Been a fair bit of activity in the past two days:



Wonder if it's been dismissed?

Prolly.

Seems like they have a real streak going this week. Keep it up birfers.

Birthers, even when they win, they fail.

deleted. i posted in wrong place again. i'll try to fix it.

I deleted my reply to mimi's. Van Irion haz us confuzzled with his shenanigans.

Wow. Courts are getting good at slammin' the door shut in birfers' faces.

"Have the Plaintiffs paid all their fees ?" "Yes"
MTD.
"Granted".

They should be able to get it down to a 15 minute process.

Allen has a status conference today at 15:30 in his latest case. From Pambly:-



http://obamaballotchallenge.com/hearing-tomorrow-afternoon-tucson-arizona-regarding-obama-ballot-challenge and a direct link to last week's order and this week's opposition to the MTD here.

(Note: the order makes it clear that the status conference is today rather than Pambly's "tomorrow")

Allen makes a couple of references to the Cold Cuts Posse report otherwise it looks like more of the same.Could be the first smackdown of the week folks.

Allen v Obama - Motion to Dismiss

Allen v Obama - Order Setting Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

The motion to dismiss is a short but great read. I love looking at that extensive list of birther failures attached (and numbered! Although I think they may have forgotten some) attached at the end.

do we have this?
Allen Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84064021/Alle ... -and-Order

Allen's opposition is an irrelevant word salad which fails even to make the Minor v. Happersett argument in a coherent fashion. It's even worse on the procedural problems with the complaint. The motion to dismiss will be granted (of course).

Are defendants entitled to attorney's fees? If so, they should seek them. Enough crap is enough.

My only complaint is that it does not seek sanctions. The mere fact that it is Perkins Coie will cause substantial consternation among birfer morons. However when birfer morons "squander" (to quote the great word choice in the motion to dismiss) taxpayer money three times in a row, they should pay for it.

This opposition seems centered on the argument that he has a First Amedment right to ask the President questions, and that he should be able to use the courts to force an answer if he doesn't get one.

The first clause is true - he has the right to ask for anything he wants, and birthers do (kindergarten records?). But the second is ridiculous. The President has an equivalent right to say "Get stuffed" (once he has met whatever actual requirements there for getting on the ballot), and the solution to that is that of such conduct means a voter doesn't trust him, they don't have to vote for him, not to get the courts to do it for him.

Of course, I'd argue that at least with respect to the birth certificate he's already been PROVIDED an answer - he just doesn't like it. That, much like in the case of Lakin, is not within the power of the courts to fix.

Allen has added the Arpaio report and called it 'proof.' Even the gnarly sheriff did not go that far. He said that there is probable cause to investigate further but had not decided where to take it. Objectively, the report was proof of nothing except Joe's Posse had made a deal with WND and Corsi to publish worn out and disprovenclaims about the electronic file of the LFBC and the SSS registration.

At least he didn't threaten anyone but he did call the defendants 'haughty.' BTW, who do you think helped him write this or could he have done it all on his own.

I want someone to ask Allen and Kerchner and the others who think they have a right to personally inspect the certified paper copy exactly how that will work logistically if each candidate has to meet or send to every voter such a document. Then, they want to go to the vault in Hawai'i and inspect all their records to make sure it fits with the others and wasn't forged by state officials.

He gets all prickly at the accusation he is harassing the president and gives the legal definition from tort law when the MtD used it in the ordinary sense. Cute.

Allen v Obama - Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Court filed/stamped

Ah, I see that footnote. Allen quotes Joe, but doesn't close the quote leaving the reader to believe the second sentence to also be Joe's words. Was that intentional on Allen's part?

haha "Defendants make up a definition of natural born citizen..."

Nice projection.

I am amused by the conclusion that WKA was not a NBC but his children would be if he married a citizen!

How soon are we likely to find out the results of the hearing?

Just guessin', mind you, but relatively (perhaps very) soon after its conclusion.

I've lost track of the timeline of dismissals, but I'm assuming this will be the first dismissal post-CCP report. Can anyone suggest a better definition of irony than that?

Oh, what a grand exercise in plagiarism this motion is. Moreover, it’s truly atrocious plagiarism.

In support of his point I, he’s cut and pasted large segments of what looks to have been a brief written in 2002 or possibly early 2003 for a case concerning the press’s right of access to judicial records. Exactly what this has to do with Allen’s case is hard to divine. Apparently, he’s attempting to bootstrap the public’s right to access judicial records into a wholly fictitious obligation that President Obama prove his identity. Go figure!

So why do I think it’s plagiarized, you ask? One smoking gun is on page 3 where he cites:


The blank volume and page numbers indicate that the research was done when the case was fresh and had not yet been published in a bound reporter (i.e., Federal Reporter 3rd). If Allen had actually accessed the case – now ten years old --, he’d know that it is may be cited using actual volume and page numbers (i.e., 303 F.3d 681).

For his point II, he’s purloined a bunch of boilerplate on the standards for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Most of this is familiar verbiage to any lawyer. However, because the MTD uses the word “harassing” to describe Mr. Allen’s complaint, he must have Googled the word “harassing”, which popped up a lawsuit brought for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Incredibly, he seems to be arguing that the President’s attorneys have not met the elements of the tort of IIED. This is crazy stuff. Stupid too.

Point III is a second bogus attempt to parlay First Amendment rights of public access to court proceedings into a requirement that Mr. Obama prove his identity. This, too, appears to have been plagiarized – again poorly -- from an old brief found on the ‘net. The tipoff?



Obviously, whoever researched and wrote the brief from which this section was lifted was tailoring an argument for use in 5th Circuit turf (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas). Arizona, of course, is in the 9th Circuit.

Point IV is another monument to Allen’s obvious limitations in reading comprehension. One amusing note: In an effort to save his pleadings, he asserts that since he included “the election person in Pima County”, no other county or state parties are necessary. And that’s because he’s only asking the judge to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in Pima County. Who knew?

He also argues that Mr. Obama was correctly served through the U.S. Attorneys Office. Wrong again! That’s “candidate Obama” to you, Kenny boy. The U.S. Attorney has nothing whatsoever to do with defending a candidate’s ballot challenges, President or not.

Meh, the rest of it is pretty much standard birfer rantings, with a generous heaping of Joe Arpaio.

Especially after 3.5 years of complaining that Obama has spent [sic] so much defending this crap. There's a cure for that, birthers: you can pay to both prosecute AND defend.