Taitz v. Cook (N.H.)

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:12 am

nbc wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

nbc wrote:

Yes the appointment may have been effective October 6, 2010 but the term for alternates does not start until July 1. And I have found so far no evidence that French ever was involved until November 18, 2011

I'd go a bit stronger - the Ballot Law Commission doesn't seem to have met between 18th November 2010 which French did not attend and 18th November 2011. (They had busy 2010 though - ten cases and something about ballot machines)

Excellent data. Now I understand that there is no real urgency to have the alternate's term started... Hmm Did French show up at any of the 2010 meetings after October 6 and before Nov 18?

The answer is nope...

Right. So we now agree that Jameson French presence on the Ballot Law commission was legit?
1. His first official appearance is Nov 18th, 2011.
2. Hi last political contribution is June 20, 2011.
3. His term began July 1, 2011.
4. His position doesn't require a particular political party affiliation.

Next?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:03 am

Not quite W4 - his term began 6th October 2010. He was appointed to serve the remainder of a term that runs from July 2009 to July 2013. I do think he is legit though even in the worse case scenario I wouldn't have thought it would have merited more than a quiet "don't do that again" reprimand.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:20 am

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Not quite W4 - his term began 6th October 2010. He was appointed to serve the remainder of a term that runs from July 2009 to July 2013. I do think he is legit though even in the worse case scenario I wouldn't have thought it would have merited more than a quiet "don't do that again" reprimand.

The case that Orly fails to make: Why an illegal campaign contribution by one member should taint the whole Commission. It doesn't. At most it invalidates Mr. Jameson's vote. There still was a quorum that allowed the Commission to proceed. The vote was still unanimous in favor of the resolution to allow Obama's name on the ballot.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:29 am

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Not quite W4 - his term began 6th October 2010. He was appointed to serve the remainder of a term that runs from July 2009 to July 2013. I do think he is legit though even in the worse case scenario I wouldn't have thought it would have merited more than a quiet "don't do that again" reprimand.

But he was to replace Martin.

Quote:

Ballot Law Commission
(Alternate member appointed by Governor and Council)
Jameson S. French, (r), Portsmouth Effective: Upon confirmation
Succeeding: Gregory T. Martin (d) Keene Term: July 1, 2013

Martin was part of the BLC hearings on Nov 18, 2010.

So it seems to me that French didn't start his term in Oct 2010 but in July 2011.

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2607

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Not quite W4 - his term began 6th October 2010. He was appointed to serve the remainder of a term that runs from July 2009 to July 2013. I do think he is legit though even in the worse case scenario I wouldn't have thought it would have merited more than a quiet "don't do that again" reprimand.

The code provides for appointments of members but not alternates to fill vacancies IIRC. He may have been appointed to serve the remainder, but according to the statute, his term would not have started until july 1. That he was not involved in any Ballot Law Commission decisions until Nov 18, 2011 supports this.

Remember he was nominated and then confirmed as an alternate in October. But the appointment by law could not have started until 1 july

Quote:

665:1 Organization. –

I. There shall be a ballot law commission consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. One member shall be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council, and shall be a person particularly qualified by experience in election procedure. No person shall be appointed to the commission who holds an elected office or who is an election official. The terms of all commissioners shall be for 4 years, except that the first appointments shall be as follows: the members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives shall be appointed for terms of 2 years, the members appointed by the president of the senate shall be appointed for terms of 3 years, and the member appointed by the governor shall be appointed for a term of 4 years. A member may be re-appointed upon the expiration of his or her term. The members shall elect annually a chairperson from among the members. Members shall be appointed and terms of office shall expire on July 1. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner for the unexpired term. The secretary of state shall be recording officer and clerk of the commission, but shall have no vote in its decisions.

II. There shall be 5 alternate members for the ballot law commission. Two alternate members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. Two alternate members shall be appointed by the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. One alternate member shall be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council, and shall be a person particularly qualified by experience in election procedure. The alternate members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate shall not be members of the general court. The terms of all alternate members shall be for 4 years, except that the first appointments shall be as follows: the alternate members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives shall be appointed for terms of 2 years, the alternate members appointed by the president of the senate shall be appointed for terms of 3 years, and the alternate member appointed by the governor shall be appointed for a term of 4 years. The term of each new alternate member shall begin on July 1.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:02 pm

W4 - confusing ain't it. But Martin was appointed by the Governor and Council as alternate in 2009. In May 2010 the member resigned; Martin resigned as alternate ; at the same Council meeting the Governor nominated him as member and the Council confirmed it a coupl of weeks later. It was as a member in his own right that he attended the 18th November 2010 meeting not as alternate.

nbc -that's a mighty big rabbit hole you're teetering on the brink of. If your reading was correct and the whole commission was wiped out in an accident after 1st July then the no new members could start until the following July.

You say -

Quote:

...but according to the statute, his term would not have started until july 1. That he was not involved in any Ballot Law Commission decisions until Nov 18, 2011 supports this

His non-involvment until 18th November 2011 is irrelevent - he was only the alternate and the member he was alternate for was present at the only meetings that took place in the intervening timescale. In contrast, the Senate President's Republican appointee, Sheila Roberge, was only appointed in September 2010 (after the end of her final term in the State Senate) and did take part in the 18th November 2010 meeting.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:09 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

W4 - confusing ain't it. But Martin was appointed by the Governor and Council as alternate in 2009. In May 2010 the member resigned; Martin resigned as alternate ; at the same Council meeting the Governor nominated him as member and the Council confirmed it a coupl of weeks later. It was as a member in his own right that he attended the 18th November 2010 meeting not as alternate.

nbc -that's a mighty big rabbit hole you're teetering on the brink of. If your reading was correct and the whole commission was wiped out in an accident after 1st July then the no new members could start until the following July.

You say -

Quote:

...but according to the statute, his term would not have started until july 1. That he was not involved in any Ballot Law Commission decisions until Nov 18, 2011 supports this

His non-involvment until 18th November 2011 is irrelevent - he was only the alternate and the member he was alternate for was present at the only meetings that took place in the intervening timescale. In contrast, the Senate President's Republican appointee, Sheila Roberge, was only appointed in September 2010 (after the end of her final term in the State Senate) and did take part in the 18th November 2010 meeting.

Hmmm... I'm beginning to see... I wonder if the BLC and those that appoint them are confused as well.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:39 pm

bob wrote:

Taitz never disappoints!:

Quote:

petition to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
...
Also:

Quote:

Arequest for stay of the decisionpending review by the Supreme Court was submitted to the Sec of State of NH and the Ballot Law Commission

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28770
...

What's with this new Orly fetish of asking for a stay on judgements ? Does such a thing really exist in any jurisdiction or in any legal procedure manual ? And doesn't such a "stay" actually send a case into judicial limbo, make it sort of a zombie ? When a case hasn't become final at one jurisdictional level, how can it be appealed at a higher authority ?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:04 pm

When a judgment orders a party to do something, usually to pay money, if an appeal is taken there are ways to stave off doing the thing required. If it's to perform an act, in California the judgment is usually automatically stayed by taking an appeal. If it's to pay money (and not just attorney's fees and costs), in California an appeal bond or other undertaking is required to be posted. (If it's not posted and the prevailing party collects, that pretty much moots the appeal.)

In Taitz's lawsuits no one is being ordered to do anything because Taitz loses and the cases get dismissed. Thus, life goes on (Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da) and there is nothing to be stayed.

I think what Taitz is trying to accomplish is to obtain the relief which the trial court had already ruled she wasn't entitled to receive. Which will never happen.

But they don't teach such things at Taft Law Skool. I'm not sure what they teach there quite frankly, after watching this disaster operate for 2 1/2 years.

