Exit the Dragon - Sorry for being too badass for your honor

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

From Magistrate Judge Ray Kent's Order Striking Complaint today in Doe No. 2 v. Clinton County (W.D. Mich.):

Each page of plaintiff's complaint appears on an e-filing which is dominated by a large multi-colored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit, presumably because she is represented by the law firm of "Dragon Lawyers PC © Award Winning Lawyers". See Compl. (ECF No. 1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) allows a court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, containing the same allegations as the original complaint, without the cartoon dragon by no later than May 5, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.
See for yourself:
DragonComplaint.webp
 
View attachment 7298179
So you're using AI to do legal things for me?
Why can't I just cut you out of the middle and use an AI myself? It'd probably be as effective as you. Jesus Christ.
I can't tell who'd be a worse lawyer this guy or Rekieta.
Grok: "Put a dragon that shit. Judges love dragons."
 
Idk man, I'd take degenerate druggies over furries anyday of the week.
To be fair, that degenerate druggie endangered the health and wellbeing of his kids. As far as I know, this furry hasn't done that yet so... I think I might take the furry over a certain has been lawyer in Minnesota.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrainWreckWatcher
So you're using AI to do legal things for me?
That may be outright illegal depending on what you're doing with it. I could see using it to jump-start research but this clown seems like the sort of idiot who would just copy paste shit from ChatGPT into a brief, including hallucinatory case citations.
I'm genuinely surprised to see the use of colored text and borders, much less full-page watermarks. Doesn't that kind of shit mess with courts' electronic filing systems (OCR, etc.)?
The worst I ever saw was a judge chewing a lawyer out because their brief was so badly stapled he cut his finger on it.

You can bet you're in for a bad time if your filing is so bad it literally physically injures someone.
 
Grok: "Put a dragon that shit. Judges love dragons."
I had to try and see what came up

1746048513851.webp


1746048580518.webp

Holy fuck I can't believe anyone uses AI for anything work related even photos. This guy is going to get disbarred.

To be fair, that degenerate druggie endangered the health and wellbeing of his kids. As far as I know, this furry hasn't done that yet so... I think I might take the furry over a certain has been lawyer in Minnesota.
You're stranded in the ocean on a boat with a druggy degenerate, and a furry degenerate, and a gun with only one bullet.
Shoot the boat and take your chances with the sharks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RatCake and Marvin
What if I wanted to dress up in dinosaur costume and fuck a chick that was also dressed as a dinosaur what would that be?

I know furfags call that yiffing.

Since dinosaurs aren't really reptiles would that still be considered scalies?

Let's say I wanted to dress up as rooster and bang a chick dressed as a hen what would that be?

Birds are in the same family as reptiles so would that be considered scales as well?

But they are also related to dinosaurs and dinosaurs aren't really reptiles or completely birds. More like an in between.

Is that feathers or scales?
 
Why would you even watermark a legal document in the first place? Isn't the whole point of a watermark to prove ownership/possession? Because as I understand it, lawyers are functionally work for hire, so the documents they produce are the clients property before filing, and are court property after being given to the court in the proceedings of the case - you can't take them back or try to restrict how they use them. Unless the Court has specific ruling or reason to seal the documents, they're generally put into public record by the court at that point.
 
Btw he refilled without the watermark, the court also rejected the plaintiff using Jane Doe and needs to reveal her real name in 14 days.

He also stripped some but not all of the weird formatting. The purple font firm name is gone and the weird formatting for the county is gone, and the logo at the bottom right of each page along with the giant dragon is gone... He could not help himself to remove the red bolded "Now comes Plaintiff" or the purple page numbers though, mans gotta draw a limit somewhere.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Back