Because It’s a Spring Sunday in April
Every now and again judges have to deal with unrepresented plaintiffs. Sometimes there’s a good reason why P couldn’t find representation. That will usually make the judge’s job harder.
Consider this description of of a recent claim. The amount claimed was a 200 hundred million. There’s no indication why the plaintiff chose that figure.
The action arises from the purchase of a … refrigerator by the Plaintiff on or about September 25, 1999.
P alleges as against the defendants defective repair service, electronic surveillance by the defendants of the plaintiff, theft via Internet of his personal files, data and emails, as well as other Internet interference, spying and espionage, home invasion, illegal handling of ID information and email fraud.
P submits that, following the purchase of his refrigerator in 2003 and its servicing in 2004, which he alleges involved fraud on the part of the defendants who worked in concert with their authorized repair company to fabricate “phantom parts” to defraud the plaintiff, he began to experience problems with his fax machine and computer. He attributed these problems to the defendants and submits that [a defendant] began to interfere with his computer access and intercept his computer system, steal his email and other personal data from his computer via Internet, and block use of his computer and Internet service from approximately 2005 to the present. He further submits that, in April of 2007, his garage was broken into by two men from [one of the defendants], who attempted to install a GPS in his car to track his movements. He submits that in November of 2005, his home was broken into although nothing was taken. In 2006 and thereafter, he indicated that his newspaper, delivered to his home, would go missing. He submits that his e-trade account with [brokerage] had also been tampered with. He attributes all of this to [one of the defendants]. P further submits that the defendants have set up equipment and a camera in the vacant house next to his home in order to conduct espionage and spying on him. He further submits that they are conducting surveillance of him from cars parked in front of his home.
P provided documentary evidence, which comprised, to a great extent, metadata print outs and other email print outs from his computer, upon which he had written notations regarding events, which he submits establish his claim as against [the defendants], including the claim against them for Internet surveillance, and Internet interference by the defendants. He submits that the documentation shows abuse of his computer by [the defendants]. There were no expert reports with respect to the interpretation of this metadata and P admits that he, himself, is not a computer expert.
Based on P’s submissions, it would appear that misfortune has befallen him, particularly with respect to his computer. However, based on all of the evidence submitted, I find that there is nothing to establish that [the defendants] caused or contributed to any of the events or problems of which the plaintiff complains.
The action was dismissed.
With all due respect, I must ask, as I do every time I see one of these silly cases reported in the media, what is your point? That’s a rhetorical question because it seems to me obvious, as an experienced litigant who also could not find counsel – to so much as give me the time of day – that the point is to celebrate every example of self-represented litigants who are indeed pursuing frivolous claims in order to promote the idea that many, if not most, self-represented litigants deserve the same disparagement.