It might be said that a freakshow by any name is still a freakshow. For those who have ever wondered at the degree of skill (vel non) shown by Harvard Law grads in their efforts to draft pleadings, consider who it was that taught them.
It may be open to debate whether Professor Bruce Hay still retained a shred of human dignity after the publication of his saga in New York Magazine and The Cut. Apparently, even he came to realize that the stories perhaps did not present him in an entirely favorable light. A less pitiable train wreck of a man might have stopped there, in an effort to cut his losses. But not Hay. Oh Hell no.
In this groveling, prolix (and, of course, pro se) Complaint, Hay boldly tracked down the last vestiges of his professional and social reputation, and beat them to death with his mad drafting skills. Beyond the utter disregard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and the embarrassing errors of basic grammar, the substantive allegations of the Complaint tend to undercut its claims. At one point, Hay expressly acknowledges that he has deliberately included some claims despite his knowledge that he allowed the applicable statute of limitations to expire. Because he "had no alternative." Masterful. The simple fact that nobody took away Hay's keyboard and put him in restraints suggests that he has no friends left in this world. His unparalleled marvel of a pleading is likely to make future textbooks as an illustration of a 12(b)(6) ruling, awaiting its moment and pages upon which to be memorialized.
Colleagues, this is what it takes to be a professor of civil procedure at Harvard Law. Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair!
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.541599/gov.uscourts.nysd.541599.1.0.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment