Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:23 am

Correction noted.

neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby neonzx » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:30 am

Correction noted.

I thought you wrote it that way intentionally. They were both "mock" trials.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15680
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby bob » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:39 am

It’s obvious that Judge Reid knows the truth, that’s why she cut off Mr. Irey. She didn’t need to hear anything else, so she will rule to take him off the ballot and not let the Democrats have their nominee.I would be surprised if she doesn’t order legal remedies against the defendant Obama.

If a judge cuts off the defense in the middle of cross-examination and then rules in favour of plaintiff, this is a slam dunk at appeal.Therefore it’s quite obvious the judge will rule in defendant’s favour.Besides, Orly, c’mon, you had your trial of the century and you squandered your precious time by having Felicito Papa testify there was no Adobe Illustrator in 1961????Why didn’t you rather spend the time on the SSN (fails e-Verify) instead of having Papa state the obvious?I mean, not even “Obama” claims the PDF was the original BC created in 1961, so what was the use of that stunt?

Taitz":pisa17fb">

he claims that it is a true and correct copy of the 1961

:twisted: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=353276#comments]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=353276#comments :twisted: ](*,)

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby MsDaisy » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:42 am

A couple responses in one and a comment on Paul Irey that should have made it into my report.Snip:[highlight=#ffff80]You are, of course, entirely correct that none of the evidence even touched the issue of whether any court can order the state of Indiana to remove an eligible candidate from the Presidential ballot and cancel the votes of tens of thousands of people (including me) who have already voted this ballot.[/highlight]

Yes, but this is exactly what Taitz is currently drooling over and she's squirming in her drawers praying that Judge Reid will do exactly that. ](*,)

User avatar
shrek
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby shrek » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:00 pm

What's her thinking?

Not to pick you out or anything, but I think this is generally a fallacy when looking at legal proceedings.

Tell that to [link]this guy,http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&p=351680&hilit=+malihi#p351680[/link]

ALJ Malihi went further than even having a hearing on that, instead allowing a total circus in which evidence completely unrelated even to the supposed eligibility issue was allowed in willy-nilly. [highlight]I can't think of a good motivation for what he did[/highlight].


User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15690
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby TollandRCR » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:36 pm

About the last thing that I would do to my computer is insert a CD from Taitz into it. At the very minimum, it will probably be unreadable and/or use software known only to Moldovans.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31077
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:48 pm

About the last thing that I would do to my computer is insert a CD from Taitz into it. At the very minimum, it will probably be unreadable and/or use software known only to Moldovans.

Judge Reid deserves everything she gets from Taitz. (Including computer viruses.)

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:17 pm

What's her thinking?

Not to pick you out or anything, but I think this is generally a fallacy when looking at legal proceedings.





Tell that to [link]this guy,http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&p=351680&hilit=+malihi#p351680[/link]





ALJ Malihi went further than even having a hearing on that, instead allowing a total circus in which evidence completely unrelated even to the supposed eligibility issue was allowed in willy-nilly. [highlight]I can't think of a good motivation for what he did[/highlight].

I don't see the contradiction. I did not say Malihi had any specific motivation. In fact, I quite expressly declined to do so. I said I couldn't think of one. I still can't.





I'm sure you could cherry-pick something else I said that might better contradict what I just said, but this isn't a particularly good example. In fact, it is an example of me not ascribing a motivation.

User avatar
shrek
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby shrek » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Back then you were prepared to consider Malihi's motivation, concluding that you couldn't think of a good one.





I take no issue with your legal analysis. I asked you, as BOTG, for your assessment of her motivation to do what she has done. You don't want to play. I understand that.





Your suggestion that it is fallacious to try to get a bead on what a fact finder/decision maker is thinking, particularly when what they are doing is patently bizarre, jars somewhat. YMMV.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby esseff44 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:31 pm

Shrek wrote:

Your suggestion that it is fallacious to try to get a bead on what a fact finder/decision maker is thinking, particularly when what they are doing is patently bizarre, jars somewhat. YMMV.

