[rubyruby27]

Have a poster that has been accused of having a ghost writer and they have 8 days now to respond.

The plaintiff's attorney is motioning to strike counterclaims and affirmative defenses because they don't understand them or they weren't written properly.

Yes, you read what I wrote correctly, what does one do?

[centex]

Did they have a ghost writer? In other words, IS there shadow counsel?

[roybean]

Usually you get acused of a ghost writer when you've written your pleadings pretty good. Not the other way around.

[Qtip]

was wondering what ghost writting was.

[roybean]

They are basically saying that you couldn't have written the pleadings presented on your own and that an attorney had to have helped you write them. The botch accused me of having an attorney and wanted to know who helped me write me pleadings.

[rubyruby27]

no she didn't have a ghost writer, did a copy and paste job on DB I think.

Either her pleadings are good enough to accuse her of having a ghost writer or they are so bad they are motioning to strike because they don't make sense.

It can't be both. What do I tellher to do, has anyone run across this before.

[roybean]

This is why we (at least I do) tell people not to copy and paste and don't use forum letters. She may have copied something that has absolutely nothing to do with her case and the lawyer is thinking "What the hell is she talkin about?"

[roybean]

We don't know what she wrote? We don't know any info about her case? We don't know nothing????? I tell people constantly (not meaning to preach here) to read, read, read and then read some more. It can never hurt.

[Qtip]

rubyruby,

Maybe have her stop by and post a copy of what she sent. Or she could show you what she sent to see if it make any sense.

[rubyruby27]

I told her to post what she sent in.

She posted to me what they sent her and yes, they are saying both.

I think what she sent in probably doesn't apply to some of her case, but still you can't accuse someone of having a ghost writer and in the same motions motion to strike because you can't understand what was written.

[roybean]

How come they can't?

They do it all of the time. She needs to respond to their motion to strike.

[rubyruby27]

I'm not quite sure if it is or not (SOL.) I seem to remember making a payment in August 02 with a company check for the portion of expenses that had to do with the business that I closed in 10/02. (completely non-music related.) However, the attorney said my last payment was 09/02. (YES, I know NOW to STAY OFF the phone -- and one does NOT have to enter into Mediation at the pretrial. Live and learn!)

I copied and pasted DD's "how to answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, etc." from OTHER SITE. However, I made a big mistake by not not siging "pro se". I also made a mistake by not filing the Motion to Dismiss PRIOR to my Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. (from what I interpret from reading here is what one is supposed to do.)

Now, the attorney is accusing me of ghostwriting and I will have to appear in court in less than 2 weeks. They have filed a motion to dismiss my Answers, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims.

I'm so shocked that I don't even know what questions to ask at this point!

[rubyruby27]

I'll break this up into separate posts for easier reading, etc.

MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Comes now, the Plaintiff, (JDB) . Assignee of (OC) , by and through its undersigned counsel, and files the its Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses alleged by the Defendant, and would show unto this Honorable Court the following:
1. The Defendant has failed to allege any allegations of ultimate fact in her Affirmative Defenses, and as a result thereof, the Plaintiff is unable to form a response to same.
Wherefore all premises considered, it is respectfully prayed the Honorable Court Strike the Affirmative Defenses alleged by the Defendant for the reasons as stated aforesaid.
(Certificate of Service attached.)

MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Comes now, the Plaintiff, (JDB) Assignee of (OC) , by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this its Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims, and would show unto this Honorable Court the following:
1. The Defendant has failed to allege a cause of action in it’s first, second, third, fourth and fifth Counterclaims, and as a result thereof, the Plaintiff us unable to form a response to same.
2. The Defendant has failed to allege the appropriate elements as to any cause of action, and as a result thereof, the Plaintiff is unable to form a response to same.
3. The Defendant has failed to allege adequate allegations of ultimate fact in it’s alleged counterclaims, and as a result thereof, the Plaintiff is unable to form a response to same.
Wherefore all premises considered, it is respectfully prayed this Honorable Court dismiss the Defendant’s Counterclaims, for the reasons as stated aforesaid.
(Certificate of Service attached.)

MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S ANSWER & CLAIMS FOR GHOST WRITING AND/OR UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF AN ENTITY UNAUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW FOR NON COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

