what a douche. another religious crazy.

Cage match: Charney v. Dunne?

What's the question he's upset about. I read the complaint and never saw it.

I can't wait to get my hands on his donations. He better report every last taxable cent or I'm hitting him up for interest and penalties.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

If he makes it past the motion to dismiss stage (which is unlikely), I can't wait till they produce all his crappy answers to the other questions on the exam and his undoubtedly low score on the MBEs.

I want to see exactly where on the bar exam the examiners forced him to accept gay marriage and parenting. Unsurprisingly, his complaint is of no assistance in this regard...

America's #1 Law Firm = Gallion & Spielvogel

Many very intelligent people fail the bar. Many foolish/stupid people file frivolous lawsuits. Don't confuse causation and correlation -- that is an LSAT level error.

Does anyone know how to email this douchebag? I want to get in touch with him.

"The majority of donations will be utilized exclusively to fund the incredible expenses of this Federal Lawsuit"

What will the rest of the donations fund?

The e-mail on his website is listed as stephendunne@christianlawsuit.com

10:25:
got to the website and click the "send email" button.

Did *you* pass the bar?

"America's #1 Law Firm = Gallion & Spielvogel"

WRONG. This is America's #1 law firm:

http://www.mylemon.com/

what a fundie twatwaffle. i hope he's run over by church bus.

10:29,
Read *their* website.
They're only PA and NJ's Premier Lemon Law Firm.

Go to Google, type in America's #1 law firm (without parentheses), hit "I'm feeling lucky," and you'll discover the truth.

this lawsuit is ridiculous and it's funny because it doesn't have a chance of succeeding at all.

9:59,
True. Not all Christians are grandstanding.

Random capitalization of nouns like "Country" and "Lawsuit" is a sure sign of an idiot.

Is this Emily Pataki???

The question is actually a regular domestic relations question, with two women as the couple. If he knew his dom rel, he would've done fine.

Also, his Bluebooking is atrocious. Just saying.

Where did this dickhead attend law school?

This is why I only hire grads from New England School of Law, where Dunne graduated #2 in his class.

Rest assured, Mr. Dunne's future legal employment is now assured.

The Department of Justice is undoubtedly bending over backwards to a way to hire this fellow despite the fact that he has not passed the bar.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush already has him on a shortlist for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

10:12 & 10:29 -

You're both mistaken. America's #1 law firm is clearly Addison & Butler LLP.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/03/even_more_prestigious_than_gal.php

Why the heck does this guy capitalize terms like Federal Lawsuit?

Please stand by me in condemning this Frivolous Complaint.

11:24 I just assumed the was shooting for a professor slot at Regents.

What's so wonderful about this lawsuit is that this idiot is setting himself up beautifully for a healthy dose of shame and mockery. He's such an asshole that his own assholery will bring about retribution by simple operation of the legal system.

If only it worked that way all the time.

Hahaha. The douchebag may have fucked himself. Bar applications always ask whether the applicant has been a party to any lawsuits, so he's going to have to disclose this one if he ever takes the bar again. And character & fitness committees take a dim view of frivolous pro se litigation. There are more than a few cases out there where an applicant was denied admission to the bar because of his or her penchant for filing bullshit lawsuits.

Anyone studying for the bar? Here's a Con law Q...

Stephen brings a suit in federal court, and the Attorney General moves to dismiss the suit. The court should:

A) Deny the motion, because the exam question violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to exercise religion because it required him to accept gay marriage.
B) Deny the motion, if the expert witness can establish that a person of ordinary Christian faith would be offended by the question.
C) Grant the motion, because portraying a gay-marriage scenario in a hypothetical test question neither advances nor inhibits the right to exercise religion.
D) Grant the motion, because the exam is designed to establish a minimum competency level for bar admission and is not specifically designed to interfere with religion.

He's also too poor to afford a scanner. He just took his original complaint and typed in the information added by the clerk, like the date filed, etc.

Oh, and if you examine the document's metadata (hello, e-discovery!), it looks like he typed it on a New England School of Law computer. So he's also too poor to afford his own computer, I guess.

