EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#26

Post by realist » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:15 pm

Docket Update...08/23/2012 22 NOTICE OF LODGING STATE COURT DOCUMENT(S) by Barack Hussein Obama, II (Attachments: # 1 01 Petition, # 2 02 Motion to Expedite, # 3 03 ORDER Denying Motion to Expedite, # 4 04 Proof of Mailing, # 5 05 Motion to Dismiss, # 6 06 Obj to Motion to Dismiss, # 7 07 Entry of Appearance for Obama-Pelosi, # 8 08 Joinder in Motion to Dismiss, # 9 09 Notice of Filing Removal, # 10 10 Petitioner's Answer to Pelosi Motion to Dismiss, # 11 11 Attestation of Superior Court Clerk)(Wilson, Edward) Modified on 8/23/2012 Create relationship to document #8 (CLW, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2012) 08/23/2012 23 Notice to Counsel re 22 Notice of Lodging State Court Document(s),, filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II. A review of the document submitted at dkt 22 confirms that it is over 25 pages in length. If a CHAMBERS copy of the document has not been forwarded to the Court, counsel is reminded that, pursuant to D.Ak.LR 10.1(b) and the Administrative Policies and Procedures, you are required to provide the court with a CHAMBERS copy of your filing at dkt 22. The CHAMBERS copy must be attached to a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing and must be printed with the ECF pdf footer on each page. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/23/2012)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#27

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:40 am

Docket Update...08/23/2012 22 NOTICE OF LODGING STATE COURT DOCUMENT(S) by Barack Hussein Obama, II (Attachments: # 1 01 Petition, # 2 02 Motion to Expedite, # 3 03 ORDER Denying Motion to Expedite, # 4 04 Proof of Mailing, # 5 05 Motion to Dismiss, # 6 06 Obj to Motion to Dismiss, # 7 07 Entry of Appearance for Obama-Pelosi, # 8 08 Joinder in Motion to Dismiss, # 9 09 Notice of Filing Removal, # 10 10 Petitioner's Answer to Pelosi Motion to Dismiss, # 11 11 Attestation of Superior Court Clerk)(Wilson, Edward) Modified on 8/23/2012 Create relationship to document #8 (CLW, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2012) 08/23/2012 23 Notice to Counsel re 22 Notice of Lodging State Court Document(s),, filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II. A review of the document submitted at dkt 22 confirms that it is over 25 pages in length. If a CHAMBERS copy of the document has not been forwarded to the Court, counsel is reminded that, pursuant to D.Ak.LR 10.1(b) and the Administrative Policies and Procedures, you are required to provide the court with a CHAMBERS copy of your filing at dkt 22. The CHAMBERS copy must be attached to a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing and must be printed with the ECF pdf footer on each page. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/23/2012) Annoying. Seriously.If you are responding to a nutcase whose primary litigation malpractice consists of ignoring the rules, you should yourself adhere strictly to the rules. Clearly, counsel for the President failed to do so and instead submitted a document over 25 pages in length.Seriously, why? Why get shit like this wrong? Even if the judge doesn't care, the clerks live and breathe these rules and instantly notice failures to adhere to them. Why join Orly at the bottom of the sewer? Do this stuff right!Counsel for the President should take their job more seriously.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8906
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#28

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:49 am

Docket Update...08/23/2012 23 Notice to Counsel re 22 Notice of Lodging State Court Document(s),, filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II. A review of the document submitted at dkt 22 confirms that it is over 25 pages in length. If a CHAMBERS copy of the document has not been forwarded to the Court, counsel is reminded that, pursuant to D.Ak.LR 10.1(b) and the Administrative Policies and Procedures, you are required to provide the court with a CHAMBERS copy of your filing at dkt 22. The CHAMBERS copy must be attached to a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing and must be printed with the ECF pdf footer on each page. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/23/2012) Seriously, why? Why get shit like this wrong? Even if the judge doesn't care, the clerks live and breathe these rules and instantly notice failures to adhere to them. Why join Orly at the bottom of the sewer? Do this stuff right!Counsel for the President should take their job more seriously.I agree that we've seen some sloppy practice from lawyers representing the President, but are we sure this is one of those times? The notice says that "If a CHAMBERS copy..." not "A CHAMBERS copy has not...". I'm guessing it might be possible that the rules allow for >25 page documents in some circumstances, and the reminder is routine.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7337
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#29

Post by raicha » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:34 am

Since they are lodging state court documents, they cannot simply edit down to 25 pages. As I read this, they are allowed to lodge more than 25 pages but must be sure to prepare the chambers copy.



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#30

Post by Piffle » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:46 am

Since they are lodging state court documents, [highlight]they cannot simply edit down to 25 pages[/highlight]. As I read this, they are allowed to lodge more than 25 pages but must be sure to prepare the chambers copy.I agree. This is especially true since some of the documents that must be lodged on removal were created by opposing parties.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#31

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:05 pm

I agree that we've seen some sloppy practice from lawyers representing the President, but are we sure this is one of those times? The notice says that "If a CHAMBERS copy..." not "A CHAMBERS copy has not...". I'm guessing it might be possible that the rules allow for >25 page documents in some circumstances, and the reminder is routine.I believe the rule requires one lodging such documents to provide copies for chambers. Photocopiers are often abused to death by courts. Parties who increase this burden are disfavored.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#32

Post by realist » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:52 pm

Docket Update...





08/24/2012 [link]24,[/link] ORDER that this case is hereby [highlight]DISMISSED with prejudice[/highlight], Outstanding motions 13 MOTION to Remand filed by Gordon Warren Epperly, 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer/Response to Petition filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II, 8 First MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Mead Treadwell, Gail Fenumiai, 18 MOTION for Extension of Time to File State Court Record filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II, are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/24/12. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/2012)





08/24/2012 [link]25,[/link] [highlight]NOTICE of Intent to File Judicial Misconduct Complaint by Gordon Warren Epperly[/highlight] :P (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 9CCA Opinion, # 2 Exhibit B SOA Nomination Petition Objection)(PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/2012)





08/24/2012 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gordon Warren Epperly re 25 Notice (Other) (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/2012)





08/27/2012 [link]27,[/link] JUDGMENT action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/27/12. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/2012)





WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS!!





more will be revealed soon. \ :D /


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14557
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#33

Post by Reality Check » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:04 pm

Friday smackdown or a Monday smackdown? Looks like a good one regardless. :-bd


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#34

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:17 pm

lol :-bd Of course, it's hard to get too excited about this being a smackdown considering this case was dead dead dead from the get-go. I'd prefer Orly's Indiana case to be treated as such.


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#35

Post by Piffle » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:55 pm

lol :-bd





Of course, it's hard to get too excited about this being a smackdown considering this case was dead dead dead from the get-go. [highlight]I'd prefer Orly's Indiana case to be treated as such[/highlight].Me too. Maybe we should pitch in and have a rubber stamp made (i.e., Wholly Frivolous) and send it to Judge Reid.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#36

Post by realist » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:56 pm

lol :-bd





Of course, it's hard to get too excited about this being a smackdown considering this case was dead dead dead from the get-go. [highlight]I'd prefer Orly's Indiana case to be treated as such[/highlight].Me too. Maybe we should pitch in and have a rubber stamp made (i.e., Wholly Frivolous) and send it to Judge Reid. =))


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11927
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#37

Post by Plutodog » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:01 pm

lol :-bd





Of course, it's hard to get too excited about this being a smackdown considering this case was dead dead dead from the get-go. [highlight]I'd prefer Orly's Indiana case to be treated as such[/highlight].Me too. Maybe we should pitch in and have a rubber stamp made (i.e., Wholly Frivolous) and send it to Judge Reid. =))Yes. Something large sent anonymously in multi-color model! \ :D /







The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

tjh
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#38

Post by tjh » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:04 pm

Docket Update...WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS!!It doesn't use those exact words (that I could find) :"Mr Epperly's claims are implausable and frivolous."



Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#39

Post by Tarrant » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:40 pm

I find amusing that in his Motion for Judicial Misconduct he doesn't actually raise misconduct - its more a motion for a rehearing or reconsideration. But he also asserts that removal to Federal court deprives Alaska of its right to judge the qualifications of Presidential candidates - a right that the state of Alaska, a defendant, does not assert it has, and also argues that he declared in his brief that women cannot serve as US Attorneys, and that since no one proved him wrong, the point was ceded thus he wins due to an ineligible attorney. (Of course the various Motions to Dismiss did call his arguments re: women and minorities reprehensible and wrong, but didn't "prove" them...but if Mr. Epperly declared "murder is legal!" in his argument they don't have to prove that wrong either...erroneous statements of law need not be accepted by a judge just because they go unrefuted.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#40

Post by realist » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:45 pm

Just for *completeness*... :P





Docket Update...





08/27/2012 27 JUDGMENT action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/27/12. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/2012)





08/27/2012 28 LETTER OF CLARIFICATION by Gordon Warren Epperly (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/2012)





08/27/2012 29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 28 Letter of Clarification (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/28/2012)





09/18/2012 [link]30,[/link] Letter received on 9/18/12 from Gordon Warren Epperly. (Attachments: # [link]1,[/link] Attachment, #([link]2,[/link]) Attachment (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/2012)











The “letter of clarification” came in after the judgment but on same day, so I didn’t notice it until today.


It’s ALL total BS, but ...


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8463
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#41

Post by verbalobe » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:52 pm

What a frootloop. An angry, abusive frootloop.





Too, also, for a perennial kook pro-per, he has a remarkably deficient understanding of the legal term of art, frivolous.



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#42

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:09 pm

After "reading" all of Epperly's "writings" I have to "wonder" if this "moran" has what we like to call a "brain". He just loves him some quotation marks, that's for sure. :lol:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#43

Post by AnitaMaria » Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:30 pm

That second attachment contains a letter from Epperly to the birfer lawyers--Taitz, Apuzzo, Denofrio, Irion, Klayman, Kreep, Berg, Hatfield, Pidgeon, and Jablonski :lol: telling them they need to focus on the "mulattos can't be president" angle and forget the other birther nonsense because there is nothing anywhere that says the president must have a birth certificate or SSN but there's lots of secret stuff that says mulattos can't be president. He also says that he is too old and too poor to keep up the fight, so he is leaving the fight up to the losing-est lawyers in the business who, he claims, have money and the necessary knowledge of the law and the courts to keep this issue alive. :roll:



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5580
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#44

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:38 am

After "reading" all of Epperly's "writings" I have to "wonder" if this "moran" has what we like to call a "brain".





He just loves him some quotation marks, that's for sure. :lol:Yes, :evil: "Epperly" :evil: certainly loves him some quotation marks! And italics, which must have some magic effect in the Law and Constitution of Epperlania. I am baffled though as to why he considers that "Women" requires quotation marks and italics (even non-white Citizens does not). How does :evil: "Epperly" :evil: think that "Women" is in some way a term that is controversial, a term of art, or in need of some qualification?





:evil: "Epperly" :evil: is a nasty bit of very smelly shit. I guess even most birthers can see the stupidity shining through his evil nonsense.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 15896
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#45

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:43 am

How does :evil: "Epperly" :evil: think that "Women" is in some way a term that is controversial, a term of art, or in need of some qualification?I guess those are the progressive emancipated females that scare Mr Epperly, while true specimens of females are tending barefoot the kitchen and his virtual screaming offspring.... :twisted:



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5580
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#46

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:53 am

How does :evil: "Epperly" :evil: think that "Women" is in some way a term that is controversial, a term of art, or in need of some qualification?I guess those are the progressive emancipated females that scare Mr Epperly, while true specimens of females are tending barefoot the kitchen and his virtual screaming offspring.... :twisted: :lol: OK, thanks RTH, I understand now: it's Epperlogic! Given that No True Woman would want to be a political leader, a lawyer or a judge therefore these monsters are not True Women! But how to refer to them so the poor readers will understand... quotation marks! :lol:



rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#47

Post by rosy » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:55 pm

I see he's happy to be part of Romney's 47%; his letter to the birther lawyers (plus Jablonski :lol: ) ends with his plea of penury; As I am getting along in years and the only income I am now receiving is the Social Security Benefits offered by the United States government...So that's a vote for Obama from you, Gordon!



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19730
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#48

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:30 pm

VRS* Epperly seems to have missed the fact that [link]free "Negroes" were voting in some states before the Civil War,http://www.slavenorth.com/nyemancip.htm[/link]. They tended to back the Federalists, the party of Jay and Hamilton, not the


Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party, which made a political issue of the black vote and attempted to discredit the Federalists by marrying them, in the public mind, to the most vicious racist stereotypes of blacks.That campaign against the "Negro" vote continued through the Civil War. Connecticut was a sad case of success for the racist agenda of what had become the Democratic Party of Connecticut:





New York Times Sept. 12, 1865 THE QUESTION OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE. [scanning errors corrected]


-A popular vote is to be taken in Connecticut on the first Monday in October, on an amendment to the Constitution, by which the word "while" is to be stricken out from that clause prescribing the qualifications of electors. The amendment was passed almost unanimously by the last Legislature for submission to the people. Its object is to place all men, black and white, upon the same footing, so far as the right of voting is concerned.





Connecticut, we believe, is the only New-England State in which distinctions of color in this respect are maintained. The Democratic State Central Committee has issued an address to the people of the State asking them to defeat the proposed amendment. It urges that the State of Connecticut is, and of right ought to be governed by white men, and that when the proposition to change this and admit blacks to the suffrage was submitted to the people, it received only 5,353 votes in its favor, while there were 19,143 against it.





The result of this vote will be awaited with considerable interest. Now that slavery has been abolished, it is certainly just and right that all the prejudices and hostilities of race which it engendered should give place to sentiments of justice and equal rights. Whether they have done so, or not, to any considerable extent in Connecticut, will be determined by this vote.New York Times October 3, 1865 [link]"CONNECTICUT POLITICS.; Vote on the Constitutional Amendment Allowing Negroes the Right of Suffrage. SECOND DISPATCH. THIRD DISPATCH.",http://www.nytimes.com/1865/10/03/news/ ... right.html[/link]





As advocated by the Democratic State Central Committee of Connecticut, the Amendment failed. "Negroes" continued to be denied the right to vote in Connecticut. It took the 1870 15th Amendment to change that. This was at a time when (some) Connecticut Republicans were progressives.





*VRS Vile Racist Sexist


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

EPPERLY v OBAMA (USDC AK) - Case Removed to Federal Court

#49

Post by realist » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:05 am

Docket Update...





10/02/2012 31 TMB ORDER: Although the normal practice of the court would be to have sent the order of dismissal to Mr. Epperly when it was issued, because Mr. Epperly says in a letter [Doc. 30] that he did not receive a copy of the order from the court, the order of dismissal at docket 24 will be re-sent to Mr. Epperly. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/02/2012)





10/02/2012 [link]32,[/link] ORDER denying 28 reconsideration of the dismissal of this action is denied; [highlight]case is closed[/highlight]. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 10/1/12. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/02/2012)







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”