A couple of really great court rulings I came across recently.
The first is rather simple, coming to us from a personal bankruptcy case in Texas, and speaks for itself, with the real meat being contained in the footnote:
United States Bankruptcy Court
Western District of Texas
San Antonio Division
IN RE BANKR. CASE NO.
RICHARD WILLIS KING 05-56485-C
DEBTOR CHAPTER 7
V. ADV. NO. 05-5171-C
RICHARD WILLIS KING
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
Before the court is a motion entitled “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.” Doc. #7. As background, this
adversary was commenced on December 14, 2005 with the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint objecting
to the debtor’s discharge. (Doc. #1).
Defendant answered the complaint on January 12, 2006. Doc. #3.
Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s answer on January 26, 2006. Doc. #6. On February 3, 2006,
Defendant filed the above entitled motion.
The court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant’s legal argument, nor can
the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant’s motion
is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible.1
SIGNED this 21 day of February, 2006.
LEIF M. CLARK
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
1 Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler’s title character in the movie, “Billy Madison,” after
Billy Madison had responded to a question with an answer that sounded superficially reasonable but lacked any
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've
ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything
that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now
dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy
on your soul.
Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote.