State's highest court declines to consider threat of mini-robots

The Supreme Judicial Court today threw out a lawsuit demanding that former Attorney General Thomas Reilly do something about the mini-robots infesting our trees and ventilation ducts. In essence, the court said Jay Patrick Mellen's suit and appeal of an earlier rejection were so stupid the justices need not even explain why they were rejecting them.

The complete ruling follows. You can also watch the roughly 15 seconds' worth of oral arguments - Mellen did not even appear before the court to make his case.

Jay Patrick MELLEN vs. Thomas F. REILLY.

SJC-10372

November 12, 2009.

Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice.

Douglas S. Martland, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Jay Patrick Mellen, pro se, submitted a brief.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiff filed, in the county court, a "complaint pursuant to MGL 275 Section § 1, Justices keeping public peace; security." [FN1] A single justice denied relief.

The plaintiff's submissions, both in the county court and in this court, fail to establish any basis for relief. He does not provide any evidence to support his assertions or to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief that he seeks. Furthermore, his arguments do not rise to the level of adequate appellate argument, and we thus need not address them. See Mass. R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). The single justice did not err in denying the relief sought.

Judgment affirmed.

FN1. The complaint names as the defendant an attorney who is a former Attorney General of the Commonwealth, alleging that the defendant, then acting in his official capacity, is responsible for crimes being perpetrated against the plaintiff.