Teh Daily Squeak

I sat down and reviewed the "Order to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Order to Dismiss" yesterday afternoon with my lawyer. I probably knew about it before Deb did ;-)

Deborah Ellen Frisch is very lucky Judge Thomas Coffin did not order her held in contempt, or charged with perjury, as her claim of In Forma Pauperis (legal term for "I'm indigent, no money, no gifts, no assets, can I please sue for free?") was straight-up perjury.

Someone is paying her bills (gas, car insurance (She is driving insured, right? Wouldn't want to break the law!), etc.).

Someone is dribbling her cash for incidentals.

Someone is providing her with a house, making payments on a mortgage.

All gifts. All easily documented.

For instance, it is a court-documented fact that her parents are paying for the alcoholism treatment, a clear "gift" under the law. One that she knowingly failed to report. One that all her plaintiffs knew about (or now know about [Deb - you are welcome!]).

The defendants were kind not to call her on it, as being charged with perjury on a federal document would have been a violation of her probation, clear cut. They might not be so kind, next time.

In fact, any one of them has that option, now, until the statute of limitations expires. They can have Deb charged with perjury at their whim. Delicious.

Deb is playing with fire when she plays lawyer. She will eventually get burned. Jail time, baby!

Exquisite irony when that finally happens. Heaping helpings of schadenfrisch for all!

Putting that aside, the core issue with Deb's suit is that public officials have an absolute immunity from civil tort under the law for all their actions, as long as their actions are legal.

Deb failed to show any instance of any public official breaking (or even bending) the law.

Bingo, frivolous - dismissed!

The police, the ADA, the City of Eugene, and the court treated her with kid gloves, and didn't go for the jugular. She doesn't appreciate how easy the courts have been on her, yet.

[Deb - Thanks for the chuckles, chucklehead!]

It is funny how Deb's moments of triumph always blow up in her face.

Heh.

Kirk

PS: There's no way of fixing this suit, unless Deb can identify a clearly illegal action on the part of the defendants, like murder, or acceptance of a bribe.

PPS: Made-up deb-world "actionable" stuff, like "he decided my case in less than five seconds", doesn't count. Sorry.
 

I'm thinking teh Deb's current and/or future victims will be grateful to for your comments, Large.

'Course, the Schlitz Shack™ is probably resonating with a high-pitched wail by now...
 

I'll point out, too, that, as a condition of her probation, she's to find a job, or enroll in school.

No evidence of either option is to be found in her court filings.

How long will the court let her skate on that one, I wonder?
 

Maybe this will help Deb:

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Opinions/Crunchberries.pdf

A woman sued The makers of "Capt'n Crunch" cereal because (after four years of consumption) she finally figured out that "crunchberries" were not actual berries.

From the dismissal:

"Under normal circumstances, when this Court grants a Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff is given a reasonable
period of time, usually twenty (20) days, in which to file an amended complaint. In this case, however, it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts. The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense.

The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

[bolding mine.]

That's a real dismissal, complete with bitchslap, not the "go away, you bother me" dismissal Deb got.

It should be noted that the plaintiff's lawyers had previously represented a different plaintiff in a case against the makers of "Fruit Loops" cereal.

Hat tip to www.loweringthebar.net for the pointer.