Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge

poutine · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:51 pm

She claims she's licensed in PA, MD, and DC. But I can't confirm this with MD and DC. Someone care to follow up with phone calls for all 3 states? Websites:

http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm

http://www.msba.org/directory/index.cfm

I can't find a PA bar directory online, so this can only be done by phone:

http://www.pabar.org/public/welcome.asp

xKat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:06 pm **Posts:** 411

Poutine

Your PA link is for the PA Bar Association - a voluntary association like the ABA.

PA attorney registration information is found on the website for the PA Disciplinary Board - padisciplinaryboard.org

I know I had looked her up when the action was initially filed - her registration information is below:

Quote:

PA Attorney Information
Karen L. Kiefer
PA Attorney ID: 80973
Current Status: Active
Date of Admission: 01/05/1998
Lawfirm:
Other Organization:
District: 4
County: Westmoreland
Public Access Address 1005 LOUCKS AVENUE
SCOTTDALE, PA 15683
Tel: 724 887-1005
Fax: 724 887-1005
Professional Liability Insurance: I maintain, either individually or through my firm, Professional Liability Insurance pursuant to the provisions of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(C).
Comment:
Discipline:

©2007-2012 The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. | Disclaimer

poutine · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:49 pm

Thanks. So what's the dealio with her not showing up on the MD and DC websites?

xKat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:06 pm **Posts:** 411

I don't know about MD and DC - I couldn't find her there either.

Maybe she really thinks no one checks? Maybe she is licensed there under a different name (before or after marriage) and hasn't bothered to change it because it isn't somewhere she practices regularly?

She is a birther, why would we expect honesty from her?

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:18 am

xKat wrote:

I don't know about MD and DC - I couldn't find her there either.

Maybe she really thinks no one checks? Maybe she is licensed there under a different name (before or after marriage) and hasn't bothered to change it because it isn't somewhere she practices regularly?

She is a birther, why would we expect honesty from her?

I don't think she changed her name. I think when I looked her up before I found her name is known in the community for her mom's contributions. Same last name.

On the other hand I doubt a person would say they were licensed in states and then not be.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:31 am

There's a profile of Karen Kiefer on pages 17 and 18 of this Westmoreland Bar Assn Newsletter. It's from June, 2008.

PDF-> http://www.westbar.org/pdf/xx03.pdf

ETA: sez she was an "international contracts lawyer in Washington, DC".

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:40 am

Quote:

Today it is still owned by a non-profit organization, the Geyer Performing Arts Center, which took over in 2005. Marilyn “Tottie” Kiefer, mother of attorney Karen Kiefer, was among some of the many original supporters of the Geyer’s revitalization. Kept running by the Geyer Board of Directors, a host of volunteers, office staff, a dedicated theater manager, private donations, grants and fundraisers, the Geyer remains, along with the West Overton Museum, one of the few cultural outlets in the Scottdale Borough to have a tangible link to a historical past. Linking past to present, and its movie-showing tradition, GPAC acquired a 28 X 28 foot movie screen the summer of 2008, and hopes to eventually offer showings to the public.

http://beanerywriters.wordpress.com/201 ... ace-to-be/

I think they got the money to fix it up from the Marilyn K Kiefer Foundation.

Same name.

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:48 am

Generally speaking, it's illegal to report yourself as an attorney licensed in a particular state when you are not. It is also almost certainly unethical under the rules of whatever state you actually are licensed in, i.e., apparently Pennsylvania.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:57 am

this says she was an adoption lawyer in Annapolis. Came up in de google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jmd691 ... er&f=false

ETA: That's dated 1991. (also, I love Annapolis.)

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:08 am

Offtopic :

wavey davey wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. In British English, yes. In American English, maybe not.

For example, in British English, we would expect something like this: "The band are ready to perform". But in American English, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say: "The band is ready to perform". I don't know - I am not enough of a language geek. But I do feel that most Americans would think that "The band are ready" sounds weird, while "The band is ready" feels more natural. YMMV

Uh oh - maybe we need to move this over to the language geekery thread? Dunno.

I think you're conflating collective nouns and plural nouns. It is true that in British English collective nouns are usually, but not always, treated grammatically as plurals. For example, an American would say "the team is playing" whereas someone in the UK would say "the team are playing."

[Note that "team", as a collective noun, is not always treated as a plural in the UK. For example, when one says "the team was organized in 1975", the subject is a single team whereas "the teams were organized in 1975" refers to more than one team.]

To be sure, popular usage of the word "data" (traditionally the plural of datum) has undergone changes in recent years and is often used today as a singular, effectively replacing "datum". Whether that amounts to error versus language undergoing evolution is a question I'll leave to linguistic pedants.

