DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)

[ttystikk]

LOL.

"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"

"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".

"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."

"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."

MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Oh shit lol

 

[pabloesqobar]

Oh shit lol

But I'm sure the Judge doesn't know what he's talking about. Fin just needs to let him know he has won cases and studied the law for 6 years while he was evading Colorado authorities.

 

[cannabineer]

LOL.

"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"

"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".

"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."

"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."

MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

heeeeeeWACK.

 

[curious2garden]

LOL.

"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"

"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".

"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."

"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."

MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

He hit the judge with a wall of cut and paste and the judge spanked his delusional ass and sent him packing WHAT a laugh. Fin if you quote precedent you have to MAKE THE ARGUMENT about how it APPLIES to what you are alleging. If you just quote and paste you piss people off. Just thank the lord you were not in front of him.

 

[qwizoking]

If you just quote and paste you piss people off

But it worked so well on riu


Way to go fin
You now have documentation you Cray.
File now. Remember back pay back pay back oay

 

[BarnBuster]

LOL.

"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"

"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".

"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."

"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."

MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

thanks, Pablo, glad i didn't waste my money on PACER

 

[Finshaggy]

You are seriously delusional. So you agree it's not certified, after just saying it was. Judges don't "accept" cases for filing, the clerk does. The Judge hasn't read your lawsuit, no need to until a motion has been filed. Even then, he won't read all of what you put in there. The vast majority of it is irrelevant and subject to a motion to strike.

Counsel must be appointed to represent the interests of the class. This must be a very experienced lawyer that has done this before. It's 100% mandatory. And those lawyers will cost hundreds of thousands. You are not legally allowed to represent the class, or anyone for that matter. You are not counsel, unless you are a licensed lawyer. This is basic stuff.

Do you have the names and addresses of the class members? Notice will need to be mailed to each one of them, letting them know of the lawsuit and giving them the option to opt out of the lawsuit.

You seem confused about 23(a), look up the Goldfish class action lawsuit about Soybeans or the Mesothelioma Class Action lawsuit. A Class can include people that don't even realize they are in the class. This class is way to big to name everyone.

LOL.

"The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)"

"The court first notes that Plaintiff's Complaint is somewhat incoherent. The body of Plaintiff's Complaint is 49 pages long, but at least 43 pages are comprised of block quotations from various cases, statutes, and international sources. However, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the quotations support any of his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how the facts he has provided support or relate to his causes of action".

"Despite the Complaint's length, Plaintiff provides little to no coherent factual basis for his claims."

"Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a single cause of action that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed."

MARK LANE
UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I will be going up there tomorrow. It was just a complaint, I haven't even submitted everything yet. And first off, is this the DEA Lawsuit or the Austin PD Lawsuit. Because if this is the Austin PD Lawsuit, I said myself (in this thread) that it wasn't written for Federal court and that I didn't have a single cause of action section on there and that it had to be rewritten. So if this is the Austin PD lawsuit, everything that judge said I actually said myself just a few days ago.

If that is the DEA Lawsuit:
First,
Read Cruz V Beto. I will bring it up there for them tomorrow. And the fact that he said it was incoherent sounds like colusion. The DEA and DOJ and pretty much every news agency knows about this case, and it is clearly not incoherent. They all understand it. So for a judge to claim the DEA lawsuit is incoherent, that would have to be colusion. If it is the Austin PD Lawsuit, I completely understand, because I expected to just argue everything in the Municipal Court, but they decided to take it to Federal.

Second,
I haven't shown them Normaco V DEA yet, or the DOJ Statements, or the DEA's statements that support my case. That will all go up there tomorrow. So, if somehow they are actually just missing the coherency of the argument, it will be revealed to them tomorrow. They see me as some guy that is saying the DEA is running a Monopoly. But when I go up there tomorrow with Documents where the DEA themselves say they have been running a Monopoly, as well as the DOJ and the Federal District Court in DC, they will have a better understanding.

And,
If it were dismissed without prejudice, it would not be hard to reopen once I present this stuff to them. And I don't even have to provide a reason for refiling it.

You keep acting like any time something is filed like they got me.
You did the same thing when they filed a scheduling order. This is not irregular. They just expect it to all be in one document. I was just filing a complaint though, the supporting case law is not even in there yet.

So calm down, and stop acting like they beat me by filing something when you know they didn't, but you wish they did.

Also,
Third,
If this is the DEA lawsuit, you realize that in one post you say "They won't even read it until after the summons are filed" and then the very next post you proved yourself wrong, by quoting a judge that had read it. So I don't even see why you think you are such a great source of know how, when you literally in one post say that they won't do something and in the next post quote where they did what you say they don't do. Lol

 

[Finshaggy]

He hit the judge with a wall of cut and paste and the judge spanked his delusional ass and sent him packing WHAT a laugh. Fin if you quote precedent you have to MAKE THE ARGUMENT about how it APPLIES to what you are alleging. If you just quote and paste you piss people off. Just thank the lord you were not in front of him.

Lol. All I copied and pasted was quotes from the Supreme Court. Again, they see me as some guy that is saying the DEA is a Monopoly. They have not yet read where the DEA, DOJ and Federal District of DC say the same exact stuff I am saying.

You realize what "Dismissed without prejudice" means, right?

And I understand I have to make the argument, that is being done tomorrow. I didn't submit everything yet. There is way more that I have to submit.

