Re: Joe Stanley Writes Huh?

More | Report Post

thank you.

The name in the caption of the original complaint was incorrect to
begin with, i.e. they use both names "black" and "white" and in the
caption the name is black-white, no such name (not to be confused
with a maiden and married name).

The complaint was answered by "black".

The defendant uses the names of & to collect the judgment
(alias/made up!):
(1) "Black"
(2) "White"
(3) "Red"
(4) "Black", individually, DBA "business name"

All were amended to the complaint before default.

The attorney through the case history, lacking incompetence and
also believe to be done maliciously never filed papers with the
correct names, omitting some and/or variations of, but never the
(4) correct ways of naming the defendant.

The Request for Default:
ONLY "Black-White"

The attorneys Decl at Default Prove-Up:
Some of the above names, variations of, but not all.

PL's testimony:
"Only" the (4) listed above.

Proposed Judgment-by attorney (Signed):
ONLY "Black-Green",
Another non-existent name variation, never named in the case prior
to but signed by the judge! (*THIS WOULD BE THE COURT'S ERROR)

Amended Proposed Judgment-by attorney (Signed):
"Black-Green" (non-existent)
"Black"
"White"
(THIS IS HALF COURT ERROR & HALF ATTORNEY ERROR)

2nd Amended Proposed Judgment-by PL in pro per (DENIED):
All the correct names as amended to the complaint prior to Prove-Up
and in PL's testimony.
(THIS IS HALF COURT ERROR & HALF ATTORNEY ERROR)

The names that need to be added are:
"Red"
"Black", individually, DBA "business name"

and to delete "Black-Green" -no such name

So, now what?

On 11/05/05, Curmudgeon wrote:
> If a name does not appear in the caption of the original
> complaint, or if it was not added by proper amendment after--and
> most important--if a person with that name was not served a
> summons directed to that name specifically--that name is not
> part of the lawsuit. No judgment can be entered against a
> person that was not served with a summons and complaint.
>
> On 11/05/05, TT wrote:
>> On 11/04/05, JoeStanley wrote: Huh?
>>
>> Is Joe Stanley an attorney.
>>
>> For anyone who reads this post, I think we all know, "huh?"
>> won't fly in the courtroom and I don't think there's a motion
>> called "huh?"
>>
>> Can anyone please offer an intelligent reponse?