But I'm unaware of any such trend in the use of the word "indicia". I've always treated indicia as a plural (e.g., "indicia are") and still consider that to be correct. (It's a plural noun, I'd suggest, that's used most often in legal writing and perhaps stamp collecting.) So call me old fashion, but I consider the phrase "this data is indicia" to be an abomination in legal writing.

YMMV.

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:35 am

Piffle wrote:

Offtopic :

wavey davey wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. In British English, yes. In American English, maybe not.

For example, in British English, we would expect something like this: "The band are ready to perform". But in American English, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say: "The band is ready to perform". I don't know - I am not enough of a language geek. But I do feel that most Americans would think that "The band are ready" sounds weird, while "The band is ready" feels more natural. YMMV

Uh oh - maybe we need to move this over to the language geekery thread? Dunno.

I think you're conflating collective nouns and plural nouns. It is true that in British English collective nouns are usually, but not always, treated grammatically as plurals. For example, an American would say "the team is playing" whereas someone in the UK would say "the team are playing."

To be sure, popular usage of the word "data" (traditionally the plural of datum) has undergone changes in recent years and is often used today as a singular, effectively replacing "datum". Whether that amounts to error versus language undergoing evolution is a question I'll leave to linguistic pedants.

But I'm unaware of any such trend in the use of the word "indicia". I've always treated indicia as a plural (e.g., "indicia are") and still consider that to be correct. (It's a plural noun, I'd suggest, that's used most often in legal writing and perhaps stamp collecting.) So call me old fashion, but I consider the phrase "this data is indicia" to be an abomination in legal writing.

YMMV.

Offtopic :

During high school, I spent a year abroad in India. The process of hiring me a private tutor, conducted by my parents according to criteria established with my American high school, was hilarious. One guy walked into our house and all but proclaimed his anti-Americanism. Americans, he pompously declared, did not understand English grammar. For example, he commanded while glaring at me, "Give me an example of a conjunctive adverb!" Although I was an honors English student who had been in advanced placement in school starting from the age of seven, I failed to deliver and kind of yammered something since I couldn't answer him on the spot. "Ah hah! See what I mean? I believe it would be very difficult for me to instruct such a student!!"

I discretely gave him the conjunctive adverb of my middle finger as my dad showed him the door.

MrBrown · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 411

mimi wrote:

There's a profile of Karen Kiefer on pages 17 and 18 of this Westmoreland Bar Assn Newsletter. It's from June, 2008.

PDF-> http://www.westbar.org/pdf/xx03.pdf

ETA: sez she was an "international contracts lawyer in Washington, DC".

How is it that a person with experience as an "international contracts lawyer" refuses to recognize certified legal documents, such as birth certificates issued by an official records custodian ? She has reviewed, ordered, sent, filed and relied upon such documents - to/from all over the world - if she has handled international contracts. She knows firsthand that Obama's BC's are the real thing, and they are accepted by every court in the world.
I think she's a fake birfer, trolling for birfer bucks 'cos her law practise has been slow, or needs money bad for some reason.
Or else she's been hypnotized by FillBurg and Cammandor Kerchnor.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

MrBrown wrote:

mimi wrote:

There's a profile of Karen Kiefer on pages 17 and 18 of this Westmoreland Bar Assn Newsletter. It's from June, 2008.

PDF-> http://www.westbar.org/pdf/xx03.pdf

ETA: sez she was an "international contracts lawyer in Washington, DC".

How is it that a person with experience as an "international contracts lawyer" refuses to recognize certified legal documents, such as birth certificates issued by an official records custodian ? She has reviewed, ordered, sent, filed and relied upon such documents - to/from all over the world - if she has handled international contracts. She knows firsthand that Obama's BC's are the real thing, and they are accepted by every court in the world.

I think you answered your own question. She's either a liar because she has no such experience, or a liar because she is lying about something anyone who actually did have such experience would know. And of course she's a liar because she's a birfer.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:55 pm

realist wrote:

Also at Jack's...

2012-04-02 - Letter from Attorney Keifer to PA AG Kelly - Investigate Obama

and the POTUS is of course a member of the PA Commenwalth and one of its not so faithful ones:

Quote:

Recently, in this Commonwealth, several public officials have been found guilty of public corruption, for forging documents and other election violations.

You mean to obtain the documentation of Zullo as publlished with the help of WND? Don't forget to include Genome Corsi's couple of booklets too.

Quote:

We are asking that your office, through its criminal investigation unit, obtain the original reports, documents, exhibits, computer imaging analysis and all other evidence necessary for authentication from Sheriff Arpaio to prove whether Barack Hussein Obama’s documents are genuine or forgeries

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:10 pm

MrBrown wrote:

How is it that a person with experience as an "international contracts lawyer" refuses to recognize certified legal documents, such as birth certificates issued by an official records custodian ? She has reviewed, ordered, sent, filed and relied upon such documents - to/from all over the world - if she has handled international contracts. She knows firsthand that Obama's BC's are the real thing, and they are accepted by every court in the world.