Comes now, the Plaintiff, (JDB) Assignee of (OC) , by and through its undersigned counsels, and files this it’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendant’s Answer & Claims for Ghost Writing, in that it appears from the Defendant(s) pleadings that either an attorney or an entity or person unauthorized to practice law is assisting the Defendant in the defense of their case and thereby employing dilatory tactics to expedite the above cause and would show unto this Honorable Court the following:
Part 1
Failure of Counsel Complying with Florida Rules of Procedure and Violation of the Florida Bar Rules
1. Any document files with any court in the state of Florida, must be signed by an attorney, Rule 2.060 ( c ) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration or a pro se party, Rule 2.060(d) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
2. The key issue before this court, is where or not the pro se defendant in the above litigation is utilizing the services of unidentified counsel in the preparation of documents being files with this court and that by virtue of the defendant’s subterfuge taking of advantage of the plaintiff by projecting to this court a different capacity to obtain from this court a more lenient standard. Johnson v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Fremont 868FSupp.1226(D Col 1994).
3. Where a pro se defendant, files pleadings with the court and in reality they were prepared by an attorney submission of those pleadings, it taints the legal process and creates a disparity between the parties allowing the court to treat a pro se defendant in a more lenient fashion. Somerset Pharmaceuticals. Inc. V. Kimball 168 F.R.D.(M.D. Fla 1996.) As noted by the court, in Sumerset, (Supra) it is one thing to give a pro se defendant advice and another to participate in the cause of action discretely to the disadvantage of another. (Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Kimball. (Supra.) (Consistent with the opinions of the Florida Bar, an attorney must affix the fact the he drafted a pleading when filed with the Court, although he may not be representing the Defendant in the case. Its axiomatic that failure to do so could exact Bar Sanctions for failure to comply in accordance with the above opinion).
4. Any maneuvers precipitated by a defendant as noted above, clearly works in their favor because the court’s of this state give pro se party liberal construction with respect to the pleadings that they file. Martinez v. Fraxedas, (Fla 3rd DCA 1996). Aside from liberal reading of pleadings the court will also give a pro se defendant liberal construction through the rules of procedure to the point where same abuses the process. Barrett v. City of Margate. (743 So2d 1160, 4th DCA 1999.)
5. Any party to an action before the court can clearly determine when a pro se defendant is utilizing the services of an unknown attorney. More often than not, the pleadings filed by a pro se party clearly exhibit that legal advice was given and/or in the alternative actually prepared by the unknown attorney. One can surmise that a pleading has been drafted by an attorney by looking at the content and the phraseology that can only be from someone practicing law. (Klein v. Spear, Leeds and Kellogg, 309 F. Supp. 341 (S.D.N.Y 1970).

PART II
6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is possible that the Defendant maybe utilizing advice from or person who is unauthorized to practice law and has created a process to purposely frustrate the expeditious resolution of a case for a fee. The actions are simply meant to inject into the cause dilatory tactics to not only delay the above cause of action, but to make it as difficult as possible upon the Plaintiff economically or otherwise so the Plaintiff dismisses same to the advantage of the Defendant(s.) The Florida Rules of Procedure, along with the Rules of Judicial Administration abhor such dilatory tactics and the Courts of this State hae exacted substantial sanctions against those who perpetrate a fraud of such a nature on the Courts.
7. The Supreme Court of this State will not tolerate ....unethical litigation tactics undertaken solely for bad faith purposes... Moakley v. Smallwood 202 WL 276466 (Fla.2002)
There is not doubt that the courts of our State are more lenient pro se Defendants(s.) The power and desire to impose sanctions against a pro se and/or indigent litigant is limited by the constitutional right of access to the courts, by the statutory ability tof indigents to obtain Court Services at little or no cost, and by a well recognized principle that a non lawyer not be penalized for any inability to observe strict compliance with the Rules of Procedure. None of these considerations however should inhibit a Court from stepping in to prevent abusive nuisance litigation. Bierman v Cook, 619 So2nd 1029, (Fla 2nd DCA, 1993).

8. The Court cannot engage too broad of a sanction. Neunzig v. Neunzig, 766 So2nd 441, (Fla 4th DCA, 2000). The Court can enter an injunction against a pro se Defendant for sever abuse, or strike offensive pleadings, impose page limits on pleadings, Neunzig.(Supra), impose fees and costs, McAliley II v McAliley, 704 So.2nd 611, (Fla4th DCA, 1997) and Neunzig v. Neunzig, (Supra) or totally disallow a pro se party to file any more appeals which are clearly without merit and frivolous. (Hall v. State, 698 So. 2nd 576, (Fla 5th DCA, 1997.)
9. In the case at bar, the pleadings filed by the Defendant were either drafted by an attoryney or by an unknown entity unauthorized to practice law. It is the request of the Plaintiff that the relief below be exacted in order to stave off at the onset of the litigation in the cause inappropriate conduct that would vitiate the Plaintiffs rights.

PART III
Defendants Answer Fails to Comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
10. The Defenses and claims being asserted by the Defendant do not conform to the Rules of Civil Procedure by laying out sufficient issues of ultimate fact which would support their claims as mandated by the Rules.
11. The Defendants claims further seems to suggest that there maybe other instruments that should be affixed to their claims which they have not done in accordance with Rule 1.190 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
12. Notwithstanding the foregoing attached hereto and incorporated by reference are copies of other pleadings which are exactly the same ones filed by the Defendant in the case at bar which supports that the Defendant truly does not know what they filed and was done solely for the propose of delay and to obstruct and frustrate the legal process to try and force the Plaintiff to accept terms unacceptable to same.

Wherefore all premises considered, it is respectfully prayed this Honorable Court entertain the relief below
a. Allow the Plaintiff to institute discovery to determine who is assisting the Defendant as noted above;
b. Have an evidentiary hearing to determine what sanctions of procedures should be imposed to protect the rights of the Plaintiff;
c. Strike the offensive pleadings filed by the Defendant;
d. Enter an award of cost and fees for bringing of this motion and such other ancillary proceedings as a result of the Defendant(s) recalcitrant behavior;
e. Admonish the Defendant(s) that if the offensive conduct continues that additional sanctions shall be entertained by the Court including the Courts injunctive powers;
(f) Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
(Certificate of service attached.)

Memorandum of Law on the Issue of Ultimate Facts
Comes now, the Plaintiff (CCC) assignee of Household, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this its Memorandum of Law on the Issue of Ultimate Facts and would show unto this Honorable Court the following:
Pursant to Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Procedure, when pleading a complaint or defense or counterclaim one must insert ultimate facts showing or exhibiting that the party is entitled to the relief being sought. The facts must be set forth in a simple manner and if the plead in the forum of an opinion or a conclusion of law or argument, they are insufficient to sustain the claim being sought and will be stricken. Barrett vs. City of Margate, 743 Sond 1160 (Fla 4th DCA 1999) see also Cash vs. Airport Mini/Storage, 782 So.2nd 983f (Fla 3rd DCA 2001).
2. The same holds true for affirmative defenses. Certainty is required when pleading affirmative defenses. Merely asserting conclusions of law or purported defenses straight from the Rules of Procedure without any facts does not sustain a proper defense and will be stricken accordingly. Cady vs. Chevy Chase Savings & Loan., 528 So.2nd 136 (Fla 4th DCA 1988.)
Wherefore, all premises considered the undersigned respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain the Plaintiffs position and for any and all further relief that this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
I hereby certify that the original of the foregoing Memorandum of Law was mailed to the above named addressee this __ day of ___, 2006. (Signed by Attorney for JDB.)

Thats what she sent to me I haven't a clue of the correct response.

[centex]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

I think what she sent in probably doesn't apply to some of her case, but still you can't accuse someone of having a ghost writer and in the same motions motion to strike because you can't understand what was written.

Nobody ever said ghost writers were talented. It is entirely possible to have a scenario where the motion to strike is applicable that covers both the ghost writer and incomprehensible claims. The problem is magnified if she was involved in any discussion with them on the issues presented and could not intelligently discuss them...which is one of hte obvious dead giveaways that someone's work was not their own.

It is also important to remember that there is legal logic and then there is logic that would be used outside of the courthouse. The good attornies grasp that concept and use it to their advantage- it is the reason that the Bart Simpson defense is used with success (didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything).

[rubyruby27]

I told her to amend her pleadings if she didn't use pro se, I see a lot of people doing that for some reason.

I also told her she needs to respond but how do you respond.

I don't know what do, your honor, either my pleadings are sufficent that I am being accused of ghost writing or they are so bad I need to amend them.

[rubyruby27]

SO, the best thing is to amend her pleadings, along with filing an opposition to the motions to strike.

This is why I ask a hundred and one times if what I am doin is OK, I know I don't know what I am doing. People may get tired of me asking the same stuff but I understand what I am writing if asked.

Thanks to all that responded and help me help her. (Blind leading the Blind, but I have been blind longer and more adjusted to not knowing what I am doing.)

[centex]

It sounds to me like she used the standard grocery list of defenses but failed to back them up. You cannot simply assert, as an example, SOL without making a showing of WHY the account is SOL.

As to the counterclaims, it is again, the basic problem of copying and pasting crap from the web without knowing what one is doing...which is why it cannot be stressed enough to either learn WTF one is doing or find the funds to retain counsel.

As to the ghost writer claim, that is the easiest to address...the lack of pro se is an error attributable entirely to being pro se and admit to cobbling together CRAP but that no fee was provided to the person or persons who suggested that such CRAP be foisted upon the Court. Part II, clause 6 specifically speaks to having paid a fee, which is one area to seize upon in the affidavit to be prepared.

In the meantime, I would also suggest that the person find someone of competence with standing in the State of Florida. As I read part of it, I see similarities to a motion to strike that I filed in a landlord-tenant case where the tenant opted not to comply with the requirements of the TRCP. Being pro se DOES NOT EXCUSE someone from playing by the rules...

[rubyruby27]

Thanks Centex, I don't believe she has the money for an attorney. I know I went to see one and they wanted 3500. I didn't have an extra 3500 at that time. No choice but to do it yourself or default.

[CtrlAltDelete]

Ruby - on one read only - my impression is you've got one scared plaintiff's atty. "Going to have to work" - damn - 98% of defendants don't even show up. This one's going to be there and maybe even say something I'm not prepared to deal with - I better find some tangent argument to toss the whole substance of defendant's position out with. OH MY GOD - what will become of me if I'm beaten