Pro Per Legal Assistant Service

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

I asked you a simple question, thinking I might receive a simple answer; but that was not to be the case. I did not ask about informations or indictments, I asked about only complaints.

For complaints:

“Every fact which, if controverted, plaintiff must prove to maintain his action must be stated in the complaint”
Jerome v. Stebbins (1859), 14 C. 457: Green v. Palmer (1860), 15 C. 411, 76 Am. Sec. 492; Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1865), 28 C. 545

“The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right.”
Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99

“Complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts of which, without the aid of other facts no stated shows a complete cause of action.”
Going v. Dinwiddle (1890), 86 C. 633, 25 P. 129

“Pleadings should set forth facts, and not merely opinions of the parties”.
Snow v. Halstead (1851), 1 C. 359

“A complaint must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by the defendant, injury resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief.”
Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d 958

“Essential facts on which legal points in controversy depend, should be pleaded clearly and precisely, so that nothing is left for the court to surmise.”
Gates v. Lane (1872), 98 C. 499

“In pleading, the essential facts on which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to surmise.”
Bernstein v. Piller (1950), 98 C.A.2d 441, 220 P.2d 558

“The ‘facts’ which the court is to find and the ‘facts’ which a pleader is to state lie in the same plane - that is, in both connections, ‘facts’ are top be stated according to their legal effect.”
Hihn v. Peck (1866), 30 C. 280

“A plaintiff must set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with sufficient clarity and particularity that defendant may be apprized of nature, source and extent of his cause of action.”
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948), 86 C.A.2d 750, 195 P.2d 492

“In general, matters of substance must be alleged in direct terms, and not by way of recital or reference.”
Silvers v. Grossman (1920), 183 C. 693, 192 P. 534; Reid v. Kerr (1923), 64 C.A. 117, 220 P. 688

“A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381

Material facts must be distinctly stated in a complaint.
Goland v. Peter Nolan & Co. (1934), 33 P.2d 688, subsequent opinion 38 P.2d 738, 2 C.2d 96

“Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital.”
Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946

“A pleading which leaves essential facts to inference or argument is bad.”
Ahlers v. Smiley (1909) ,11 C.A. 343, 104 P. 997

“The forms alone of the several actions have been abolished by the statute. The substantial allegations of the complaint in a given case must be the same under our practice as at common law.”
Miller v. Van Tassel (1864), 24 C. 459

“A pleading can not be aided by reason of facts not averred.”
San Diego County v. Utt (1916), 173 C. 554, 160 P. 657

“Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence”
Frace v. Long Beach City High School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60, 58 C.A.2d 566

“A fact necessary to the pleader’s cause of action, if not pleaded, must be taken as having no existence.”
Feldesman v. McGovern (1941), 44 C.A.2d 566

In pleading, the essential facts upon which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to surmise.
Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal 95, 103 [231 P. 739].)

“When pleading is silent as to material dates, or does not clearly state facts relied on, it must be presumed that statement thereof would weaken pleader’s case.”
Whittemore v. Davis (1931), 112 C.A. 702, 297 P. 640

“... if a fact necessary to the pleader's cause of action is not alleged it must be taken as having no existence.
Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 22 [72 P. 395]; Callahan v. Loughran, 102 Cal. 476 [36 P. 835].

Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence.
21 Cal.Jur., p. 54.

Does this help?

[joseph sugarman]

Please download to this forum a copy of your 25 page brief on subject matter jurisdiction so we can all learn from it.

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by life_student

The Constitution's, 7th Amendment reads:

[i]"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

Only the plaintiff in a federal case has the right to sue for a common law remedy and only then does a jury become mandatory.

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Only the plaintiff in a federal case has the right to sue for a common law remedy and only then does a jury become mandatory.

Correct. We have statutes, and whether or not you believe in them, they exist, are REAL,(can be touched and felt) and are applied.

If the 20 buck claim was true, why do you go to small claims for matters under 7500$??? Try to get a jury in small claims court, good luck.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Correct. We have statutes, and whether or not you believe in them, they exist, are REAL,(can be touched and felt) and are applied.

If the 20 buck claim was true, why do you go to small claims for matters under 7500$???

Try to get a jury in small claims court, good luck.

[DCLXVI]

The thought "Oh geez, not this **** again" goes through my head every time I see the stupid picture posted above.

This is the third time this picture has been posted in row with no other comment.

Is mrg going to post this comment after every one of Gopher's posts?

We get the message. You have nothing to say. However the discussions continue because not everyone believes like you.

Your pictures require lots of memory on the system and are totally unproductive.

Thanks again for this monumental contribution.

: )

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

The thought "Oh geez, not this **** again" goes through my head every time I see the stupid picture posted above.

This is the third time this picture has been posted in row with no other comment.

Is mrg going to post this comment after every one of Gopher's posts?

We get the message. You have nothing to say. However the discussions continue because not everyone believes like you.

Your pictures are require lots of memory on the system and are totally unproductive.

Thanks again for this monumental contribution.

: )

I see no picture. All I see is "This message is hidden because mrg is on your ignore list. " lol. I don't have a clue what that jerks problem is. (I get the impression he's one of the con-artist's on here getting upset when someone proves they can win without pixy dust, magic beans, and holy water)

[DCLXVI]

What is this "ignore list"?

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

What is this "ignore list"?

I found that when you click on the person's name, it will bring up a profile, and you can add them to your ignore list. Pretty cool! Just look when you bring up their profile, and you will find it.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

The thought "Oh geez, not this **** again" goes through my head every time I see the stupid picture posted above.

This is the third time this picture has been posted in row with no other comment.

Is mrg going to post this comment after every one of Gopher's posts?

We get the message. You have nothing to say. However the discussions continue because not everyone believes like you.

Your pictures require lots of memory on the system and are totally unproductive.

Thanks again for this monumental contribution.

: )