LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al. v NDP of the USA, INC., et al. (USDC AZ)

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:58 pm

bob wrote:

Please remind me: Did the defendants seek sanctions based on no party having contact with the forum?

If one accepts the court's reason that most of the on-the-merits birther dismissals had not yet been decided when the complaint was filed (*cough* Ankeny), the concept that an Arizona court would lack personal jurisdiction surely was readily known before Irion filed.

I believe the defendants sought sanctions for all the chicanery involved in suing a bogus organization listed in Tennessee for the alleged bad-faith purpose of obtaining a default judgment that could be publicized. That was the central theme for which Mr. Irion was asked to 'splain himself.

And boy! did he ever tap-dance around that one. Apparently, the Court decided that his resort to an idiocy defense cast just enough doubt to save him from a finding of bad faith.

What still irks me about the court's reasoning in declining to impose sanctions here is that it isn't necessary to demonstrate that a frivolous legal claim runs afoul of settled law. IMHO, aggravated incompetence and assholery should be enough. But apparently it isn't.

As much as I hate to say it, this has been a good week for the birthers. Oh sure, they didn't actually win anything. (What else is new?) But with this ruling and Judge Reid's summary denial of the sanctions motion in Indiana, Birtherdom will be encouraged to continue to abuse the court system with little fear of consequences.

Edit: This is one of those times I truly wish I had been wrong

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Quote:

As much as I hate to say it, this has been a good week for the birthers. Oh sure, they didn't actually win anything. (What else is new?) But with this ruling and Judge Reid's summary denial of the sanctions motion in Indiana, Birtherdom will be encouraged to continue to abuse the court system with little fear of consequences.

^^^^THIS

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10644

Is Clay Land the only decent Judge in America?

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:09 pm

Hey now, I happen to know Judge Bolton personally and she is a lovely lady. And remember: she started the whole process of smacking down SB1070. She is the Margaret Thatcher of federal judges in our district. Not scared of a damn thing. So, scared of imposing sanctions on a birther? Pulleaze. I assume she ruled the way she did because she believed the law required her to.

Jim · **Joined:** Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm **Posts:** 216

TexasFilly wrote:

Is Clay Land the only decent Judge in America?

Land is the only Judge that had to put up with Orly for 2 different cases. That alone deserves an extra paycheck! :-bd

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Jim wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Is Clay Land the only decent Judge in America?

Land is the only Judge that had to put up with Orly for 2 different cases. That alone deserves an extra paycheck! :-bd

Not so... Judge Lamberth, D.C.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3493

realist wrote:

Jim wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Is Clay Land the only decent Judge in America?

Land is the only Judge that had to put up with Orly for 2 different cases. That alone deserves an extra paycheck! :-bd

Not so... Judge Lamberth, D.C.

Now let's not forget the Hon. Judge Nishimura.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:53 pm

jtmunkus wrote:

realist wrote:

Jim wrote:

Land is the only Judge that had to put up with Orly for 2 different cases. That alone deserves an extra paycheck! :-bd

Not so... Judge Lamberth, D.C.

Now let's not forget the Hon. Judge Nishimura.

But Hawaii really isn't a state... =))

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9328

poutine wrote:

Hey now, I happen to know Judge Bolton personally and she is a lovely lady. And remember: she started the whole process of smacking down SB1070. She is the Margaret Thatcher of federal judges in our district. Not scared of a damn thing. So, scared of imposing sanctions on a birther? Pulleaze. I assume she ruled the way she did because she believed the law required her to.

While I agree with you that I believe there is nothing resembling fear in the failure to impose sanctions, I feel the reluctance to impose sanctions is an endemic failure in American jurisprudence. Basically, this punishes innocent defendants and rewards the scum of the earth. Why should defendants bear the costs imposed by vexatious litigants who are basically terrorists?

At what point does it become an abuse of discretion to deny sanctions when filings are so insanely frivolous that they are basically screaming for sanctions?

I hope to see some of these rulings successfully appealed under the abuse of discretion standard. (But I won't hold my breath.)

