Taitz v. Cook (N.H.)

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:48 pm

bob wrote:

Quote:

This case demands transparency and not closed doors decisions.

Does Taitz have any idea how courts of discretionary jurisdiction operate?

Quote:

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PROCEDURAL RULES 1 TO 34

Rule 10. Appeal from Administrative Agency.

(1) The supreme court may, in its discretion, decline to accept an appeal, or any question raised therein, from an order of an administrative agency, or may summarily dispose of such an appeal, or any question raised therein, as provided in Rule 25. Review of an order of an administrative agency, when authorized by law, shall be obtained by filing the original and 8 copies of (a) an appeal under RSA 541;

But, as George Miller likes to point out, Orly's appeal is pursuant to Rule 11! :-bd

Quote:

Rule 11. Petition for Original Jurisdiction.
(1) Petitions requesting this court to exercise its original jurisdiction shall be granted only when there are special and important reasons for doing so. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons that will be considered: When a trial court or administrative agency has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by this court; or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this court; or has so far departed from the accepted or usual course of judicial or administrative agency proceedings as to call for an exercise of this court's power of supervision.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:31 pm

Rule 11 seems to say there really is no such thing as a non-appealable agency decision, even if the statute specifically states that decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

Which makes a lot of sense in Constitutional, due process sort of way.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:35 pm

raicha wrote:

Rule 11 seems to say there really is no such thing as a non-appealable agency decision, even if the statute specifically states that decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

Which makes a lot of sense in Constitutional, due process sort of way.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

I hope this has not been previously posted. If so, apologies.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29408 :evil:

Letter sent by Mr. Miller to the director of the administrative offices of the courts of NH
Posted on | December 20, 2011 | No Comments

Quote:

Donald D. Goodnow, Esq.
Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Two Charles Doe Drive
Concord, NH 03301

(603) 271-2521
RE: Supreme Court of New Hampshire case No. 2011-0880
As this hearing is a matter of national importance, :lol:

please arrange for it to be open to the public and video-recorded, or even live.

Should be great for tourism promotion =))

and reinforcing the integrity of the nation’s earliest Presidential primary- democracy/republic in action in New England! Live FREE or die!
Please forward also to Clerk of the Court: Eileen Fox
Regards, George Miller

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:40 pm

realist wrote:

I hope this has not been previously posted. If so, apologies.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29408 :evil:

Letter sent by Mr. Miller to the director of the administrative offices of the courts of NH
Posted on | December 20, 2011 | No Comments

Quote:

Donald D. Goodnow, Esq.
Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Two Charles Doe Drive
Concord, NH 03301

(603) 271-2521
RE: Supreme Court of New Hampshire case No. 2011-0880
As this hearing is a matter of national importance, :lol:

please arrange for it to be open to the public and video-recorded, or even live.

Should be great for tourism promotion =))

and reinforcing the integrity of the nation’s earliest Presidential primary- democracy/republic in action in New England! Live FREE or die!
Please forward also to Clerk of the Court: Eileen Fox
Regards, George Miller

Does CSPAN3 do circuses?

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:00 pm

Birtherism as a boost to tourism? They can't even get more than 30 birthers to a birfathon.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:04 pm

To be fair, the BLC hearing was the best attended birther event in recent memory. They might be able to rally more than 30 for a Supreme Court hearing.

Perhaps there is even a gallery seat for Theresa Cao.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9353

raicha wrote:

Rule 11 seems to say there really is no such thing as a non-appealable agency decision, even if the statute specifically states that decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

There's a case directly on point relating to the Ballot Commission. The Supreme Court likes pointing out at every available opportunity that it has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari whatever the legislature says, then upholding the agency decision.

I'm sure Obly will have no trouble finding the correct decision to cite for that point.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:07 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

raicha wrote:

Rule 11 seems to say there really is no such thing as a non-appealable agency decision, even if the statute specifically states that decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

There's a case directly on point relating to the Ballot Commission. The Supreme Court likes pointing out at every available opportunity that it has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari whatever the legislature says, then upholding the agency decision.

I'm sure Obly will have no trouble finding the correct decision to cite for that point.

Oooh, exciting! So if the NH court issues a writ just to prove it can, what are the odds that Obly gets oral argument too?

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:13 pm

raicha wrote:

To be fair, the BLC hearing was the best attended birther event in recent memory. They might be able to rally more than 30 for a Supreme Court hearing.

Perhaps there is even a gallery seat for Theresa Cao.

I thought the Lakin event brought out the mostest, bestest, and brightest of the birfer bunch.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9353

raicha wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

raicha wrote:

Rule 11 seems to say there really is no such thing as a non-appealable agency decision, even if the statute specifically states that decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review.

There's a case directly on point relating to the Ballot Commission. The Supreme Court likes pointing out at every available opportunity that it has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari whatever the legislature says, then upholding the agency decision.

I'm sure Obly will have no trouble finding the correct decision to cite for that point.

Oooh, exciting! So if the NH court issues a writ just to prove it can, what are the odds that Obly gets oral argument too?

If they do, I hope they know they should have extra security and a paddy wagon on hand in case the violent lunatics they have for elected officials in New Hampshire show up and try a repeat of their previous disgraceful performance.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:20 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

If they do, I hope they know they should have extra security and a paddy wagon.

Ahem.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:20 pm

ZekeB wrote:

raicha wrote:

To be fair, the BLC hearing was the best attended birther event in recent memory. They might be able to rally more than 30 for a Supreme Court hearing.

Perhaps there is even a gallery seat for Theresa Cao.

I thought the Lakin event brought out the mostest, bestest, and brightest of the birfer bunch.

I said "in recent memory". In all of birfer history, the spectacle in Judge Carter's court may have drawn the largest crowd. But since April 27th, birfer fails have been ever more pitiful.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:24 pm

raicha wrote:

I said "in recent memory". In all of birfer history, the spectacle in Judge Carter's court may have drawn the largest crowd. But since April 27th, birfer fails have been ever more pitiful.

What you really mean to say is since April 27 there have been more OBOTS than birfers attending birferism trials. Generally for beaking comedy news, of course.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:32 pm

True. We never knew Holy Cao before the Lakin Court Martial.

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:57 pm

bob wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

If they do, I hope they know they should have extra security and a paddy wagon.

Ahem.

They are great when doing a classic "Chinese Fire Drill" Ahem Twice

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:00 pm

bob wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

If they do, I hope they know they should have extra security and a paddy wagon.

Ahem.

I had know idea what the origin of paddy wagon was. The NY draft riots of 1863. Or so it says.

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:01 pm

bob wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

If they do, I hope they know they should have extra security and a paddy wagon.

Ahem.

Try this one.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_van

Quote:

A police van (also known as a paddywagon, Black Maria or police carrier) is a type of vehicle operated by police forces. Police vans are usually employed for the transportation of prisoners inside a specially adapted cell in the vehicle, or for the rapid transportation of a number of officers to an incident

Edit: I'm sure they are getting the TWA...err SWAT teams ready and a place to put all those confiscated scooters and oxygen generators.

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:04 pm

I believe it's offensive to people of Irish heritage.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:20 pm

ZekeB wrote:

What you really mean to say is since April 27 there have been more OBOTS than birfers attending birferism trials.

I was outnumbered 2:1 at the Hornbeck hearing. A married birfer couple showed up.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:40 pm

From the Rulz (thanks, Adelante):

Quote:

4. I will NOT tolerate personal attacks on other registered, participating members, or remarks of a blatantly offensive sexist, racist, or obscenely sexual nature. This board is private property; the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect your free speech here.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:56 pm

mimi wrote:

Birtherism as a boost to tourism? They can't even get more than 30 birthers to a birfathon.

For the BLC hearing I spent $11.00 on lunch, and $1.50 for an ice cream sandwich at the bus station. Plus flowers to the SoS lady. (Thanks folks!)

If they hold the hearing, I'll go for a bra fitting and buy a couple. And there's a Burlington Coat Factory! (I think most of the attendees were from MA and NH.) So maybe $100?

Please please please... [-o<

Nuthin' like New Hampshire in January. Ceptin' the rest of New England.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:36 pm

Whatever4 wrote:

If they hold the hearing, I'll go for a bra fitting ...

Take Orly.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:05 pm

verbalobe wrote:

Whatever4 wrote:

If they hold the hearing, I'll go for a bra fitting ...

Take Orly.

RC is looking to apprentice as a bra fitter.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:10 pm

verbalobe wrote:

Whatever4 wrote:

If they hold the hearing, I'll go for a bra fitting ...

Take Orly.

Normally I'd offer free installation on any bra bought at a store near me. In O'rly's case, I'll demur.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v. Cook (N.H.)

Who is online