Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 yearVigilant wrote:mendaliv wrote:
"In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality."
What about pro se litigants?
Almost perfectly uniform in quality.
Nice snarky comment, but disappointing. I've been reading a lot of cases, and many of them had pro se litigants. Some of these were plainly obsessed and incompetent. Others were not. Some lost and some won. It is common with pro se litigants that their first complaints are defectively pled, but this is readily remediable, if the pro se plaintiff actually pays attention, researches objections, and remedies defects.
I have also seen utterly incompetent pleadings from lawyers. It is likely true that pro se litigants, as a group, are less competent than the average lawyer, but that is simply not surprising. However, mendaliv does not seem to realize that litigants are often pro se because they have no other option, and that this is why the federal court guidelines suggest specially accommodating pro se litigants.
In any case, seeing the above has placed some of mendaliv's other statements into a context of strong bias against pro se plaintiffs, especially. As a result, I think, he has not been careful examining my claims in the Amended Complaint. It's pretty obvious from some comments that he has misunderstood them.
Only Claim 4 raised the issue of the WMF's right to ban. The other Claims don't depend on that at all. And I am abandoning Claim 4 precisely because of the difficulty of arguing it against a growing trend in U.S. Federal Court of what I see as overbroad application of Section 230. (There is also at least one Federal Appeals Court Judge who dissented from that.) Without Count 4, my case is far clearer and simpler.
Pleading deficiencies can be remedied. I have ample evidence for everything claimed, at least to the level needed to establish reasonable suspicion of untruth and/or malice.
I will consult and use an attorney to whatever extent becomes practical. I will briefly consult before filing any new pleadings, and my sense is that more extensive lawyer involvement will become practical after the case survives MFD, which isn't going to happen soon, because I will be asking permission of the court to file a Second Amended Complaint, which, if that is granted (it is not routine but almost so), will moot the existing MTD, and then they may file another, and then I may object, and then it can take months for the court to rule. But meanwhile, with an SAC, I will obtain subpoenas from the court and serve requests to waive service, or, as necessary, will obtain support (paid or otherwise) in serving.