Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Motion to Strike Scandalous Matter from Record

Expand Messages
  • Gary D
    GARY DREW FORD’S REQUEST TO STRIKE SCANDALOUS MATTER Plaintiff, object to the way in which Counsel has couched his words in his motion to dismiss pursuant to
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

       

      GARY DREW FORD’S REQUEST TO STRIKE SCANDALOUS MATTER

                  Plaintiff, object to the way in which Counsel has couched his words in his motion

      to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P 12 (f)(2) and moves this court accordingly.

      A.  Introduction

      1.    Plaintiff is Gary Drew Ford; defendant is Angelo L. Martinez et al.

      2.    Plaintiff sued defendant for 1983 etc.

      3.    Defendants filed F.R.C.P. 12 (b) Motion to Dismiss, in which Plaintiff objects to

      the material due to its scandalous nature.

      4.    Plaintiff sought Defendant Counsel to remove this voluntary with having to have

      the court intervene, however this proved unfruitful.

      B.  Argument

      5.    A court may on its own or otherwise grant to strike from a pleading an

      Scandalous matter. See (f) MOTION TO STRIKE. The court may strike from a

      pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

      scandalous matter. The court may act:

      (1) on its own; or

      (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a

      response is not allowed, within 20 days after being served with the pleading.

      For purposes of Rule 12, a pleading or portion thereof qualifies as "scandalous" when it

      "generally refers to any allegation that unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of an

      individual or states anything in repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the

      court." 224 F.R.D. at 263 (citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[3] at 12-97.)

      6.       The word "strike" means "to expunge, as from a record." Blacks Law

      Dictionary, 1436 (7th ed.1999). "Expunge" means "to erase or destroy." Id. at 603. Thus,

      under the plain meaning of the word, the power to "strike" material from the record is the

      power to remove the material from the record. The scant interpretation of the equivalent

      federal rule, FRCP 12(f), that we have been able to find is in accord with our

      interpretation of CR 12.06 and the word "strike." See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice

      and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 1380 (Under motion to strike pursuant to FRCP 12(f)

      "scandalous allegations and matters of this type often will be stricken from the pleadings

      in order to purge the court's files and protect the subject of the allegations.") (emphasis

      added); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir.1995) (stating in dicta that

      a federal district court may control access to its records by striking a pleading as

      scurrilous).

              Therefore, we hold that the power to "strike" material from a court's record

      embraces the power to physically remove the stricken material from that court's

      record.

       

      7.    The court should grant Plaintiff’s request to strike from the record the following

      words:

      a)                  "Telepathic"

      b)         "on behalf of"   Property A Management

      c)         "corrupt Delaware County Bar"

       

             Plaintiff never used those words in his pleading and for Defendants counsel to

      proports they as such are scandalous.

      “All the magic you possess based on your word. Your word is pure magic,

      and misuse of your word is black magic.” Don Miguel Ruiz

      C.  Conclusion

      8.    This request to strike the following words in paragraphs seven (7) a-c would be

      consistence with the fairness.

                                                                  D. Judicial Notice

           9.   This statement exhibits a certain confusion regarding the proper role of a judge. A

      central tenet of our republic - a characteristic that separates us from totalitarian regimes

      throughout the world - is that the government and private citizens resolve disputes on an

      equal playing field in the courts. When citizens face the government in the federal courts,

      the job of the judge is to apply the law, not to bolster the government's case." Beaty v.

      United States, 937 F.2d 288, 293 (6th Cir. 1991)

       

          10.  Please take note all officers of the court who many come in contact with the matter

      of Gary Drew Ford v Martinez et al are noticed under authority of the supremacy and

      equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law

      authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and

      Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).

      In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims.

      In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.

      In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated.

       

                  Respectfully submitted,

       

                                                                                          _____________________________

                                                                                          Gary Drew Ford, Sui juris

      Dated:

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I, Gary Drew Ford, state that a true and correct copy of the within Motion was

      served upon the attorney of record via USPS on this _____ day of August, 2009:

       

                                                      Michael P. Laffey, Esquire

                                                      One olive Street

                                                      Media, PA 19063

       

                 

       

                                                                                                      _______________________ 

                                                                                                      Gary Drew Ford

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.