b)(3) prevarications.2And here's footnote 2:
About 50% of the 1,400 docket entries in this case relate to ACE et al.'s Rule 60(b)(3) planned and carefully executed schemes "directed at the judicial machinery itself . . . where the impartial function of the court have been directly corrupted.'' (Id. 4) See Motion for Relief, pp. 17-19.The "impartial function of the court have been directly corrupted"?
Oh boy -- you better be careful before whom you file something like that.
1 comments:
it's not true that this case has been delayed for so many reasons? rare is that I hear this kind of news now, but I trust 100% if you say this kind of news.
Post a Comment