9th Circuit, Crime, Drugs, Law Professors, Plaintiffs Firms, Prisons, Pro Se Litigants

The Fine Line Separating Pro Se Litigants, Plaintiffs' Lawyers, and Law Professors

By  
on

Remember the Best Notice of Appeal Ever? We’ve finally found a filing that tops it.
Pro se litigants, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and law professors all share the ability to “think outside the box.” They come up with novel and creative theories of liability — ones that courts have never entertained before.
Some are crazy. Some are brilliant. And some fall somewhere in between. Consider this civil complaint:

Summary: Pro se litigant George Allen Ward is suing Arm & Hammer and its corporate parent, Church & Dwight, for $425 million. His theory of liability: failure to warn. The company failed to warn him that if he cooked up THEIR PRODUCT, baking soda, with cocaine, he might end up serving a 200-month prison sentence on crack cocaine charges.
Ward argues that Arm & Hammer should add one of these warnings to boxes of baking soda:

“The use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable by law and is prohibited.”

“The use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable by enhanced penalties by the laws of the United States of America.”

This is just the beginning; the whole complaint is genius. It’s strangely compelling, and it gets better with every page. Also, we think it might fly in the Ninth Circuit.
We reprint the rest of the pleading after the jump. Enjoy!

Update (12/16/06, 11:30 AM): Welcome, FARKers! If you enjoyed reading this document, you might also appreciate this court filing: Best Notice of Appeal Ever.
Update (12/18/06) If you have an opinion on this case, please express it by voting in our reader poll.

Sponsored

Topics