PS: He constantly refers to the defendants in the complaint as "Defendants", with quotation marks. God, that's annoying, almost as annoying as his use of apostrophes to signal a plural:

9. Plaintiff initiated a Massachusetts Bar application proceeding in November, 2006. In May, 2007, “Defendants” served the Plaintiff with notice of intent to deny his application because the Plaintiff failed to meet the “Defendants” standard’s on the Massachusetts Bar Examination.

C) Grant the motion, because portraying a gay-marriage scenario in a hypothetical test question neither advances nor inhibits the right to exercise religion.

C) Grant the motion, because the plaintiff is a fucking idiot.

Isn't it D)? omg i'm gonna fail

Fucking morons, it's A)

12:31 C)

I think it's (D) right? Employment Division v. Smith and neutral laws of general applicability and all that?

This guy really is an amazing douche. Reading his complaint is pure entertainment. For some reason he thinks he needs to include bluebook cites in federal complaints. And check out this excerpt:

65. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” have imposed a state law that is a sociopolitical tax with discriminatory economic consequences upon out-of-staters.

LOL!

What the fuck? How is this a tax?

66. Plaintiff contends that the state law in question is a discriminatory tax on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot use their tax systems to help in-state businesses at the expense of out-of-state businesses.
See, e.g., Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc., 306 U.S. 375, 380-381 (1939). The Supreme Court has declared: “No State, consistent with the Commerce Clause, may impose a tax which discriminates against interstate commerce…by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business.” Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission, 429 U.S. 318, 329 (1977)(citations omitted).

I think B), cause when it's a close call question, the BarBri guy told me to pick the answer choice with "IF" in it

The more I read his complaint the more fascinating his incompetent legal mind becomes!

66. Plaintiff contends that the state law in question is a discriminatory tax on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot use their tax systems to help in-state businesses at the expense of out-of-state businesses. [...]

67. Plaintiff contends that the state law in question affects subject matter of national import and is therefore invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause. [...]

68. Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated Article IV of the interstate Privileges and Immunities Clause. [...]

69. Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. [...]

74. Plaintiff alleges that the “Pullman Abstention Doctrine,” Railroad Commission v. Pullman, Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), does not apply in this case because, unlike Pullman, the “Defendants” (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) has already had an opportunity to eliminate the constitutional problem that is inconsistent with the Massachusetts Constitution and the United States Constitution and neglected to do so. [...]

Dear law-school ranking experts:

Is New England School of Law a "prestigious Boston law school?"

Signed,

Curious

91. The Plaintiff is in full compliance with all of the laws of Massachusetts and of the United States, including all tax laws. The Plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime or committed any acts of moral turpitude. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree from a prestigious Boston law school and is currently matriculating at an esteemed Boston business school, working towards a
Master’s in Business Administration.

I wasn't going to donate, but since it's for the good of Christianity...

1:02 - a lot of paragraphs sound like a memo-in-a-complaint to me. I think it would be cool for him to add an addendum that includes a judgment too.

New England School of Law = Tier 4 = prestigious Boston law school? And how does this fit into a short and plain statement of the facts entitling plaintiff to relief?

New England School of Law = Tier 4

Umm, is this garbage typical from a tier 4 reject?

If tier 4 = prestigious, what's tier 1? Godly? Ultimate? Supreme?

1:14 -

Don't know, but thanks to this fuckwit we DO know the future earning potential of a Tier 4 graduate:

164. Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is unable at this time to calculate exactly or finally the amounts of the damages he has incurred or that he will incur as a consequence of the unlawful acts of the “Defendants.” Plaintiff alleges that but for the unlawful acts by “Defendants,” he would have been admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts, would have opened up a law office and would have established a successful practice. Plaintiff estimates his current and future losses of revenue and business opportunities at $2.50.

165. Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer mental pain and anguish, emotional stress and humiliation as a direct result of “Defendants” unlawful conduct. As a result of the unlawful actions of “Defendants,” Plaintiff avers that he is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of $7.25.

"[t]he lawsuit is not about money ... It's about equity and justice, and I wanted to be very clear about that."

