At what point do Chicago and its attorney's violate rule 11 with their answer?
It seems to me that the answer is:
Quote:
|
[. . .] being presented for [an] improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
|
Denying that they have knowledge sufficient to establish that she is a natural person and resident of Chicago seems to get very close to the line if it doesn't go over.
When you have a controlling Circuit court opinion in the very same case it seems to me that some of Chicago's contentions and statements are frivolous.