I'd say the best guess here is she worked in some lowly position in a law firm handling international work. But she herself was kept from doing the hard work.

MrBrown · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 411

RTH10260 wrote:

realist wrote:

Also at Jack's...

2012-04-02 - Letter from Attorney Keifer to PA AG Kelly - Investigate Obama

Quote:

We are asking that your office, through its criminal investigation unit, obtain the original reports, documents, exhibits, computer imaging analysis and all other evidence necessary for authentication from Sheriff Arpaio to prove whether Barack Hussein Obama’s documents are genuine or forgeries

It would be an excellent turn of event for Sherf Joe's little Posse to be forced to hand over their "stuff" to REAL law enforcement agents, with REAL forensics techs who are trained and certified in document analysis. To a REAL police department with staff who have the credentials and skills necessary to examine evidence and determine if/how it could be utilized in criminal cases.
The things the Posse coughed up in their report wouldn't last 30 minutes if it was scrutinized by a class of 1st term criminal justice students in any community college in the nation. It's not "evidence", it's supposition, slander, libel, and poop. The bulk of it can be traced to one point of origin - Jerome Corsi's word processor.
Birthers are pressuring police to get Joe's team to release their accumulated "evidence" to see if it can be used in court.
I hope they are successful.

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:16 pm

Mr B:

I hope they are successful too. I only wish the FBI or the IRS would take a real interest in the CCP and the birther caucuses. I wonder what kind of varmits would crawl out from the underbrush? I would love to know the sources of their funding.

Has anyone here talked to the FBI/IRS about a forensic audit of the CCP books to see if they are in fact working with donations and are properly handling the money?

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:56 pm

borealis wrote:

Mr B:

I hope they are successful too. I only wish the FBI or the IRS would take a real interest in the CCP and the birther caucuses. I wonder what kind of varmits would crawl out from the underbrush? I would love to know the sources of their funding.

Has anyone here talked to the FBI/IRS about a forensic audit of the CCP books to see if they are in fact working with donations and are properly handling the money?

I hear that, but....

Nixon used the IRS (Hoover, too) as a political tool. I'm thinking we don't want to start all that again.

borealis · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:21 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

borealis wrote:

Mr B:

I hope they are successful too. I only wish the FBI or the IRS would take a real interest in the CCP and the birther caucuses. I wonder what kind of varmits would crawl out from the underbrush? I would love to know the sources of their funding.

Has anyone here talked to the FBI/IRS about a forensic audit of the CCP books to see if they are in fact working with donations and are properly handling the money?

I hear that, but....

Nixon used the IRS (Hoover, too) as a political tool. I'm thinking we don't want to start all that again.

Ah yes. You are correct.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:55 am

Don't forget that the target of Dick Nixon were political enemies not rwnj criminals hiding money through various funds and advertising their accomplishment on the internet.

Does co-mingling funds on these internet sites (3 buttons going to 1 Paypal Account) a bell?. These folks are committing actual crimes involving large sums of slush cash. There IS a difference between a political enemy and a criminal. AFAIMC the IRS can go after all of the organizations, but most stick to the rules - some don't & the country should not be deprived of it's just revenue by lying bastards who make a living at the grift.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:37 am

OBC: Schneller Pennsylvania Obama/Meehan Challenges Update

Quote:

Jim Schneller’s challenges to the nomination petitions of Patrick Meehan and Barack Obama continue.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court prothonotary attempted on March 22, 2012, to permanently end the Schneller campaign’s appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s denial of the Schneller petition to set aside the nomination petitions of Barack Obama and Rep. Patrick Meehan. Using an order signed by a “staff attorney,” the prothonotary declared the appeal quashed because the campaign did not file a brief on 1 1/2 days’ notice. Such a time frame is unheard of in Pennsylvania courts and Schneller in fact was skiing in Vermont. Jim has filed a motion for reconsideration of the clerical decision, and all should hope and pray that this motion does not fail – if it does, then the seamiest end ever, to an Obama birth-status case, will have been inflicted. Supreme Court No. 24 MAL 2012, (Commonwealth Court 75 MD 2012.)

