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
FACTAC, INC..
PLAINTIFF
V. ADV. NO. 05-5171-C
RICHARD WILLIS KING
DEFENDANT

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


SO ORDERED.
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
substance,Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote.