What is even more<\/em> bizarre, perhaps, is the fact that the decision in Ward v. Arm & Hammer<\/em>, 341 F.Supp.2d 499, was issued by the Federal District Court in NJ on Oct. 21, 2004<\/em>. and the granting of in forma pauperis<\/em><\/a> status to Ward for his appeal by the Third Circuit — which was the point that so irked Ted Frank in the original version of his post — is dated Dec. 15, 2004<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 That’s right: two years ago.\u00a0 My Grandpa Bart might call this revisiting of an old wound\u00a0Anniversary Agita.\u00a0 Grandma Bettina might have prescribed some baking soda for that upset stomach.<\/p>\n Click to take ATL<\/em>‘s “most frivolous lawsuit ever” poll<\/a>. Despite the staleness of their covereage of\u00a0Ward<\/em>, I agree with Overlawyered<\/em>.com that the case clearly never should have been filed. \u00a0It wasted a lot of resources.\u00a0 It is, nonetheless, as Lat surely knows, fun to contemplate in theory and would have made a creative hypothetical complaint, perhaps to be used by irreverent webloggers,\u00a0or as another Urban Legend lawsuit.\u00a0 A few serious points are also worth making:<\/p>\n update<\/em> (Dec. 20, 2006):\u00a0 The results of the Above the Law<\/em> poll are now available<\/a>: 81.3% of the respondents believe the Baking Soda Crack Lawsuit to be “the most frivolous lawsuit ever”, while the remaining 18.3% of participants\u00a0(in what is admittedly a very unscientific poll) opined that it “presents a potentially meritorious claim.”\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"ArmHammerLogo\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/files\/2006\/12\/ArmHammerLogo.jpg\")
\u00a0\u00a0 The case is indeed bizarre:\u00a0 Lat has posted<\/a> the entire complaint, and gives this summary: “Pro se<\/em> 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.”\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"ArmHammerV\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/files\/2006\/12\/ArmHammerV.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\u00a0Thanks to Ted Frank’s coverage<\/a>, I learned that 28 U.S.C. 1915<\/a>, the federal law covering prisoners seeking to file a case as a poor person, does not prevent a legally frivolous suit from being appealed in forma pauperis<\/em>, unless the district court judge certifies that the appeal is not being taken in good faith, or<\/em> the prisoner has had three<\/em> prior suits that failed to state a valid claim, or were found to be frivolous or\u00a0malicious.<\/li>\n\u00a0Finally, we should point out that many of the Comments at Fark.com seem to prove our point in the posting\u00a0the pro se<\/em> nomenclature problem<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 The average person simply does not know what the term “pro se<\/em>” means.\u00a0 Even though Above the Law<\/em> and Overlawyered.<\/em>com stressed that the lawsuit was brought by Ward pro se<\/em>, many Farksters rail at his supposed lawyer for briging such a meritless lawsuit.<\/p>\n
![\"bombFuseN\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/files\/2006\/12\/bombFuseN.gif\")
\u00a0Pro 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.<\/em><\/p>\n