Because of the bizarre nature of her behavior is all the more reason to NOT try to characterize it when there are too few clues and too few known facts about her character, competence and habits. There is no reason to draw any kind of conclusions at this point. That is not the same thing as being curious about her motivations.This is one of the things I appreciate about Loh. Precision and reluctance to form an opinion without having a solid basis for it. He does not play games with serious questions. That is why he is a trusted BOTG unlike anything you can find on birther or RWNJ sites.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:04 pm

A couple responses in one and a comment on Paul Irey that should have made it into my report.Snip:[highlight=#ffff80]You are, of course, entirely correct that none of the evidence even touched the issue of whether any court can order the state of Indiana to remove an eligible candidate from the Presidential ballot and cancel the votes of tens of thousands of people (including me) who have already voted this ballot.[/highlight]

Yes, but this is exactly what Taitz is currently drooling over and she's squirming in her drawers praying that Judge Reid will do exactly that. ](*,)

^^^^^ Orly's idiotic press release gleefully announces that this was a trial for declaratory and injuctive relief. My point is that she made no effort to establish, through the witnesses' testimony and exhibits, the elements for the claims she believed she was trying. Heck, she couldn't even articulate the requirements for injunctive relief when she appeared before judge Reid on September 26.

nbc
Posts: 4077
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby nbc » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:09 pm

Well stated. We have seen some speculation as to Malihi and now Reid as to motivation but in both cases the judge gave Orly all the opportunity to make her case. As Judge Reid observed in the previous hearing, Orly failed to present ANY evidence, introduce ANY evidence, or raise ANY arguments to support why the court should grant her motion. The same is happening here I believe. We may not like the approach chosen but I believe it can be quite effective in ending all this foolishness quickly.

Because of the bizarre nature of her behavior is all the more reason to NOT try to characterize it when there are too few clues and too few known facts about her character, competence and habits. There is no reason to draw any kind of conclusions at this point. That is not the same thing as being curious about her motivations.This is one of the things I appreciate about Loh. Precision and reluctance to form an opinion without having a solid basis for it. He does not play games with serious questions. That is why he is a trusted BOTG unlike anything you can find on birther or RWNJ sites.


User avatar
ducktape
Posts: 5314
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby ducktape » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:18 pm

The same is happening here I believe. We may not like the approach chosen but I believe it can be quite effective in ending all this foolishness quickly.

Well, I hope you're right, and IANAL, but what's happened up until now is so incredibly far from any concept of law as I understand it that I really have my doubts that this judge hasn't been huffing some of Orly's nitrous. Judge Reid strikes me as something like the Red Queen.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6321
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Piffle » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:24 pm




I also think that whatever Judge Reid decides -- it's hard to follow, [highlight]can she still dismiss, or does she have to decide since she "heard" the case (although clearly this woman hears nothing)[/highlight] -- she will play both sides of the fence. She definitely will toss a bone to the Birfers about Irey's testimony. I think she will at least imply that Irey's testimony, while not expert and/or not technically admissible, suggests there are issues about the authenticity of the President's birth certificate that remain unexplained.

She most assuredly can still dismiss, rendering all of the testimony null. And that's exactly what any mentally functioning judge would do at this juncture.





A case can be dismissed at any time for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, a judge is actually obligated to dismiss at any time it becomes clear that the court is without jurisdiction even if neither of the parties has moved for dismissal. (Of course, in this case, motions to dismiss are sitting right there on her desk, if she'd only bother to read them and rule.)

underCurrent
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:21 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby underCurrent » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:33 pm




And how can she get the documents to Mr. Black if someone keeps tampering with her yahoo?

Can we ask the judge to take judicial notice that there isn't any self-respecting FogBow person who would *ever* even want to contemplate messing with that woman's yahoo?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31077
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:37 pm

The judge's comment (which I paraphrase) that she saw some merit in Taitz's presentation last month as it appears in the reporter's transcript, is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read from a real judge. Not only was there nothing in what Taitz presented last month that had any merit, but for a judge to be egging her on, and then holding another hearing (on subjects disposed of prior to the hearing) and subjecting immune parties to suit, that is alarming. Either the judge has an agenda or she is wholly incompetent. Whether she regains her sanity within the next week or two is yet another question.

underCurrent
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:21 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby underCurrent » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:00 pm




You are, of course, entirely correct that none of the evidence even touched the issue of whether any court can order the state of Indiana to remove an eligible candidate from the Presidential ballot * * *.

I agree, and will take this a step further:





If the issue before the court really was "Whether any court can order a state officer to remove a candidate from the Presidential ballot," there there is precious little evidence that could or should have been introduced. This is primarily a legal question and, therefore, there is no evidence that is necessary to determine the answer. The court's analysis should begin with the legal description of the court's own jurisdiction and any claims of immunity as Lohengrin has clearly explained in his BOTG report. If the court gets past that point, then the court will look to the Constitution to see whether an officer of any state has the power to assess the qualifications of a candidate for federal office, and then - only then - should the court consider whether the state officer has any legal authority to act on that determination.





Since this is a legal question, the court examines the relevant law. Evidence is only offered to support a determination of a fact. With this particular question, the only potential issue of fact would be "What did the framers of the Constitution intend?" and therefore the only evidence that the court might consider would be notes and reports from the constitutional convention.





Unless Dr. RealEstate, Esq., was going to produce the custodian of an historical library, there is no other living soul that she would be able to offer to provide testimony relevant to the question.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31077
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:03 pm

Your use of the term "Dr. RealEstate, Esq." is not catching on. Beyond that, it insults not only lawyers who practice real estate law, but real estate itself. It's not relevant to Taitz in any respect except that she once held a broker's license.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6321
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Piffle » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:05 pm

Either the judge has an agenda or she is wholly incompetent. Whether she regains her sanity within the next week or two is yet another question.

Yeah. If anything goes awry -- like the DAGs forgetting to put sufficient postage on their SASE -- the presidential election could be decided right then and there in judge Reid's chambers.I don't care if the score is 47-0 in the bottom of the ninth inning; I'm through making predictions as long as this umpire is calling the balls and strikes. Hell, she could walk the next 50 batters for all I know.

underCurrent
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:21 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby underCurrent » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:09 pm

Your use of the term "Dr. RealEstate, Esq." is not catching on. Beyond that, it insults not only lawyers who practice real estate law, but real estate itself. It's not relevant to Taitz in any respect except that she once held a broker's license.

Point taken.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6321
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Piffle » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm

Point taken.

[sekrit]:-$ Some of our California Legal Eagles get a mite testy if you point out that it's harder to keep a real estate license than a law license in the Golden State. :lol: :D [/sekrit]

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby BillTheCat » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:26 pm

Point taken.

[sekrit]:-$ Some of our California Legal Eagles get a mite testy if you point out that it's harder to keep a real estate license than a law license in the Golden State. :lol: :D [/sekrit]

[sekrit]Is there a reason for that? Seems odd.[/sekrit]
'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
bob
Posts: 15680
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby bob » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:37 pm

Your use of the term "Dr. RealEstate, Esq." is not catching on.

I inferred it as slighting Taitz for being a dilettante, which is mildly amusing.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby Chilidog » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:32 pm

Can the defendants remove the case to Federal court?If they can, should they?

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:34 pm

Can the defendants remove the case to Federal court?If they can, should they?

I believe their time for doing so expired some time ago. I believe they should have. This farce would never have occurred in a federal court.[edit]I believe they should have if the jurisdictional grounds were strong enough. I haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Defense counsel may have had good cause not to remove.[/edit]


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests