http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 03:58:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/comment-page-1/#comment-5146 Ted Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:30:46 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4330#comment-5146 <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/my_own_thoughts_on_tyler_v_car.html" rel="nofollow">I discuss the case further on Overlawyered Dec. 25</a>. I discuss the case further on Overlawyered Dec. 25.

]]> http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/comment-page-1/#comment-5145 David Nieporent Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:44:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4330#comment-5145 Nobody ever accused me of not having a sense of humor, but I don't find this case nearly as funny as you guys. This isn't a frivolous case like women who claim that "Eenie Meenie Minie Moe" should get them money; this is a case where the plaintiff is obviously an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic. Nobody ever accused me of not having a sense of humor, but I don’t find this case nearly as funny as you guys. This isn’t a frivolous case like women who claim that “Eenie Meenie Minie Moe” should get them money; this is a case where the plaintiff is obviously an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic.

]]> http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/comment-page-1/#comment-5144 David Giacalone Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:10:28 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4330#comment-5144 There are two important points about this case: 1) it's age helps demonstrate how rare such silly <i>pro se</i> cases are in reality; 2) the Judge Haight did the right thing -- he threw the case out <i>sua sponte</i> as frivolous, noting "A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense." There are two important points about this case: 1) it’s age helps demonstrate how rare such silly pro se cases are in reality; 2) the Judge Haight did the right thing — he threw the case out sua sponte as frivolous, noting “A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense.”

]]> http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/comment-page-1/#comment-5143 E-Bell Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:15:12 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4330#comment-5143 The classics never get old. The classics never get old.

]]> http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/teri-smith-tyler-v-carter-pro-se/comment-page-1/#comment-5142 Ted Frank Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:06:26 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4330#comment-5142 I think I'm the one responsible for popularizing this case, <a href="http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1994/1994ABR.html" rel="nofollow">first posting about it on Usenet on January 21, 1994, ten weeks after the case came out.</a> Someone took the trouble to type it in (in the pre-linking days, sneakerware was the only way to provide court cases on the Internet) on alt.conspiracy in response to my post, and I then copied it to <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.lawsch-l/msg/e2631fb340dc1e3a?dmode=source&hl=en" rel="nofollow">the old LAWSCH-L list on January 24, 1994</a>. I think I’m the one responsible for popularizing this case, first posting about it on Usenet on January 21, 1994, ten weeks after the case came out. Someone took the trouble to type it in (in the pre-linking days, sneakerware was the only way to provide court cases on the Internet) on alt.conspiracy in response to my post, and I then copied it to the old LAWSCH-L list on January 24, 1994.

]]>