If You Want To Play With The Sharks Part 2

So our pro-per third party defendant manages to file a reply brief. She still hasn't figured out she has to file a notice of hearing and praecipe.

Of course she titles it: "BRIEF DISPUTING THIRD‐PARTY PLANTIFF/DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THIRD‐PARTY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION"

Which isn't exactly correct it should be a reply brief, and she spelled Plaintiff wrong, but anyways.

The words she then uses and stuff she cites to really does not mean what she thinks it means.

She states that since the rule says fall actual allegations in our complaint against her are taken as true", shes argues since our allegations in t he complaint against her are in her opinion false they cant be factual. Not what that means nor how that works at all.


She claims because the judge denied our motion over the email that it means all her proffered her evidence now has precedential value. Yes, she underlined it. No, those words do not mean what she thinks they mean.

She also tries to get around the MCR 2.116(c)(8) standard she filed the motion under that she can't add exhibits and it just doesn't work she claims she has to file the exhibits as required by law (underlined and in bold, natch). The law cleanly states instead you can't attach exhibits to this kind of pleading,

She even starts citing to other filings shes made that have been rejected. Then of course she accuses us of being "perjurious" (underlined and in bold, natch) which apparently means we're alleging and raising facts she doesn't like, and then goes off on some really cool unrelated tangents into never-never land. She never gets around to claiming our complaint counts aren't legally cognizable, because they are in fact effective.

In short, no lawyer would file such a document because its garbage and pretty much malpractice to even do so, but pro pers keep getting away with it.

Might be the meds talking, but her brief is just hilarious and I almost hope the court lets us argue it even without her filing the notice of hearing and praecipe. Given I'm on meds I'm not going to do any actual legal work today, but reading that nonsense gave me some well enjoyed laughs.