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:17 am

Did defendants forget to ask for attorney fees or can they now request them after the dismissal?

bob · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:28 am

LLF: American Courts Are Lawless

Quote:

If you believe that America is still a nation of laws, we have bad news for you. Courts now twist legal precedent to rationalize the political outcome they prefer. Judges decide who will win a lawsuit based solely upon who the parties to the lawsuit are, which party has more political power, and which party reflects the Judges’ political philosophy. Laws mean nothing to these people. Precedent means nothing. Words have no meaning. Black is white if that is required to achieve the desired outcome. If you think I’m exaggerating in any way, you have not been paying attention.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. This week’s ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissing Liberty Legal Foundation’s Arizona Certification Class Action lawsuit proves the point, yet again. The ruling proves that Judges will go to any lengths to avoid dealing with the Natural Born Citizen issue. In this case, the court claims that they don’t have jurisdiction over the defendants because, according to the court, the defendants haven’t done anything that would make them reasonably anticipate being hailed into court in Arizona. That’s right, according to the Arizona District Court, sending a signed certification that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President to the Arizona Secretary of State and asking that Obama be placed on Arizona ballots pursuant to Arizona law is not sufficient to make the DNC reasonably expect that they might be subject to Arizona law. Wow, please re-read that last sentence. It is stunning, but it’s true.

Susan Bolton’s ruling says, “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants will make a representation to all fifty Secretaries of State and ‘request that this Court take judicial notice that Arizona is one of the states.’ However, an act national in scope, not targeting any particular person or place, is insufficient to establish persona jurisdiction.” To be specific, LLF alleged that the DNC had in the past, and would again, send a certification to the Arizona Secretary of State officially asserting that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and asking that the state of Arizona place Obama’s name on ballots. Now, I believe that the Arizona Secretary of State is a specific person. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I hadn’t heard any news that Arizona had decided to have a non-specific group of people serve as Secretary of State. I also believe that the Arizona Secretary of State has a specific office address. Again, correct me if I’m wrong on that point.

[...]

The test for personal jurisdiction over a defendant is whether that defendant reasonably should have known that their act would make them subject to the laws of the given state. Ask yourself, if you sent a signed certification that asserts a specific fact to a top state official and asked that state official to spend millions of tax payer dollars based upon your assertion of fact and that fact was false, would you reasonably expect that a court in that state might want to talk to you sometime in the future? Would that be reasonable?

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:33 am

Poor baby can't take the hit.

poutine · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:57 am

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

While I agree with you that I believe there is nothing resembling fear in the failure to impose sanctions, I feel the reluctance to impose sanctions is an endemic failure in American jurisprudence. Basically, this punishes innocent defendants and rewards the scum of the earth. Why should defendants bear the costs imposed by vexatious litigants who are basically terrorists?

At what point does it become an abuse of discretion to deny sanctions when filings are so insanely frivolous that they are basically screaming for sanctions?

I hope to see some of these rulings successfully appealed under the abuse of discretion standard. (But I won't hold my breath.)

I agree with you as well, fully, and wish I had Rule 11 to rely on more often than I actually do in my law practice. But there is one caveat to consider:

The first time I was ever accused of "violating Rule 11" was about 6 months into my career. While I was naively shocked by this, it didn't take me long to realize that the same morons who frivolously violate Rule 11 are also running around frivolously citing Rule 11, basically as a matter of course.

Piffle · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:42 pm

bob wrote:

LLF: American Courts Are Lawless

Lawyer J. Noble Daggett of Dardanelle and Yell Counties wrote:

If you believe that America is still a nation of laws, we have bad news for you.<snip>

Susan Bolton’s ruling says, “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants will make a representation to all fifty Secretaries of State and ‘request that this Court take judicial notice that Arizona is one of the states.’ However, an act national in scope, not targeting any particular person or place, is insufficient to establish persona jurisdiction.” To be specific, LLF alleged that the DNC had in the past, and would again, send a certification to the Arizona Secretary of State officially asserting that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and asking that the state of Arizona place Obama’s name on ballots. Now, I believe that the Arizona Secretary of State is a specific person. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I hadn’t heard any news that Arizona had decided to have a non-specific group of people serve as Secretary of State. I also believe that the Arizona Secretary of State has a specific office address. Again, correct me if I’m wrong on that point.

