Complaining and Answering

[muck_a_luck]

In a court case, the initial document is often "the Complaint."

The complaint is served on the defendant, and the next step is for the defendant to answer the complaint.

An answer is very routinized.

You can admit an allegation of the Complaint.

You can deny an allegation of the Complaint.

You can state that you do not have enough information to admit or deny.

This can get pretty funny.

We are answering a complaint by a ranting non-native speaker of English who is representing herself.

She submitted a complaint consisting of long tirades about our client.

At one point, she says, "She's shameless!"

I was so glad this statement was about our client. We can easily respond: "Defendants deny the allegation that [client] is shameless."

If the statement had been about another party, we might have had to respond, "Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegation that she's shameless, and therefore demand strict proof."

I toyed with the idea of leaving the exclamation mark in:

"Defendants deny the allegation that [client] is shameless!"

There was lots and lots of really funny stuff in this thing, but I'm scared to post any more of it, even this indirectly, as half the complaint is about how our client allegedly posted stuff about this woman on websites. Wouldn't THAT be funny if muck_a_luck was dragged into the fray as one of the alleged pseudonyms… *cringes*

Comments

[cocoajava.livejournal.com]

Client may be shameless, but [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] cannot deny my allegation that she is a right mucky besom. :)

[muck-a-luck.livejournal.com]

Heh. I saw your icon the other night! :) I think I am too large to be a besom... Or possibly too old...

[snarkyducky.livejournal.com]

heehee! i'd been trying to think up stuff that could constitute(?) strict proof of shamelessness (is that even a word?)..

hmmm, more difficult than math, this is.. hard to see, the Weird Side is.. hmmmm..

[muck-a-luck.livejournal.com]

I doubt we will be provided with strict proof... :)