For a second I thought he wrote "EQUALITY" and not "EQUITY" and I got all confused since this guy clearly doesn't believe in equality. Also, I got confused because the sentence didn't make sense. Typically, refusing to grant civil liberties to a person based on their biological makeup is not considered just nor fair.

10:25, you can also reach him by post:

PLAINTIFF, STEPHEN DUNNE, is a citizen of the United States and an applicant for admission to the practice of law in the State of Massachusetts, whose current mailing address is PO Box, Boston, MA 02199.

Well, maybe you can.

So going to Tier 4 law school has positive NPV! Anyway, I hope the state Rule 11 his ass.

The motherfucker's prayer for relief in the complaint includes a request for attorney's fees (along with multiple lengthy footnotes reminding us that attorney's fees are awarded in civil-rights cases. Really? I bet the federal judge the case is assigned to forgot all about that).

The thing is, he filed it pro se and he's not a licensed attorney anywhere.

So by requesting attorney's fees when he is still just a toilet J.D., is he engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

At least he didn't sign the complaint "Stephen Dunne, J.D."

Yes, genius, you "Failed" the "Bar" because of one question about gay marriage. Not because you Think and Write like a "Third Grader" on the rest of the exam.

this is the greatest complaint i've ever read. i'm just sad he didn't find a way to wedge in a Third Amendment claim, perhaps that by asking questions about gheys on his bar exam the bar association have effectively quartered rhetorical "soldiers" in his metaphorical home.

granted, this dipshit would need to know the meaning of rhetorical and metaphorical for this to work, so we may be out of luck.

Can you Rule 11 a pro se litigant? How about one this stupid?

1:35 -

Of course you can Rule 11 a pro se litigant. The rule is full of references to "unrepresented party".

Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. ...

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions.

1:25 - he was kind enough to leave his PO Box in his signature line:

NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on issues triable before a jury.

________________________
STEPHEN DUNNE
PO Box 990695
Boston, MA 02199

LOL @ 1:35 PM's Third Amendment theory.

180!

WGWBG!

You can Rule 11 a pro se plaintiff. For a particularly amusing example, check out Washington v. Alaimo (S.D. Ga. 1996) -- 934 F. Supp. 1395.

Didn't read all the comments, so sorry if this was posted, but here's the question:
http://www.mass.gov/bbe/essayquestionsfeb2007.pdf
Go to question #4

i like cheese

Ok seriously, that fake question was awesome. Now go study for the bar, all of you (you guys should be finishing up the intermediate questions by now, right?).

Allegations that Mr. Dunne's morals aren't as lily white as they might first appear. Perhaps his faith DOES have a price?

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/07/update-on-steph.html

To borrow from "Billy Madison:"

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've
ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything
that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now
dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy
on your soul."

See also http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/05-56485-lmc_King.pdf

Anyone notice his 16th amendment claim? It's sneaky.

Here is Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996). I think I'm going to file a "Motion to Kiss My Ass" next time a judge pisses me off.

http://raymondpward.typepad.com/rainman2/files/motion_to_kiss.PDF

On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why
this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a
motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was
entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all
Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic]
damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until
April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply
with this Order will result in dismissal of this case."

Sorry, I should have included a reference: 16th Amendment issue at para. 128.

3:53, you mean this one?

128. Plaintiff claims that “Defendants” have invidiously denied Plaintiff’s legitimate claim of entitlement to a protectable property and liberty interest without a fair procedure in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

That's a good one. I guess the bar exam and the application process aren't "fair" procedures.

No, that's the 14th amendment issue. Look at the heading: "AMENDMENT XVI."

He did manage to include almmost every amendment from I to XVI in his complaint, except for III and XII.

Heh heh, 1:35, he should have inserted a cause of action that forcing him to write about teh gheys constituted illegal quartering of troops... funny, the last time I saw the Third Amendment in a court opinion it was one of Justice Douglas' "penumbras" cases from the 1960s.

Where is the complaint?

To 10:42

He must have forgotten to pay his hosting bill, because the URL - www.christianlawsuit.com - now points to an "Under Construction" page.

It was up this afternoon. Maybe all the blog attention used up his bandwidth?