Well, Venn, since you asked so nicely snidely, it just so happens that you are wrong. When sued in an official capacity, the Secretary of State is not a particular person, it's a particular office. And everything having to do with the SoS as a party to a lawsuit flows from that. It's one of those legal thingies.

I know this might be hard for a backwater patent lawyer to understand, so lemme try to 'splain. Let's take the doctrine of sovereign immunity, for example. That's not something natural persons have; it goes with the office.

Or lemme try another example. Let's say that you sue an SoS named "Smith" and the lawsuit drags on until "Jones" has become the SoS. At that point, the name "Jones" is substituted for "Smith" in the recitation of the parties. Make sense? That's because even the name of the office holder goes with the office, not the person.

I know, I know...mere technicalities. ](*,)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Quote:

by Piffle » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:42 am

bob wrote:LLF: American Courts Are Lawless

Lawyer J. Noble Daggett of Dardanelle and Yell Counties wrote:

That's hilarious. =))

Lawyer Daggett was a hell of a lot smarter than Aryan, however, as was his client. $\:D/$

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2097

Venn Aryan is once again OUTRAGED mostly about the media's response to the CCCP press conference. In his screed, he says that they will be appealing this case:

Quote:

Liberty Legal Foundation will continue our search for one honest judge. We are going to the Federal 9th Circuit Court next.

One honest judge. :roll:

A question for lawyers: Since this case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, is that the only issue that the appellate court will address?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Docket Update...

Quote:

U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-02089-SRB

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA Incorporated et al
Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton
Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Date Terminated: 07/11/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 360 Personal Injury: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

08/06/2012 43l NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 41 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,, 42 Clerk's Judgment, by John Dummett, Liberty Legal Foundation, Creg Maroney, Leonard Volodarsky. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 0970-7088657. (Irion, Van) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/06/2012 44 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 43 Notice of Appeal. (LSP) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:21 pm

realist wrote:

Docket Update...

08/06/2012 43l NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 41 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,, 42 Clerk's Judgment, by John Dummett, Liberty Legal Foundation, Creg Maroney, Leonard Volodarsky. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 0970-7088657. (Irion, Van) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

Once again, Venn Aryan lets the court know he is a force to be reckoned with...

Quote:

Submitted on this the 17th Day of Av, in the year of our Lord 2012 (a.k.a. August 6, 2012).

Kinda puts the fear of doG into ya, doesn't it?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:51 pm

The bizarre mix of Hebrew and Christian Era dates screams nutbag. Of course, other things were screaming that before Irion got to the end. Irion and Dumay deserve each other.

vic · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:10 am

Piffle wrote:

realist wrote:

Docket Update...
...

Once again, Venn Aryan lets the court know he is a force to be reckoned with...

Quote:

Submitted on this the 17th Day of Av, in the year of our Lord 2012 (a.k.a. August 6, 2012).

Kinda puts the fear of doG into ya, doesn't it?

I was going to mention that 17 Av cannot be "a.k.a. August 6". A Jewish day starts at sunset, so any given Jewish date spans parts of two Gregorian dates. "a.k.a." is not possible.

But then I checked some more, and 17 Av actually started on the evening of Aug 4 and ended on the evening of Aug 5, so no part of 17 Av is August 6th.

And then I noticed he said "17th Day of Av, in the year of our Lord 2012". WTF???? If you're gonna use the Jewish calendar, its Lord is a different one, and its Lord's 2012 would be around 1760 BC

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2357

Piffle wrote:

Quote:

Submitted on this the 17th Day of Av, in the year of our Lord 2012 (a.k.a. August 6, 2012).

Kinda puts the fear of doG into ya, doesn't it?

