Producing several focused questions with duplicate content

Question

My question was closed:

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers. Update the question so it focuses on one problem only. This will help others answer the question. You can edit the question or post a new one.

The question contains a rather long text with a detailed enough explanation of details of a particular situation about which I ask legal questions.

So, is it OK to produce several questions each containing this the same long explanation? Won't content duplication in questions lead to moderation actions? If it would, what should I do?

Answer 1

SE provides a "reason" for closing, which does not necessarily correspond to the reasons that the 5 voters had (or fewer, if closed with a diamond hammer). Very often, there are multiple reasons, but the machine doesn't give you that level of detail. Perhaps a mod could say something about how the machine arrives at "the reason".

It would not be okay to take a really bad question, dissect it into small pieces, and distribute the pieces among myriad little questions. It would be okay, indeed advised, for you to reflect on what legal issue, if any, there might be that is connected to your post. The determination that there is "no coherent description of facts" is a central issue for you to come to grips with. As I see it, you want to sue somebody for something, and perhaps you did file a suit but the suit was dismissed, and now you are at the "what's next" stage.

From a practical perspective, the answer is "ask your attorney," because we do not give legal advice. Based on your related questions, I surmise that you did this yourself without an attorney, so I would change the recommendation to "get an attorney." (There are alternative forms of counseling that might be useful to you personally, in dealing with the situation.) As for a legal question that could be on topic here, I see two general questions. The simpler one is whether there is, in principle, a legal claim that could form the basis for a successful lawsuit. The more complicated one is whether you can get out of the legal hole arising from having your suit dismissed (assuming that is what happened). In general, if you go pro se, you have to live with the consequences of your decision.

Addressing the first and simpler question, there is a straightforward legal question which does not involve the mass of irrelevant details about frying pans etc., namely "Can I sue X in Russia for religious discrimination?" What makes you think that you even can sue: do you think that religious discrimination is "against the law?" Let us say that X is a government-run university, and that you were officially expelled for being a Protestant. I honestly do not know enough about Russian law to say whether that means you can sue the university. It is a theoretically-answerable question, however, I would be surprised if you got a good answer based on Russian law. If religious discrimination is legal, your suit will be dismissed because you didn't "make a cognizable claim" (using irrelevant common law parlance).

Answer 2

There are several issues with your post. I will point out only some of them.

Your description needlessly intertwines a dispute with the university and an unrelated & very confusing situation with your mother. You could have made a better use of readers' attention span.

The title of your question conveys that you seek introductory guidance. But that is at odds with strong assertions you make such as "Absolutely no need to be a lawyer to know that religious discrimination is illegal in Russia" and "clearly against Russian laws of separation of state and religion". That discrepancy suggests that you have some preconceived --and mistaken-- ideas which not even an expert in Russian law would be able to revert. And, for the record, separation of state and religion does not necessarily imply [un-]lawfulness of religious discrimination.

Your misuse even of everyday concepts dissuades any serious consideration a post could prompt. For instance, stating that a person "cannot not [sic] be discriminated and has little chances of survival" is an argument, speculation, or opinion, yet you inaccurately call it a proof.

Another example is the initial statement "I was forced to leave [...] in the following way". That expression conveys that you are about to describe a sequence of events which took place, but you instead resort to the speculation that you "would most probably die of hunger" and mention a choice you made after you were allegedly forced to leave the university. There is no hint whatsoever of what exactly the university did to you, i.e., how it factually prompted you to leave. The absence of that elementary information makes it impossible for us to identify any legal points.

The aforementioned examples imply that you omitted the steep learning curve that we pro se litigants need to undergo prior to filing suit as well as during litigation. Judicial corruption is a worldwide problem, and a litigant's failure to timely educate himself about substantive & procedural law only makes it easier for a judge to dissimulate his or her ineptitude/corruption.

Whereas you include details that are irrelevant, you omit other crucial ones. Upon reading your entire post, the reader remains clueless as to why --be it lawful reason(s) or mere pretext-- your lawsuit was dismissed. For instance, if the statute of limitations (i.e., deadline for filing suit) expired by the time you filed suit, dismissal is perfectly lawful. By contrast, if the palpable or verifiable reason for dismissal is that the judge "just wanted to throw something to a trash can", then that would be unlawful. But the latter is the only --and conclusory-- detail you provide, which leaves us with no actual information to assess.