Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
Obviously they have a different grasp of english or are living on some alternate plane of existance. This sentence would be laughable under almost any other circumstances.
Are we to assume they believe their laws were passed by someone else? Willful ignorance and more bad faith on the part of Chicago..
Last edited by BGutzman; November 17, 2011 at 09:31 AM.