 

[Finshaggy]

But it worked so well on riu


Way to go fin
You now have documentation you Cray.
File now. Remember back pay back pay back oay

You have documentation that a judge can make suggestions. Nothing has happened yet, and I am submitting the rest tomorrow. The fact that Pablo posted that as if it was a death blow shows that he has no idea what is going on here, especially when right before quoting a judge that read the complaint, he said that no judge would have read the complaint yet. Lol

Just give it like 2-3 days, and watch what Pablo is saying then. He won't be agreeing with me, because he wishes I was wrong, but he is going to be talking about how it is moving forward and trying to find new ways to make it seem like I am losing.

 

[pabloesqobar]

LOL.

 

[Finshaggy]

LOL.

So you forgot I had 2 lawsuits and don't want to talk about it?
That's cool. But you do realize that you spoke too soon, in both the situation where you said no one would read it yet, and where you quoted the judge.

In a few days you will either be singing a different tune or you will disappear though, so I am not concerned if you admit your mistake. Nothing you have posted here was a surprise.

 

[pabloesqobar]

Relax Fin, I made all of that up. Your DEA lawsuit is just fine. Of course no Judge would ever say it's "incoherent". That's just rude.

Oh, they certified it too. Nothing for you to worry about.

Good luck!

 

[Finshaggy]

Relax Fin, I made all of that up. Your DEA lawsuit is just fine. Of course no Judge would ever say it's "incoherent". That's just rude.

Oh, they certified it too. Nothing for you to worry about.

Good luck!

I can't tell if you were making things up or if you are making things up now, but either way, it is premature for anyone, you or a judge, to judge this case yet. I haven't even submitted the main precedent, Normaco V DEA. Any time someone reads that they are like "Oh". Because at first they think "This is insane for someone to try to claim. The DEA is a Monopoly? They are illegal drugs" then they read Normaco V DEA and are like "Wow, so this has already been to court and both the court and the DOJ have said that there is a Monopoly. There is something to this.".

So whether you were lying then or you are lying now, nothing should be judged until after I get the main argument submitted to the court. And that happens tomorrow.

 

[pabloesqobar]

I agree. You didn't include enough when you filed it. Don't just cite the case name . . . they need to see the entire case quoted. That way you know they'll have to read it.

 

[Finshaggy]

I agree. You didn't include enough when you filed it. Don't just cite the case name . . . they need to see the entire case quoted. That way you know they'll have to read it.

I just quote the important parts. The claim isn't just me claiming "They screwed me" like a common lawsuit, I am claiming that they are violating various decisions. So I put all the most important parts of various cases in the claim, and now I am going to bring in the main precedent and DEA, DOJ documents that back up everything I am saying, so that they can see that not only are all of these things brought up in the first claim being violated, but the DOJ and Federal Court has told them to stop doing it before, and the DEA themselves tried to stop part of it this August, so they admitted to it in August. But it having been changed in August does not make up for the years of problems they have caused before they corrected themselves.

And Normaco V DEA was in 2004. So they have had years to solve this. Doing it this August is way too late, and doesn't fix any of the problems that it is causing with Religion.

 

[Finshaggy]

I am still not sure if what you posted was really what a judge said, but the main reason a judge would have said that is because they have not seen Normaco V DEA yet. That literally changes everyone's opinion. I know how crazy it sounds to say the DEA is running a drug Monopoly, I admit it sounds crazy. But the DOJ and Federal District Court of DC said it before me. The only thing I am adding to it is that if these Monopolies get exemptions, and these companies that are supposed to be allowed in to end the Monopoly should get exemptions, then Religion also needs an exemption according to the Free Exercise Clause. They can't make laws that allow a Corporate entity to do things that a Religion is not allowed to do.

 

[Finshaggy]

Oh, and btw, I talked to a lawyer on the phone today about it, and he said its good, and that I can probably win the whole thing in mediation.

 

[pabloesqobar]

There is way more that I have to submit.

That's the ticket. I don't know how long your lawsuit is, but the more you can put in there the better. Bury them in paperwork, leave nothing out. That way they'll be too busy to go thru all of it.

 

[Finshaggy]

That's the ticket. I don't know how long your lawsuit is, but the more you can put in there the better. Bury them in paperwork, leave nothing out. That way they'll be too busy to go thru all of it.

That's another thing. Usually when a Judge gets a long case, they automatically assume the person is being frivolous. But he recognized that it wasn't frivolous, and instead used the word (if what you said is true) "Incoherent" which means that he completely recognize that it wasn't frivolous, but wasn't able to comprehend it.

So if he really said "It is long, but it is incoherent" is almost like an Oxymoronic statement. As if the longer it is, the more coherent it is, but that is usually the opposite, as usually a long case that didn't have anything in it would be frivolous, but he used the word incoherent. Which is just an odd thing to do. It implies that he recognized it wasn't frivolous, but then quotes the law that says something is frivolous.

But none of that is really important. There will be a new Document, as well as Summons, submitted to the court tomorrow. So this is all pointless to discuss.

And just because you pointed out that a Judge may have said that, I put all the main points together in a document that is just 4 pages. So they won't have any trouble comprehending it this time. And again, it's just weird that he would act as if length is usually a merit. The way he phrased it was like "Though it is long, it is incoherent". That really just makes no sense. When has length ever been a merit? And I know it's long, but that is just because there is a lot to it.

Maybe he was just busy that day and got confused by it and assumed I was a Sovereign Citizen or something like you did.

 

[Finshaggy]

And I am probably going to go up there first thing in the morning. So you will probably be able to see it filed by noon.