In addition to the strong case presented in the action, the appeal also presents the campaign’s request for a finding that the Pennsylvania requirement that only party members may challenge a candidate’s nominating petition applies only to major parties, is unconstitutionally being applied to non-party candidates. Jim, having experienced an affront to him in 2010 by two different parties, claims that independent candidates, under Pennsylvania law, can be challenged by any party, so that they are, unfairly, three times as likely to be challenged, as compared to an equal-treatment format, where only citizens registered independent could challenge nomination papers of independent candidates. The Schneller campaign claims that independents should have the right to challenge nominations of either major party, if either major party may challenge independents.

The second challenge that Jim is presenting against Obama and Meehan remains pending in the Commonwealth Court. It demands formation of a Committee made up of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General, as provided by the election code when a party or parties seeking nomination have shown intent to errantly control, establish, or overthrow the constitution and the constitutional form of government. The Committee is directly authorized by law to refuse nomination papers of such people or parties.

The suit, Commonwealth Court No. 212 CD 2012 also seeks a setting aside or quo warranto “testing” of Obama’s office, based on lack of status as a natural born citizen, a setting aside or quo warranto review of the Meehan petition because of election code statutes forbidding code violators from holding office, and requests a judgment that the 2006 amendment to the Pennsylvania election code, which waives the requirement for an oath of eligibility by candidates for president, is unconstitutional.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:50 am

Someone wasn't taking care of business. If ya got a suit going, make sure you are in on everything that happens. The folks keep yelling it is an emergency, yet ask for delays, continuances, and are very surprised when the courts get the lead out, clear the decks, and do "court things".

That is unless the client doesn't know much about the law....any law.

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 757

Quote:

The second challenge that Jim is presenting against Obama and Meehan remains pending in the Commonwealth Court. It demands formation of a Committee made up of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General, as provided by the election code when a party or parties seeking nomination have shown intent to errantly control, establish, or overthrow the constitution and the constitutional form of government. The Committee is directly authorized by law to refuse nomination papers of such people or parties.

Um, and where, under the Constitution, does such a Committee have any authority to judge whether someone is trying to "Errantly control, establish, or overthrow the Constitution..."? All these things already have recognized avenues of redress - the electorate, for one, and the Congressional certification of the election, for another.

Furthermore, I believe that running on a "Vote for me! My platform will be to call for Congress and the States to convene an immediate Constitutional convention (as allowed under the document as it stands) to completely change how our government works!" is, and should be, a valid platform and no one should be removed from the ballot for advocating such a position. Let the electorate decide.

In the end, the real grumble the birthers have, deep down, is that they don't trust the electorate to make the decisions THEY want, and so they want to make sure those other options aren't there to be chosen.

MrBrown · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 411

Tarrant wrote:

Quote:

The second challenge that Jim is presenting against Obama and Meehan remains pending in the Commonwealth Court. It demands formation of a Committee made up of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General, as provided by the election code when a party or parties seeking nomination have shown intent to errantly control, establish, or overthrow the constitution and the constitutional form of government. The Committee is directly authorized by law to refuse nomination papers of such people or parties.

Um, and where, under the Constitution, does such a Committee have any authority to judge whether someone is trying to "Errantly control, establish, or overthrow the Constitution..."? All these things already have recognized avenues of redress - the electorate, for one, and the Congressional certification of the election, for another.

Furthermore, I believe that running on a "Vote for me! My platform will be to call for Congress and the States to convene an immediate Constitutional convention (as allowed under the document as it stands) to completely change how our government works!" is, and should be, a valid platform and no one should be removed from the ballot for advocating such a position. Let the electorate decide.In the end, the real grumble the birthers have, deep down, is that they don't trust the electorate to make the decisions THEY want, and so they want to make sure those other options aren't there to be chosen.

Their "side" lost the Presidential election of 2008, and they are so committed to "defending the Constitution" that they have been trying as hard as their tiny brains can to overthrow the choice of a large majority of the electorate.
And doing so with a campaign of bullshit lies, slander, and libel.
The people pushing these frivolous lawsuits are all alike, coast to coast. Is it a shared genetic defect ?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Remember the second case Schneller brought this year? Well, it's bitten the dust

Quote:

James D. Schneller,
Petitioner
v.
Thomas Corbett, Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
Linda Kelly, Attorney General
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
Carol Aichele, Pennsylvania Secretary
of the Commonwealth,
Respondents
Snip
Upon consideration of the POs filed on behalf of respondents and petitioner 's response thereto, the POs
to Counts I, II, and IV of the PFR are sustained. Further, Count III is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisidiction. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed with prejudice.

http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CommonwealthCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=212%20MD%202012

IIRC the parts specific to President Obama were dismissed back in March. But what remained was a constitutional challenge to a change in PA election law and an attempt to force the Gov, Sec & AG to decide as a committee to invoke an archaic law from the the 1930s that allowed them to remove from the ballot candidates who seek to overthrow the the USA and/or the Commonwealth of PA.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge

Who is online