Spoons:
I found his petition confusing, so I searched to see if there was some additional background information. I found it here , for those who are interested.
Incidentally, from the link, it appears that the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition. That’s not so surprising; what is surprising is that the Court did not mention the nature of the petition at all.
I LOVE the story underneath that one – at least 6 people singing “My Way” at kareoke bars in the Philippines have been murdered for singing it badly.
bump
October 28, 2010, 9:55pm
22
There’s a reason for the saying that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
silenus
October 28, 2010, 10:01pm
23
Better yet was the commentary that John Denver kareoke is “practically a war crime.”
Spoons:
I found his petition confusing, so I searched to see if there was some additional background information. I found it here , for those who are interested.
Incidentally, from the link, it appears that the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition. That’s not so surprising; what is surprising is that the Court did not mention the nature of the petition at all.
From Spoons’ link, it says that the guy went on to file for certiorari with the Supremes, but that was turned down on October 4. Is there anyway to find the certiorari filing and see if he put them on notice too?
Despite being from a different country and profession, I was highly entertained by the whole Orly Taitz saga, especially this minor masterpiece of amply justified judicial crabbiness.
*One can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the issue in our courts. Although counsel’s present concern is the location of the President’s birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday … If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate? Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.[sup]7[/sup]
[sup]7[/sup]The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a ‘round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,’ asserted that the President is not human.*
I think that may be my favorite footnote, ever.
I’ve represented about half a dozen lawyers in various matters in the past 20 years, and taken the depositions of another dozen. Lawyers are just as bad as general run of the mill members of the public when handling their own cases. But not really any worse. Engineers are the ones who cannot be convinced that their proposed course is unwise because they are always correct.
And yes, the occasional pleading from a nut is enjoyable, provided you don’t have to oppose it. I’ve currently got a vexatious litigant on the other side who got past the clerk’s office and it is a pain in the ass.
Aside from the profanity and what appears to be a lack of a colorable claim, this Motion is grammatically correct. I think he is bathshit crazy, but at least I understand what he is claiming.
I’ve got one that may be worse. The one I have doesn’t use profanity or insulting language, but is written by someone who doesn’t seem to speak English very well. I’ve had to file a demurrer since I can’t really tell who the parties are, in what capacity they are being sued, and what the cause of action is. Two attorneys have looked at it and have two different opinions as to what he is suing for.
Malthus
October 29, 2010, 2:45pm
29
I’ve actually participated in a minor way as an articling student, in a case in which a litigant argued that he was a Martian. His claim was that the College of Dentistry and the CIA were conspiring to 'destroy" him because he was, genetically, a Martian.
The case was dismissed in a summary manner - on the usual frivolous and vexatious grounds, and on the alternative basis that only corporations and humans can sue in Ontario …
So there you have it: actual precedent that Martians cannot sue in Ontario.
[Case provided on request]
Gorsnak
October 29, 2010, 3:04pm
30
Malthus:
I’ve actually participated in a minor way as an articling student, in a case in which a litigant argued that he was a Martian. His claim was that the College of Dentistry and the CIA were conspiring to 'destroy" him because he was, genetically, a Martian.
The case was dismissed in a summary manner - on the usual frivolous and vexatious grounds, and on the alternative basis that only corporations and humans can sue in Ontario …
So there you have it: actual precedent that Martians cannot sue in Ontario.
[Case provided on request]
That may be legally correct, but it’s a grave moral injustice perpetrated on Martians!
Malthus:
I’ve actually participated in a minor way as an articling student, in a case in which a litigant argued that he was a Martian. His claim was that the College of Dentistry and the CIA were conspiring to 'destroy" him because he was, genetically, a Martian.
The case was dismissed in a summary manner - on the usual frivolous and vexatious grounds, and on the alternative basis that only corporations and humans can sue in Ontario …
So there you have it: actual precedent that Martians cannot sue in Ontario.
[Case provided on request]
Please tell me his name was Marvin.
Spoons:
I found his petition confusing, so I searched to see if there was some additional background information. I found it here , for those who are interested.
Incidentally, from the link, it appears that the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition. That’s not so surprising; what is surprising is that the Court did not mention the nature of the petition at all.
Perhaps the Court should have addressed the nature of the petition by referring to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram .
Malthus
October 29, 2010, 3:18pm
33
Sadly, no. His first name was Rene.
The cite is Joly v. Pelletier , [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (Ont. S.C.). From the headnote:
This was an application by the defendant Pelletier and others to strike out two related actions. The plaintiff Joly claimed to be a Martian. He argued that Pelletier and the other defendants conspired to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely. The defendants argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action and that the actions were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
HELD: Application allowed. No cause of action was disclosed in the pleadings. Joly could not be a plaintiff under the Rules if he was neither a human being nor a corporation. Furthermore, the claims were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. It was plain and obvious that the actions could not succeed. The pleadings made unreasonable aspersions and did not present rational arguments. The actions were patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, the pleadings were defective in so far as the tort of conspiracy had not been properly pleaded, no damages had been claimed and a number of the parties joined as defendants were not proper legal entities.
The first problem for the Court was that the plaintiff wasn’t obviously nuts:
As another preliminary matter, I should indicate that given the unusual nature of the plaintiff’s claims, a discussion took place at the beginning of argument as to whether I should order that a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules of Civil procedure for a determination as to whether the plaintiff was in a position properly to represent his interests on the motions or whether a litigation guardian should be appointed. As a result of this issue having been raised, I arranged for a reporter to record the proceedings and the plaintiff agreed to testify under oath and answer certain questions posed by Mr. Novak, counsel who appeared on behalf of a number of the defendants. At the conclusion of this form of hearing and having considered the submissions made, I determined that there was no reason to delay the argument of the motions. I made the observation that in every respect Mr. Joly properly conducted himself before the Court. He presented himself as polite, articulate, intelligent and appeared to understand completely the issues before the Court and the consequences should I grant the relief sought. There was nothing before me, other than the uniqueness of the pleadings in question, for me, on my own volition, to adjourn, pending a hearing to determine if Mr. Joly is under some form of disability.
Some background: at the time, in Ontario it was really, really tough to get something dismissed on a summary basis over a factual dispute. Whether the plaintiff was a “Martian” and whether there was a “conspiracy” are both questions of fact - but the judge did not want the expense of a trial. Hence, dismissing the case over a pleadings deficiency and standing …
Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.
Not even our favorite Martians?
Spoons
October 29, 2010, 4:03pm
35
Thank you. I actually studied that case in law school; and since I first read this thread, spent more than a little time trying to find it again. No luck; I couldn’t remember the parties’ names, and a Canlii search on “Martian” didn’t yield it. So your cite is much appreciated–thanks again!
Spoons
October 29, 2010, 4:08pm
36
Unfortunately for Martians, being an alien from outer space is not yet a protected ground under any human rights legislation in Canada.
Although if it ever becomes a protected ground, I suppose they’ll have to call the resulting statute something other than “human” rights legislation.
Malthus
October 29, 2010, 4:17pm
37
Spoons:
Thank you. I actually studied that case in law school; and since I first read this thread, spent more than a little time trying to find it again. No luck; I couldn’t remember the parties’ names, and a Canlii search on “Martian” didn’t yield it. So your cite is much appreciated–thanks again!
Heh, it’s one of my favorite war-stories, even though my actual participation was minimal - one student memo.
ENugent
October 29, 2010, 4:19pm
38
Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.
Does this mean that he could recommence the action by incorporating and then claiming that they discriminate against Martian corporations?
