I sent them a memorandum to fineagle and reassess, along with my stamped proof of residual sentience, but they haven't gotten back to me about my right to reconnoiter.
You mean a private, unincorporated natural graduated zygote? Oh absolutely. Just let me get the notary of Registror the Imperative and a gallon of matriculated justifier.
And unclean hands, which is lawyer for "you did this to yourself".
And failure to mitigate, which is legalese for "and then you kept making it worse.
And doctrine of laches, which is courtroom talk for "and then you proceeded to ignore the problem until is bit you in the ass, before you finally tried to sue."
Thanks for the extra details, I love their certainty the their process means there's 'no argument'. This guy's going to get a fascinating leason in court.
It rather brings to mind the quote from Pauli: "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", in that it's such utter nonsense that it makes no sense in the context.
Requesting dismissal with prejudice is just a great detail. If granted, and the plaintiff tries to bring another suit for the same events, they’ll basically be told to GTFO.
He probably named them individually in the suit in addition to the company. One could argue he’s alleging that the named parties all personally engaged in towing his vehicle.
Classic SovCit "logic", can't be held responsible for their actions because that was the company set up in their name not their living person, but then tries to hold a company and other individual persons responsible for shit they don't like
It's actually not that weird to do this. You just scattershot everyone involved and let them figure out who acted on behalf of whom. If you don't, the company could just say "hey, these guys are self-employed and just lease our impound yard" and you'd have to file a whole new suit.
It's always just a bunch of word salad.
I sent them a memorandum to fineagle and reassess, along with my stamped proof of residual sentience, but they haven't gotten back to me about my right to reconnoiter.
Hey can I get you to co-sign my writ of certification certifying that I’m a former and current eukaryote?
You mean a private, unincorporated natural graduated zygote? Oh absolutely. Just let me get the notary of Registror the Imperative and a gallon of matriculated justifier.
Don’t forget to CC the Grand Admiral of the Ocean so he can certify my validity and bona fides for use in the Admirality Court.
That's how magic spells sound to non-magic users. Like all magic their shit is also made up.
luckily us real magic users use the proper and serious terminology
like "pinkily piggily dee, a fiddly tiddly tee, make me a sausage sandwich and a nice cuppa tea"
Piggiliy diddly dee, I sent them a notice of opportunity with cure.
that's official government talk for "you're a dumbass on purpose"
And unclean hands, which is lawyer for "you did this to yourself".
And failure to mitigate, which is legalese for "and then you kept making it worse.
And doctrine of laches, which is courtroom talk for "and then you proceeded to ignore the problem until is bit you in the ass, before you finally tried to sue."
Also known as "I'm suffering from the consequences of my actions"
Is it a requirement that these native English speakers barely speak english?
If they understood what words meant, they wouldn't be SovCits.
They definitely aren't too bright.
Thanks for the extra details, I love their certainty the their process means there's 'no argument'. This guy's going to get a fascinating leason in court.
They always assure each other they're right, and they're always wrong.
It rather brings to mind the quote from Pauli: "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", in that it's such utter nonsense that it makes no sense in the context.
Will he, though?
17 lessons in fact.
Notary's milking these guys dry, and the judge only matters until they rule against this poor dude.
Requesting dismissal with prejudice is just a great detail. If granted, and the plaintiff tries to bring another suit for the same events, they’ll basically be told to GTFO.
Soooo he didn’t even go after the correct towing company.
He probably named them individually in the suit in addition to the company. One could argue he’s alleging that the named parties all personally engaged in towing his vehicle.
Classic SovCit "logic", can't be held responsible for their actions because that was the company set up in their name not their living person, but then tries to hold a company and other individual persons responsible for shit they don't like
It's actually not that weird to do this. You just scattershot everyone involved and let them figure out who acted on behalf of whom. If you don't, the company could just say "hey, these guys are self-employed and just lease our impound yard" and you'd have to file a whole new suit.
That reminds me I need to run to the store to pick up some more silents.
Slients*