IllAlien · **Joined:** Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:47 am **Posts:** 106

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

When a judgment orders a party to do something, usually to pay money, if an appeal is taken there are ways to stave off doing the thing required. If it's to perform an act, in California the judgment is usually automatically stayed by taking an appeal. If it's to pay money (and not just attorney's fees and costs), in California an appeal bond or other undertaking is required to be posted. (If it's not posted and the prevailing party collects, that pretty much moots the appeal.)

In Taitz's lawsuits no one is being ordered to do anything because Taitz loses and the cases get dismissed. Thus, life goes on (Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da) and there is nothing to be stayed.

I think what Taitz is trying to accomplish is to obtain the relief which the trial court had already ruled she wasn't entitled to receive. Which will never happen.

But they don't teach such things at Taft Law Skool. I'm not sure what they teach there quite frankly, after watching this disaster operate for 2 1/2 years.

I think you're on to something, She says stuff like:

This man is rotting in prison so we need to see the LFBC
The Judge mentioned the LFBC so we are entitled to see it
I was fined so I need to see it
I need the LFBC to defend against complaint to the California Bar
I need the LFBC to support another case where access to it was denied
oh, and my favorite, I have new evidence, I filed (and lost) a complaint so I should be allowed to bring experts

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:36 am

IllAlien wrote:

I think you're on to something, She says stuff like:

This man is rotting in prison so we need to see the LFBC
The Judge mentioned the LFBC so we are entitled to see it
I was fined so I need to see it
I need the LFBC to defend against complaint to the California Bar
I need the LFBC to support another case where access to it was denied
oh, and my favorite, I have new evidence, I filed (and lost) a complaint so I should be allowed to bring experts

And they are cumulative.

bob · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:53 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

But they don't teach such things at Taft Law Skool. I'm not sure what they teach there quite frankly, after watching this disaster operate for 2 1/2 years.

It teaches how to open the checkbook. A skill that will be required once its graduates attempt to practice law.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:16 am

bob wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

But they don't teach such things at Taft Law Skool. I'm not sure what they teach there quite frankly, after watching this disaster operate for 2 1/2 years.

It teaches how to open the checkbook. A skill that will be required once its graduates attempt to practice law.

Taft is currently charging $7,920.00 tuition per year. For $31,680 anyone can be awarded the ability to earn -$20,250.00 annually (plus expenses).

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:40 am

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Taft is currently charging $7,920.00 tuition per year. For $31,680 anyone can be awarded the ability to earn -$20,250.00 annually (plus expenses).

No, you can't earn that much. That took three years to rack up.

You can only earn minus $6,750 annually, sad to say.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:23 am

Foggy wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Taft is currently charging $7,920.00 tuition per year. For $31,680 anyone can be awarded the ability to earn -$20,250.00 annually (plus expenses).

No, you can't earn that much. That took three years to rack up.

You can only earn minus $6,750 annually, sad to say.

2011 isn't over yet, give a girl a chance!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23911

Orly sez... I work sooooooooooo hard...

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28946 :evil:

Update

Posted on | December 13, 2011 | No Comments

Quote:

It took me some time to put together some 10 books of over 200 pages of complaint and all the xhibits for NH. People do not realise, how much work goes into this. The books had to be put together, printed, bound and shipped. It is donee Supreme Court [WTF?]

Of course, she leaves out that all her "work" accomplishes nothing but waste her flying monkeys' money. :lol:

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:48 pm

realist wrote:

Orly sez... I work sooooooooooo hard...

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28946 :evil:

Update

Posted on | December 13, 2011 | No Comments

Quote:

It took me some time to put together some 10 books of over 200 pages of complaint and all the xhibits for NH. People do not realise, how much work goes into this. The books had to be put together, printed, bound and shipped. It is donee Supreme Court [WTF?]

Of course, she leaves out that all her "work" accomplishes nothing but waste her flying monkeys' money. :lol: