In the anonymous blogger case pending before Judge Cooke, The Kluginator has filed a little document known in legal circles as a "Rule 11 motion."
Here is the blockbuster opening paragraph:
Defendant and his counsel have misapplied existing law in Defendant’s Counter-Complaint. To begin with, Defendant cannot maintain the Counter-Complaint under the fictitious name “John Doe” and be permitted to use his anonymity as both a sword and a shield. Moreover, Defendant and his counsel have asserted duplicative counts for declaratory relief that fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and are merely denials of the properly dismissed Count III, rendering the Counter-Complaint moot and therefore seeks an improper advisory opinion from this Court. Further, Defendant’s Counter-Complaint is a clear attempt at forum-shopping and judge shopping. Despite having proper notice of the frivolousness of their positions, Defendant and his counsel have refused to withdraw the Defendant’s Counter-Complaint [D.E. 1]. Accordingly, sanctions should be imposed against Defendant and his counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.Ok, I agree none of that sounds too hot, but on the other hand that's pretty much a day in the life at any given moment in state court.
What am I missing here?
(I sure hope they met and conferred on this one!)