Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9175
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Quote:
Press Release: US District Court in Indiana filed an Intervener Motion in federal elections challenge scheduled for bench trial on May 19, 2013

On December 18, 2012 Attorney Orly Taitz fied an intervener motion in a HAVA (Help America Vote) case, which is scheduled for bench trial on May 19, 2013.

In her motion Taitz argued that she repeatedly filed HAVA elections fraud complaints with the Secretary of State of Indiana and Elections Commission of Indiana. Initial complaint and 208 pages of exhibits was filed on February 8 2012 and was not addressed for 10 months by the Secretary of State and the Elections Commission. Taitz argued that these actions demonstrate a pattern of systematic cover up of elections fraud by the State Elections officials.

:twisted: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=368977 :twisted:

Taitz's link to her motion, surprise!, goes to a different document.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10651
IntervenOr, IntervenOr, IntervenOr!!!!!!

Aside from the rest of the bullshit.

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9369
Yet more evidence that Orly realizes she is completely and utterly incompetent to initiate anything resembling a cause of action in any court, anywhere, at any time, about anything.

So she has to look for similar kooks who file similar kook suits, then try to horn in on their kook suits with her own kook intervention attempts.

Since she doesn't understand the rules for filing as an intervenor any more than she understands anything else, this is yet another epic failure in the works.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23561
I did not know Judicial Watch had a HAVA case in IN. Kinda flew under the radar.

As for La Taitz's intervention and her claim that she has "repeatedly" filed HAVA complaints... I call bullshit. I know, Shocker. :lol:

IIRC what she did was file an elections challenge (or similar) and did it using a HAVA complaint form. Therefore, she never filed a HAVA complaint properly. Go figger.

So she's once again lying to the Court. Big surprise there. She only does it with every pleading she files.

Just curious... is the bench trial in front of Judge Rubber Stamp Reid? :lol:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9175
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
Yet more evidence that Orly realizes she is completely and utterly incompetent to initiate anything resembling a cause of action in any court, anywhere, at any time, about anything.

I think intervenor is Taitz's new word.

The suit is Judicial Watch v. King, No. 12-00800 (S.D. Ind.) (Lawrence, Judge), a NVRA suit regarding voter registration rolls.

The complaint.

-xx

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9369
realist wrote:
I did not know Judicial Watch had a HAVA case in IN. Kinda flew under the radar.


Note. There is NO SUCH THING as a HAVA case filed by a private individual. There is no private cause of action, implied or otherwise, in this comprehensive federal law. The very notion is ludicrous nonsense! If there were any such lawsuit, it would be filed by the federal government itself.

So for Larry Klansman to have filed such a bullshit lawsuit is barely more relevant than the fact that an incompetent lunatic like Orly Taitz intervened in it.

HAVA is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to anything that the Indiana Election Commission did, which I note was to smack Orly down and hard. I was there.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10651
Judicial Watch kicked Klayman to the curb a few years ago, IIRC.

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2577
Location: In exile in NOVA
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

So for Larry Klansman to have filed such a bullshit lawsuit is barely more relevant than the fact that an incompetent lunatic like Orly Taitz intervened in it.



Not Klansman - he and Judicial Watch parted company a few years back.

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 2115
Taitz, of course, has no idea what this case is about. The lawsuit is about the 1993 NVRA act--commonly known as the motor-voter act. It has nothing to do with HAVA, which was passed in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9175
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Judicial Watch's presser (from June):
Quote:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that on June 11, 2012, it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, et. al v. King, et. al (1:12-cv-00800)) in partnership with True the Vote against election officials in the State of Indiana alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Specifically the lawsuit alleges that Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson and Indiana Elections Division Co-Directors J. Bradley King and Trent Deckard have failed to maintain clean voter registration lists and make records related to voter registration list maintenance available as required by Section 8 of the NVRA. (Judicial Watch's co-plaintiff, True the Vote, is a grassroots election integrity watchdog.)

[...]

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendants' compliance with Section 8 of the NVRA. Specifically, Defendants have violated Section 8 by failing to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs in elections for Federal office and by failing to produce records related to those efforts, as required by Section 8. Plaintiffs thus seek a declaration and an injunction requiring Defendants to conduct and execute voter list maintenance programs in a manner that is consistent with federal law and further requiring Defendants to produce records about its list maintenance efforts.

In 2006, the federal government sued election officials in Indiana and forced the state to take measures to comply with the voter list maintenance under the NVRA. However, the remedies enacted by the state under a consent decree proved to be temporary. Based upon Judicial Watch's analysis of publicly available data for the November 2010 general election, the number of persons listed on voter registration rolls in 12 counties in the State of Indiana exceeds 100% of the total voting-age population in those counties.

[...]

The Obama Justice Department has failed to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA in court, having last filed a lawsuit to enforce voter list maintenance requirements of the NVRA in 2007. The current DOJ is now opposing Florida's Section 8 efforts to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.

[...]

Judicial Watch uncovered documents showing that the Obama DOJ is partnering with the ACORN-connected Project Vote, President Obama's former employer, to use the NVRA to increase voter registrations for those on public assistance, which is a key Obama voter demographic, while ignoring NVRA's Section 8 requirements for states to keep voter registration lists clean. The Justice Department has also filed lawsuits against states over voter ID laws and other measures intended to foster election integrity.

Ballot Access:
Quote:
On December 10, U.S. District Court Judge William Lawrence ruled that Judicial Watch and True the Vote have standing to sue Indiana state elections officials. Those two organizations believe the Indiana voter registration rolls are not properly maintained, and that many names on the rolls should not be there. The organizations point out that in twelve counties, there are more registered voters than the census finds adult residents.

The case is Judicial Watch v King, southern district, 1:12-cv-800. The decision says the Indiana members of those organizations have standing because if their allegations are true, their Indiana members who are registered voters are being injured.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4216
Is her attempt to intervene a new move for her or have we seen this before? I think this is new but I don't recall for certain. :-k

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9175
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
neonzx wrote:
Is her attempt to intervene a new move for her or have we seen this before? I think this is new but I don't recall for certain. :-k

She attempted to intervene into an Obamacare suit (in Florida) and a Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill suit (in Louisiana).

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Posts: 373
Location: Maybelot
Occupation: Smarty pants
I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9175
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Maybenaut wrote:
I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.

Unknown at this point. Her site has a link to a "Motion to intervene Judicial Watch v Elections Commission, Secretary of State" but that resolves to what she filed in Grinols.

And if the past is prologue, the election commission violated HAVA by allowing an usurper on the ballot, etc.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2912
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
Maybenaut wrote:
I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.


Another general rule: No "legal basis" is required for any legal action of Taitz.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:32 pm
Posts: 1108
Just wondering if any of the issues mentioned so far on this thread should be noted on "The (Many) Ethical Violations of Orly Taitz" thread?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9369
AnitaMaria wrote:
Taitz, of course, has no idea what this case is about. The lawsuit is about the 1993 NVRA act--commonly known as the motor-voter act. It has nothing to do with HAVA, which was passed in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle.


Good point, but still. Another law that creates no federal private cause of action. (Although many of the state laws that enact motor-voter do, in fact, create private causes of action. . .UNDER THE STATE LAWS).

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 pm
Posts: 300
This case appears to be premised on the allegation that Indiana has not been keeping its voter rolls up to date. Its factual base is that there are a number of counties that have more voters registered than they have voting age population (Scott, Spencer, Crawford, Warrick, Tipton,Franklin, Warren, Union, Orange, Brown, Hancock, and Newton counties - all of which Romney won). Nothing birther in it (until now).

Perhaps Orly will get the court to invalidate the presidential vote and Romney will loose 11 electoral votes. Who can tell....

_________________
When the going gets weird, the weird get going.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5522
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
bob wrote:
Maybenaut wrote:
I usually don't read Orly's effluvium, but I am curious to know what basis she thinks she has to intervene. I mean, what legal basis.

Unknown at this point. Her site has a link to a "Motion to intervene Judicial Watch v Elections Commission, Secretary of State" but that resolves to what she filed in Grinols.

And if the past is prologue, the election commission violated HAVA by allowing an usurper on the ballot, etc.


Taking bets that she failed to include a proposed complaint with her motion, describing specifically how Judicial Watch fails to adequately protect her interest in, um, the Indiana voter rolls.

Then there's the issue of the timeliness of her motion ...

_________________
“I can assure you that already in the Pavlovian swamps of the nutso right, the glands are swelling. Theirs is a different planet from the one you and I inhabit. ” - Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, May 12, 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23561
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Taking bets that she failed to include a proposed complaint with her motion, describing specifically how Judicial Watch fails to adequately protect her interest in, um, the Indiana voter rolls.

Then there's the issue of the timeliness of her motion ...


Apparently the lunatic did file a Motion to Intervene... you know, in a HAVA case. =))

H/T to AnitaMaria. :-bd

IN ECF 39 2012-12-18 - Judicial Watch, et al. v King, et al. - TAITZ Motion to Intervene

Guess who one of the opposing counsel is. Her friend Mr. Garn. :lol:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm
Posts: 2474
The dubiously-existing "DOFF" has "members" ?

_________________
Don't pee in a tree without a TJ Hunter www.tjhunters.com)
Fog-doe 1-909 REEKO subpoenas should be properly served on Blunt Force Donato
Feel free to copy/republish anything I post, with (tjh and/or tfb) or without attribution
Moderators : feel free to delete anything that offends/provides any assistance to the enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 710
Location: Undulating Center of the universe.
Occupation: Vagrant, rolling stone.
kreisman wrote:
This case appears to be premised on the allegation that Indiana has not been keeping its voter rolls up to date. Its factual base is that there are a number of counties that have more voters registered than they have voting age population (Scott, Spencer, Crawford, Warrick, Tipton,Franklin, Warren, Union, Orange, Brown, Hancock, and Newton counties - all of which Romney won). Nothing birther in it (until now).

Perhaps Orly will get the court to invalidate the presidential vote and Romney will loose 11 electoral votes. Who can tell....



Wow, like maybe a bunch of people have died over several years, like my gramma and gramps? They might still be on the voter roles? Now, man-o-man, if they voted after death and didn't send me a Christmas check, I am gonna be really pissed.

_________________
My father told me awhile back he was afraid Obama was going to "take his guns". I told him he better be more afraid that the Republicans would take my sisters birth control. He shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5758
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
tjh wrote:
The dubiously-existing "DOFF" has "members" ?


Her sworn statement that

Quote:
"Defend Our Freedoms" is being supported by me through my income as a doctor of dental Surgery and by my supporters


may be of interest to the California Attorney General as this suspended "public benefit" corporation has not filed tax returns, has not disclosed its officers and directors to the California Secretary of State and has not registered with the Division of Charitable Trusts as required for companies soliciting "donations" in the State of California.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Posts: 1995
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Occupation: I'm the Grand Panjandrum of the uber-sekrit cabal that controls our faithful puppet George Soros, the Trilateral Commission, and Agenda 21 (among other things) as part of our grand plan to dominate maple syrup production.
This just makes my head hurt. It's kinda hard to follow this, so apologies if I have mixed any of this up.

1. Orly supposedly has filed two HAVA complaints which have been (according to her) ignored.
2. Judicial Watch files an unrelated complaint in Indiana
3. Taitz files to intervene because it's a case involving alleged voter fraud in the Hoosier state even though the specific allegations are not the ones made by Taitz in her complaints.

It seems to me she haz a mad the SoS were ignoring her poopies and thinks that by filing for an intervention she can somehow convert Judicial Watch's case into a hearing on her own usual garbage. The usual IANAL disclaimer but I'm pretty sure that the legal system doesn't work the way of a Lucy Ricardo scheme.

_________________
It is easy to hope when things go right. Harder to choose to believe in it when things are blackest. However even the greatest darkness can be slain with the faintest of lights. And hope is more than enough to flicker in the dark.

I blog about my life and mental health issues @ Life of a Schizophrenic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9369
This appears to be the original Judicial Watch complaint. "True the Vote" is also a party.

Note, unlike Taitz, Judicial Watch is not incompetent enough to believe that HAVA creates a standalone private cause of action, and is seeking relief under the National Voter Rights Act, which does. The complaint appears at least to present one facially valid claim, the claim of failure to produce records under § 8 of the NVRA. I am doubtful that Judicial Watch has standing to challenge compliance with other § 8 requirements, however.

In any event, the suit does not appear to be frivolous on its face, unlike Taitz's intervention attempt.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group