CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1451

Post by Northland10 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm

So, lets see what has happened in his first federal case:

Many erratas and other filings. One of which dismissed a bunch of defendants on the Living Man's order because of his intent to include them in a new suit (I assume the new one he filed recently).

He's trying to get an order of default against a non-government defendant he served with by certified mail to her law firm.

He had some odd docket entry called "brief."

He does love his endless filings.

The court had this to say in one order:
TEXT ORDER denying 65 Motion for Hearing/Oral Argument. Plaintiffs' request for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling conference is denied. Once the pending Motions to Dismiss are ruled upon, and the issues and parties have been better identified, the Court will set a Scheduling Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 7/17/2018. (mlr) (Entered: 07/17/2018)


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1452

Post by Northland10 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:01 pm

For completeness, I am adding these to the Mighty Spork thread since I do not think it deals with brain boiling with 5g (or at least I don't think so, I need to go practice so I could not read the order fully yet).

We will start to the case that he filed in July 2018.

Granted IFP and then dismissed
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 7.68.0.pdf

Here is a link to the entire docket, which is long because of his many, many, many filings.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74 ... e-v-price/

It appears he is appealing.

In the older case which was filed in February

Also dismissed
09/21/2018 81 ORDER finding as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss ; finding as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss ; finding as moot 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 52 Motion for Permanent Injunction; granting 53 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 56 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 64 Motion for Hearing/Oral Argument; denying 66 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (See order for particulars). Signed by Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger on 9/21/2018. (don) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 5.81.0.pdf

The full docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... ys-office/

He also appealed on this one. The 8th District COA is consolidating them.

Previously, before the dismissal, he filed a petition for a writ of mandumbass and IFP. It was denied as moot since the ruling was after the dismissal of the case.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1453

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:49 pm

Poor old Sporkster, went to all that trouble copying and pasting irrelevant material and nonsense and applying for IFP only to get it all bounced. :violin:

Now he has something else to rant inarticulately about.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
GlimDropper
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:35 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1454

Post by GlimDropper » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:52 am

Res Ajudicata

(Wall of Text warning)
Christopher William Thelivingman
8 hrs ·

And the brilliance of my appellate brief CONTINUES:
► Show Spoiler



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27163
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1455

Post by Foggy » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:07 pm

Whoa, that's heavy, man. :think:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1456

Post by realist » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:02 pm

He keeps using the word "brilliance."

I don't think it means what he thinks it means.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1457

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:49 pm

realist wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:02 pm
He keeps using the word "brilliance."

I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

His brillance does not illuminate.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1458

Post by Northland10 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:39 pm

GlimDropper wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:52 am
Res Ajudicata

(Wall of Text warning)
Christopher William Thelivingman
8 hrs ·

And the brilliance of my appellate brief CONTINUES:
► Show Spoiler
Speaking of his appellate brief, he submitted it and after the initial review (he is IFP so the court is reviewing first):
CLERK ORDER: Appellant has submitted a brief which he states is 1,371 lines or 14,230 words in length. Both of these totals exceed the maximum brief length set out in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(i). The brief is stricken. Appellant is granted to November 1, 2018 to file a brief which complies with the line or word limits. [4717671-2], [4717759-2] [4718722] [18-3038, 18-3039] (JPP) [Entered: 10/24/2018 10:44 AM]
I believe FRAP requires 1,300 lines or 13,000 words. He has submitted attempt 2 to review. It is locked until they accept after the review and the clock starts.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1459

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:03 pm

Sporky doesn't seem to have mastered the art of brevity and clarity, let alone of coherence. Since he got IFP he'll actually have to provide something readable and comprehensible to court.

Yeah like that's gonna happen. :rotflmao:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1460

Post by Northland10 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:26 pm

Prior to submitting his overlength brief (later updated to be smaller), he filed the following brilliant notice in the district courts.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 5.93.0.pdf

As for the appeal, he filed many, many "exhibits." The clerk finally punted and let the eventual panel decide. He also submitted a too early reply (the first appellee brief was still in review). After being explained that he does not submit anything until all of the briefs are submitted, he also submitted various responses/objects to appellee filing.s


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1461

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:34 pm

Sporky has such an endearing way of approaching the court:

Hey Criminal!

Just wanted to make you aware of the fact that this case is just about ready to go ballistic. Add to that, your exposure is also just about to go the same way. See, I don’t much care if I win, because really? I know I won’t. If you ever in life imagined that I’m doing this primarily to win, you couldn’t be more wrong.
:snippity:



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27163
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1462

Post by Foggy » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:45 pm

Actually it seems to be addressed to John Sarcone, the County Attorney for Polk County, Iowa.

Who I bet is just shaking in his boots with fear, what with all a that tough guy talk from the Mighty Spork. I bet he's terrified!
I gotta tell ya, I’ve written what I believe is the single most brilliant brief ever designed by a pro-per litigant. It’s 48 pages, and I haven’t even reached the argument section yet.
Umm, I've been saying since I joined this eminently august community back in 2009, a brief is better if it is SHORT and COGENT. A brief should be BRIEF. If you start out by spewing 48 pages of sporkus vomitus, no matter how much you impress yourself you just lost your audience, who isn't gonna wade in any further than p. 3.

But, umm ... yeah. Great idea to threaten the prosecutor in your case. Pure genius. You'd be surprised to learn how few people actually think about threatening the prosecutor! :blink:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1463

Post by Whip » Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:05 pm

I’ve written what I believe is the single most brilliant brief ever
did he get it from that dude in the clink in Hawaii?



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27163
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1464

Post by Foggy » Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:14 pm

No, the Spork is WAY TOO BRILLIANT to need any help. He took a class one time on business law at a community college! What more could you want?

OK, he didn't say whether he passed the class or not. :?

Just reading this two page letter to the chief prosecutor in his county tells you all you need to know about the Mighty Spork and his Vastly Superb Brainbone that he used to write the Galaxy's Bestest Brief EVAR!

Because I guarantee the brief is written in the exact same writing style as the letter. It's gonna be a doozy, except of course courts generally have page limits on briefs that he's too ignorant to look up. <-- Ended with a preposition, woot!


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1465

Post by Northland10 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:24 pm

Foggy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:45 pm
Umm, I've been saying since I joined this eminently august community back in 2009, a brief is better if it is SHORT and COGENT. A brief should be BRIEF. If you start out by spewing 48 pages of sporkus vomitus, no matter how much you impress yourself you just lost your audience, who isn't gonna wade in any further than p. 3.
His final accepted brief is somewhere from 60-69 pages. He had to cut it down from 14,230 words to under 13,000 before the clerk would accept it.

Your suggestion is probably based on the odd concept that a brief is written to help the court easily understand the facts of the case and how the law applies. The audience is supposed to realize Sporky's brilliance. If they don't, they are just part of the cabal.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CHRISTOPHER BRUCE: The Mighty Spork

#1466

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:31 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:34 pm
Sporky has such an endearing way of approaching the court:

Hey Criminal!

Just wanted to make you aware of the fact that this case is just about ready to go ballistic. Add to that, your exposure is also just about to go the same way. See, I don’t much care if I win, because really? I know I won’t. If you ever in life imagined that I’m doing this primarily to win, you couldn’t be more wrong.
:snippity:
Endearing is absolutely the word.

I think the Sporkster is absolutely incapable of being brief and/or coherent.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”