Lord Have Mercy On 'Em, Because The Judge Has None

 You probably have to be a lawyer to realize how brutal this is. In fact, I've never heard of it being done:

This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not exceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.

That's the end.  This is the beginning:

As every member of the bar of every federal court knows (or is presumed to know), Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that a complaint include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e)(1) helpfully adds that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Some pleadings are necessarily longer than others. The difference likely depends on the number of parties and claims, the complexity of the governing facts, and the duration and scope of pertinent events. But both a shorter pleading and a longer pleading must comprise “simple, concise, and direct” allegations that offer a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8 governs every pleading in a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy, the identity of the parties, the skill or reputation of the counsel, the urgency or importance (real or imagined) of the dispute, or any public interest at issue in the dispute. 

That parenthetical in the first sentence is a knife across the throat of the plaintiff's lawyers.  That's as brutal as judges generall get.  The wise counsel would drop this case like a bad habit and walk away.

And, what the heck, here's the heart of it:

Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true (of course, that is for a jury to decide and is not pertinent here; this order suggests nothing about the truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims but addresses only the manner of the presentation of the allegations in the complaint); even assuming that at trial the plaintiff offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and that the evidence is accepted by the jury as fact; and even assuming that after finally “melting” the defendants’ alleged “iceberg of falsehoods” the plaintiff prevails for each reason alleged in the complaint — even assuming all of that — a complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner. 

This is the judge, ab initio, on his own motion /initiative.  I don't even know if the defendants have made an appearance yet, and already the judge is gutting the plaintiff's complaint like a fish.  This is a teacher turning back an assignment and saying "This is an "F." Do it again, and get it right this time."

Lawsamercy. I have honestly never seen such incompetence in a court in my life.  And federal courts have a higher reputation than most state courts for not suffering fools gladly.

Adding:

That was fast. This is also why you don’t surrender to autocrats - you fight them and beat them. pic.twitter.com/zKob9SZqT7

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 19, 2025

No, the court did not dismiss the case. Trump has 28 days to find lawyers who understand the FRCP, or for his lawyers to read the rules and comply with them.