DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)

Discussion in 'Legal Edge' started by Finshaggy, Oct 20, 2016.


    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    Yes, it will.
    srh88 and curious2garden like this.

    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    And . . . DISMISSED. LOL.
    DemonTrich, srh88 and curious2garden like this.

    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    Never seen such harsh language from a Judge:

    "The United States Magistrate Judge adequately describes his allegations and rantings. He specifies no specific cause of action, only editorializing and surrounding each of his opinions with meaningless legal citations."

    "Present before the Court is his Motion to Certify a Class pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Again, Mr. ________ failed to specify in his pleadings any legitimate class that any federal judge could certify, particularly in light of his pleadings."


    curious2garden Well-Known Member

    DemonTrich, srh88, see4 and 1 other person like this.

    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    6 years of studying the law . . down the drain.
    Fogdog, srh88, curious2garden and 2 others like this.

    see4 Well-Known Member

    Hey Finspoogy!! Can I bang your sister?

    farmerfischer Well-Known Member

    :yawn: where's pinny? I'm getting split ends..

    qwizoking Well-Known Member

    You made that judge your bitch right?
    You beat another case?

    Let's hear what happened

    See if judge Judy will take your case

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member


    The Lawsuit Against Austin still stands, but I think I am going to let it just get dismissed because I am no longer in Austin and going there for court isn't practical.

    The Lawsuit against the DEA and Mallinckrodt et al. was "Dismissed without Prejudice" meaning that it can be brought again, and they just want more proof. So I will be refiling it with the Federal District Court in Dallas, and will specifically target the DEA, using Mallinckrodt et al as evidence instead of Defendants. They just didn't want to bring a case against Pharmaceutical companies unless they were directly involved, rather than them being the beneficiaries of the problem.
    This lawsuit will more specifically describe the Monopoly, due to their desire not to summons the whole illegal Monopoly ring.

    I am almost certain that this case was ignored, but that's just one judge that ignored it. It will be recognized.

    And here are a few more for them

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    You know how Snowden revealed the NSA's PRISM program? Where they are collecting meta data and Facebook posts, etc. When the Snowden movie came out, I submitted a FOIA/EPCA request to get all my records, and I just got a response from the NSA. The main point/sentence said "We can neither confirm or deny" the existence of records. So while we are told we can request our records, apparently that doesn't mean we can actually get them. It also says I can appeal the decision though, so I'll be doing that next.
    4ftRoots and ttystikk like this.

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Keep kicking that anthill and sooner or later something will happen.

    Whether it's something you WANT to happen is an entirely different question.

    I'm still subscribed, perhaps now more out of morbid curiosity to see what happens when you prod the American Security State too hard.

    redzi Well-Known Member

    USFL vs. NFL, USFL said NFL was a monopoly, they won their case and was awarded....drum roll please......... 1 dollar.
    ttystikk likes this.

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    That's because we in the midst of a Grand American Experiment- in corruption.

    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    And, Dismissed. Like every single one of Finshaggy's frivolous lawsuits.

    On February 8, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 9, 2018, after the magistrate judge issued his Report, Plaintiff amended his pleadings to assert what appears to be a claim against Defendant Demetra Ashley in her official capacity as an executive employed by the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, Diversion Control Division. Plaintiff also filed objections to the Report on February 9 and 12, 2018. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, and having conducting a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, overrules Plaintiff’s objections, and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the same reason, the court denies without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction the miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff in this case (Docs. 14-20, 29). Further, Order – Page 1 Case 3:17-cv-00734-L-BN Document 31 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1048 Plaintiff’s amended pleading (Doc. 28), adding Demetra Ashley as a Defendant, does not cure the jurisdictional deficiencies noted in the Report. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). The court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 6th day of April, 2017.

    Or, in other words, if Fin were to attempt an appeal, he would face sanctions.
    curious2garden, kelly4 and srh88 like this.

    ChefKimbo Well-Known Member

    Need to read in between the lines.

    Lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this case simply means he never had the standing to sue.

    This must be addressed. And is the sole reason that the court was able to certify any further action would be in bad faith.

    "Jurisdictional deficiencies"

    Fubard Well-Known Member

    I'm so glad I jumped to the last page after reading the first one, it would have been enough to turn Martha Stewart into a serial killer.

    How much time and money has this loon squandered on this beautiful example of wasting time?
    DemonTrich and dangledo like this.

Share This Page