“intone a talismanic phrase” 💀
Isn’t that marvelous?
Tubalcain!
I rest my case.
Image info for screenreaders:
{Note: The case number has not been transcribed when it appears in the image. For coherence, the names DAVE (for Defendant) and JANE (as in “Jane Doe”, a common stand-in for a person’s real name in order to preserve their anonymity) for the opposing party will be substituted in places where it has been blocked out in the image. These names will appear in all caps where I have added them. As the document uses square brackets already, I will use curly brackets for my edits other than the name substitutions.}
Description: A printed document from a family court in New Hampshire with the court information (e.g. county, circuit, division) in the header. Centered text at the top states “In the Matter of JANE and DAVE” on one line, the case number is given on the second line and ‘Order on Defendant’s “Objection” (#31)’ is the third line. This is followed by a block of text with names partially obscured by digital edits.
Text block: This case is back before me on the defendant’s “Objection to order in case # {REDACTED}.” See Index #31. This filing is styled as an objection but seemingly does not correspond to any motion or request for relief filed by the opposing party, JANE. Instead, the content includes arcane legal terms and other references inapplicable to this type of proceeding. Construing this submission generously, it may be interpreted as either a motion to reconsider the court’s order [of protection – granted to JANE] or a challenge to the jurisdiction of this court (though it does not set forth what form of jurisdiction is being attacked). To the extent that this was intended as a motion to reconsider, that relief was denied on August 24th (see Order on Pleading #29) and this filing is thereby redundant, untimely and moot (as previously denied). To the extent that this was intended as a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, DAVE has failed to properly and specially appear in his own name, move to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds and/or offer cogent and controlling legal argument in support of such brevis disposition. As noted in the original order, the court welcomed relevant argument from DAVE during the final hearing, but he chose to intone a talismanic phrase and decline to otherwise participate; he could have and should have asserted specifically tailored jurisdictional argument at that time. As this latest filing is untimely, improperly formulated and now moot, this “objection” and any incorporated relief (i.e., his “order for this matter to be discharged with prejudice”) is therefore DENIED.
{End of text block}
OP, you’re welcome to paste this into the post description so it’s a little more accessible if you’d like.
Judicial snark is one of my favorite flavors of snark.
Thank you kind person.
That is probably the nicest, most professional way to declare that someone is bat-shit crazy.
This was way more courteous than I expected, they actually went ahead and answered to any possible intent they might have had underneath the delusional nonsense.
This is good judging. There is a general directive for judges to interpret the arguments and filings of non-lawyers with very generous interpretation of what they are trying to argue. This judge did their best and also shored up their case against an appeal. Not that this lunatic would be cogent enough to ever appeal a ruling.
It reminds me of when people adopt some kind of pseudoscientific language to justify some odd, unfounded theory of theirs, except in this case, they adopt a ‘legalieze’ language style.
Its a kind of mysticism around the use of language, like how latin and the written word were used to control people in the middle ages in Europe. Its a kind of not-understanding resulting in magical reverence for the thing. Like if you mash together the right combination of legal words and official sounding phrases, it magically causes some effect.