4.         The pro se pauper Plaintiff does not feel Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren is aware that the “Dennis Factors” often used by him to deny amending are TOTALLY FRAUDS used to violate the intent of the Federal Rules of CP.  See Dennis v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525        (8th Cir. 2000) This is a relatively fresh case and was the case Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren used to describe the approach the Eighth Circuit had in amending in bare error.  Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren’s use of “Dennis Factors” is nothing but one way to justifying arbitrary decisions. The case cited was an appeal based on denial of leave to amend an answer.  Dillard’s objected to denial of their motion to amend their answer in the case cited but that was never read.  

5.         Plaintiff finds it appalling that this is the case Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren often uses to support denying an amendment in spite of the   Federal Rules of CP Rules 15, 18, 19, and 20.  The Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Dillard’s appeal due to being denied and ordered a new trial on those very grounds.  The Eighth Circuit will support amending unless there is a clear rational listed, as the Western District of Arkansas has not stated, alleging reliance on Eighth Circuit precedence in error. 

6.         Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren invented “Dennis Factors” to support denial of amendments as sanctions.  Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren is entitled to respect and the benefit of the presumption that the Judge researched “Dennis Factors” perhaps further or had some other rational that was not in keeping with the illogical explanation that “more than two” had once been included in AR statutes to benefit insane minors in prison out-of-State in spite of the fact that this is wrong on its face. 

7.         The Plaintiff is very familiar with having reasoning questioned having a severe traumatic brain injury that is unique. Plaintiff expresses empathy for Jimm Larry Hendren attempting to rule justly on this case dealing with wire communications, called the Internet to avoid regulation, which did not exist until shortly after Jimm Larry Hendren became a judge. 

8.         The Plaintiff decided to research  “Dennis Factors” beyond the case cited in error.  The listed rational that included repeated failed amendments was text cited by the Eighth Circuit Court.  The quote paraphrased circumstances that warranted denial of granting leave to amend was actually a quote from Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

9.         Determined to find the ruling where these circumstances had caused denial, the plaintiff read the quoted case.  The case is published by wire. See < openjurist.org/371/us/178 >. This case was an opinion of the Supreme Court written by Justice Goldburg in 1962 only three years before the Justice resigned.