LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al. v NDP of the USA, INC., et al. (USDC AZ)

PatGund · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:41 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

Except for the fact that Mr. Aryan is apparently fluent in English, this whiny screed could have been written by Orly.

Well, it gets better than that.

Van Irion wrote:

Our focus in these cases is the Democratic National Committee and the state-level Democratic organizations that intend to continue to defraud the American people with an unconstitutional candidate. "

The problem is that Van Irion never served the Democratic National Committee. Both his Tennessee and Arizona lawsuits listed the National Democratic Party, and didn't use the proper addresses for either the DNC or the local Democratic parties. (The National Democratic Party hasn't existed since the early 1900's)

The suspicion was that he deliberately filed against the wrong organization so he could get a default judgement and then claim he won the judgement against the Democratic Party. The fact he's making such an obvious lie here tends to suggest that the suspicion is correct and accurate.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9410

bob wrote:

Other Irionian gems:

Quote:

LLF has filed a motion in Tennessee Federal Court to have our case returned back to the state court. We’re still waiting for a ruling from the Federal court. Unfortunately the Federal court may not rule for months. Another rule change from just five years ago leaves no effective method to force any Federal court to rule on a pending motion. So, Federal courts can effectively sit on motions, and entire cases, until they are moot. We can only hope and pray that the Tennessee Federal Court will actually rule on our motion in time to make a difference.

What a bunch of bull. In the event any federal court actually acts like that, there is always the All Writs Act, by which a legitimate litigant with a meritorious claim could seek a writ of mandamus or procedendo or some other fancy-ass shit. Since the only result would be to compel the lower court to throw out Venn Aryan's garbage immediately rather than later, these provide no advantage to this frivolous litigator, who is reduced to whining that federal courts do not drop the real business they have to cater to a racist kook's garbage complaints.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

Docket Update...

Quote:

U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-02089-SRB

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA Incorporated et al
Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton
Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 360 Personal Injury: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

04/16/2012 22 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Liberty Legal Foundation. Debbie Wasserman Schultz served on 4/4/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Irion, Van) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 23 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Democratic National Committee. (Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 24 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

Quote:

8
The DNC and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz ask that the Court take judicial notice of the growing list of state courts and administrative agencies throughout the
country that have been forced to devote precious judicial resources to handling (and
dismissing) claims like that brought by Plaintiffs in the instant case. See, e.g., Allen v.
Ariz. Democratic Party, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012)
(dismissing case challenging Obama's eligibilty to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that
Obama is a "natural born citizen" under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument
that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. Ct. ApE' Mar. 8, 2012);
Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAIHI (Ga. Office of St.
Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama's eligibilty to appear on 2012
ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a "natural born citizen"), decision
adopted by Ga. Sec'y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar v. Obama, No.
2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14,
2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer
Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his
eligibilty for office as a "Natural Born Citizen"), objection overruled (IlL. State Bd. of
Elections Feb. 3, 2012). Copies of these decisions are attached hereto as Exhibits A-C.
For a complete list of cases brought by "birthers" in one form or another, see
http://tesibria.tyepad.com/whats your evidence/BIRTHER %20CASE%20LIST .pdf

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:49 pm

Tes (where has she been?) gets a citation! Woo hoo!

June bug · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:20 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Tes (where has she been?) gets a citation! Woo hoo!

Yay, Tes! $\:D/$ =D>

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:40 pm

realist wrote:

Docket Update...<snip>
04/16/2012 24 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

Defendant's motion and argument consist of 14 pages with scarcely a word wasted. I love this style of terse language in a brief.

Given the staccato meter of this extended villanelle, what's remarkable is that it extends to fully 14 pages. Only the sheer number of egregious errors of law in Venn Aryan's atrocious nursery rhyme rendered further compression impossible.

:-bd

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:50 pm

It is a nice MTD.

Somerset · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:21 pm

I loved footnote [9].

I get the sense that the kid gloves are coming off (finally).

Reality Check · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:34 pm

I was just about to post footnote 9:

Quote:

⁹ Plaintiffs' lack of candor on the limitations of the United States Supreme Court
case [Minor v Happersett] that they claim dictates the outcome here is inexplicable.

Actually, we can explain their lack of candor; the plaintiffs are lying sacks of shit Birthers. [-X

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:19 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

Disregard...just don't copy/paste the link on page 13 of the scribd doc discussed.

Highlands · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:21 pm

Plutodog wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

oh noez!

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3516

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

Plutodog wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

I gave her a heads up.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:25 pm

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

Her domain is not expired.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

realist wrote:

Her domain is not expired.

But is she master of it?

Reality Check · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:32 pm

The link at the bottom of the Fogbow still works fine.

Highlands · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:32 pm

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_ ... 20LIST.pdf

Yep, still works. Did Perkins Coie cite this wrong?

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:33 pm

realist wrote:

Her domain is not expired.

Do you know why we can't see it?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23597

The link is to the PDF not her site.

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:52 pm

realist wrote:

The link is to the PDF not her site.

I backed out of the pdf. I can't see anything.

Edit: EDIT: pdf is showing now. All fixed.

BugZptr · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:54 pm

the link quoted on Page 16 of this thread
http://www.tesibria.tyepad.com is missing a letter.

the correct link, which is also on Page 16, is http://www.tesibria.typepad.com

Typepad vs Tyepad.

Tyepad seems to be a standard typo-squatting domain.

Edit: Removed the spaces too, also. They were screwing up the link.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:01 pm

Edit: Strange...yes I think there was a bad link at page 13 of
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89710419/AZ-L ... mo-Re-Same

Well anyway, if you copy/paste the link on page 13, it pastes out as tyepad, not typepad. There was an error in .pdf as well.

Seems like some html-fine print gone awry to me.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:14 pm

I think it is an error that is a result of the OCR routine that was run on the document (possibly in SCRIBD?). The link is correct in the document but if you mouse over it the first "p" in "typepad" is missing. A copy and paste also shows: http://tesibria.tyepad.com/whats your evidence/BIRTHER %20CASE%20LIST .pdf.

poutine · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:27 pm

Eckstein is getting good at this birther stuff. I thought his oral argument against the nut in Tucson was pretty decent, for a high-profile lawyer who has bigger fish to fry than the nuances of birtherism à la de Vattel. (None of these lawyers, you realize, could possibly achieve the level of expertise of us Fogbowers.) So, I look forward to possibly observing him from the gallery for this case, in downtown Phoenix.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al. v NDP of the USA, INC., et al. (USDC AZ)

Who is online