How did he miss 18 Ramadan 1433 AH?

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:34 am

vic wrote:

A Jewish day starts at sunset, so any given Jewish date spans parts of two Gregorian dates.

The amazing things I learn here.

'Course, that's gotta be hard on the clocks.

For example, sunset tomorrow (Aug. 8 on the goy calendar) begins here in Rawlee at 8:12 p.m., but sunset the next day starts at 8:10. That's a 23 hour, 58 minute day.

'Course, after the autumnal equinox, the days will start getting longer again, and we'll have 24 hr., 2 minute days ... :-?

And I don't even want to think about the dates and the clocks in Alaska! :lol:

woodworker · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm **Posts:** 347

What calendar system do we adherents of the great FSM (may his noodly appendages always remain al dente) follow?

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:16 pm

woodworker wrote:

What calendar system do we adherents of the great FSM (may his noodly appendages always remain al dente) follow?

"It's Five O'Clock Somewhere."

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:32 pm

Foggy wrote:

vic wrote:

A Jewish day starts at sunset, so any given Jewish date spans parts of two Gregorian dates.

The amazing things I learn here.

'Course, that's gotta be hard on the clocks.

For example, sunset tomorrow (Aug. 8 on the goy calendar) begins here in Rawlee at 8:12 p.m., but sunset the next day starts at 8:10. That's a 23 hour, 58 minute day.

'Course, after the autumnal equinox, the days will start getting longer again, and we'll have 24 hr., 2 minute days ... :-?

And I don't even want to think about the dates and the clocks in Alaska! :lol:

Offtopic :

What about years of 320 days followed by a year lasting 410 days?

Until the middle of the 16th century, many countries in Europe started the New Year on Easter Day.

We usually think of 1500 as the last century year not divisible by 400 that was a leap year, ie the last one with a February 29th. Actually, that is a re-interpretation of something that was far more complicated in those days.

When the future German Emperor and King of Spain and Spanish America Charles was born in Ghent in the year we now call 1500, everybody knew how important this new born would be (being male, he was heir to the thrones of Burgundy and of Spain). So the City aldermen decided to record his birth in the daily entry of the city's annals. He in a sense became the first human with a birth certificate. On set dates the public can still have a look at the entry:
"Des maendaeghs up S. Matthijsavond, den XXIIIIen in Sporcle anno XCIX, omtrent den IIII hueren in de morghenstond bedaghende, so wart gheboren .
de graeve Kaerle, zone van onzen harden geduchten heere ende prince den eertshertoghe Phelips, filius Maximilliani."

It says he was born on St Matthew's Eve, the 24th in the month of February 1499 (it says 99 actually) around 4 in the morning. St Matthew's Eve is the day before the extra leap day. There was no February 29th, there were TWO February twenty-fourths (or XXIIII to be exact).

An argument has been made that the real day of birth was in fact the leap day and would have been February 25th 1500 in our new system.

Note that having a birth certificate that could not possibly be more public and official than it is, has not stopped Emperor Charles from getting his set of birfers. The small town of Eeklo, some 20 km NW of Ghent, by the Dutch border, also claims to be the birth place of the famous emperor. According to a historian from the place, his parents did not want him to be known as born in the small and humble town of Eeklo but smuggled him into Ghent a few days later. In this scenario, he was born on February 22th and then shown to the Ghent administration two (or three?) days later.

At least, it did not involve non-existent intercontinental travel.

Of course, having very long and very short years did not make things easy for medieval administrations, monasteries and chancelleries. Gathering taxes and tithes pro annum was a bit complicated. So, at some time most of them switched to a fixed day for the beginning of their annals, usually a day that would always be before Easter. In 1472 (or was in 1471?) the Chancellery of Furnes in Flanders switched to March 1st as the first day of their annual records. That year, their records ran from May 14 1472 to ... February 28th ... 1472. (no Easter yet, so still 1472 - and no leap in February).

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al. v NDP of the USA, INC., et al. (USDC AZ)

Who is online