Counterclaims

Type of language involved:

• legal conclusion required therefore decline to answer
• insufficient information in claim, thus deny
• admit
• deny
• neither admit or deny
• admit/deny in part - specify which parts
• 'no response required' - because it's obvious - doesn't this violate rules of responding?
• 'Defendants are without sufficient information to either admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph x, and therefore deny the same.'

Meta

• General denial - throw it out of court on frivolous lawsuit allegation. FRCP Rule 8 [1]
• Bullshit Responses - samples of legal perversion - [2]
  • List of affirmative grounds from link above. This is FRCP 8(c). An affirmative defense “conditionally admits the allegations of a

complaint but asserts new matter to bar the action.”;. The enumerated defenses are accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, condonation (state only), contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy (state only), duress, estoppel (federal only), failure of consideration (federal only), fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, misrepresentation (state only), mistake (state only), payment, plene administravit or administration of the estate is closed (state only), recrimination (state only), release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c); S.C. R. Civ. P. 8(c).

• • Other affimations exist - [qualified privilege, lack of

contractor’s license, contract is unenforceable as a penalty, defective materials, or defenses to the statutorily created claim, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and sovereign immunity.]

• • Affirmative defenses shift burden of proof to the defendant