Danny Stamey, In Pro Per

Dear Danny:

Now, admittedly, I haven't gotten through reading all of the complaint in your lawsuit arising out of your seventh unsuccessful attempt to take the California Bar Exam. You see, I'm five days out from taking the Ohio bar exam (for the first time, I might add.) So, something this voluminous, I will not get to read until next week.

However, I've read the first third or so of your complaint, and I do have a few thoughts for you:

1. Your complaint is against the State Bar Association of California, Does 1-100, the American Bar Association and their Does 1-100, and et. al. Do that many people REALLY have it in for you?
   
   
2. I have seem some pretty bad and very frivolous lawsuits, including by someone who used to be an attorney and was subsequently disbarred for her antics. However, Danny, yours takes the cake.
   
   
3. Seriously, and you can level with Michael here, have you just had some bar exam buzzwords literally flashed at you on a screen as the extent of your bar preparation? I mean, your answer book seriously cannot be a victim of battery. It's not a foreseeable plaintiff, or even a possible plaintiff. Trust me, here. Just as I had to learn that parrots could not commit hearsay, answer books cannot be victims of battery.
   
   
4. Whatever else one might say about it, your legal draftsmanship is fascinating. It's not effective and it's certainly not professional, but it's fascinating. I love how you highlight terms like “CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE,” and “WEB OF COMPLICATED MATHMATICAL FORMULAS AND ESTIMATIONS TO CONCEAL, CONFUSE AND COVER-UP" with bold, underline and all caps. It's also incredibly random, which just adds to the comedic effect.
   
   
5. Even if, as you aver in paragraph 4, the California State Bar "CANNOT PROVE THAT I FAILED!", I think you may have just done a pretty good job.
   
   
6. Have you considered taking, say, BarBri or PMBR? Or staying awake through your law school classes? Speaking of which, how DID you get through law school?
   
   
7. You correctly state that the bar exam is for determining minimal competency, or, as you put it, “DETERMINING MINIMAL COMPETENCY.” Whether or not the bar has become embroiled in the "Political controversy" and suffered at the hands of Pete Wilson's budget cuts (who was, let's be frank, governor two governors and something like six years ago), your complaint, and the fact that you have failed the bar seven times, indicates to me they are at least finding some people not meeting minimal competency standards
   
   
8. Re Paragraph 10: Does the United States have any protectorates?
   
   
9. Staying with paragraph 10: The Justice Department cannot convict anyone, Danny. Technically, they can't indict anyone, either, a grand jury has to, but get your mind around the first sentence and then come back later for some really high-concept thinking.
   
   
10. I don't care what anyone tells you, exclamation marks have no place in a pleading.
    
    
11. Along those same lines, the least you could do would be to quote the founding fathers accurately and not put an exclamation mark where none exists, as you have done in Paragraph 24, where you quote them thusly: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!”
    
    
12. If in fact things happened as you claim they did, I'd feel sorry for you if I could quit laughing at you. But, as the old saying goes, don't make a federal case out of it.
    
    
13. Finally, Danny, you are seeking $43 million from the California State Bar, which I assume is based on how much money you'd be making if the seventh time had been a charm and you were out there practicing. Trust me, Danny -- no way you would make that much.
    
    
14. Dude, every tried BarBri? PMBR? I hear it works for lotsa folks.
    

Seriously, bar studiers, you need a laugh. Go read as much of his complaint as you can. (At least do the first twenty or so paragraphs.)