Mississippi Ballot Challenge (ACT I & I.5) :)

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:13 pm

Quote:

Plaintiffs are requesting clarification from Your Honor, whether Your Honor considers the first Amended complaint to be a complaint as of right, as it crossed in the mail with the answer or whether Your Honor gives the Plaintiffs leave for the First Amended Complaint.

But those are your only two options, judge. Don't you be tellin' me that you don't grant leave to file it, or you're complicit. [-X

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:14 pm

Let the record reflect that I would NEVER respond to a judge's request for available dates by informing him that it is "pointless" to schedule a hearing.

Never.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2107

TexasFilly wrote:

Would someone kindly refresh my recollection? Did Mr. Begley file an opposition to her admittance PHV? I know our friend in Alabama did. I think I'd be asking him for cut and paste permission about now.

I don't think she ever filed one. She is not only asking to be exempt from the local counsel requirement, she is apparently asking to be exempt from the "filling out an application for PHV" requirement also.

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:18 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Let the record reflect that I would NEVER respond to a judge's request for suggested dates hearing dates that it is "pointless."

Never.

Well, for Orly...it is pointless....She's gonna lose again. 8-)

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10650

AnitaMaria wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Would someone kindly refresh my recollection? Did Mr. Begley file an opposition to her admittance PHV? I know our friend in Alabama did. I think I'd be asking him for cut and paste permission about now.

I don't think she ever filed one. She is not only asking to be exempt from the local counsel requirement, she is apparently asking to be exempt from the "filling out an application for PHV" requirement also.

Ah! Well, since she brought it up in this disrespectful and irrelevant email, and even had the chutzpah to say she was admitted in GA without the necessity of local counsel, this might be the perfect time to bring Judge Coleman up to speed. Of course, I am not Mr. Begley. ;;)

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:22 pm

She's just so damned excited about being in the "discovery phase".

After all this time and all these lawsuits, she finally gets to depose witnesses. Starting with some nice, soft, friendly witnesses, a couple of birther bimbos who will do what they're told.

I just hope neither Viviano or Gaston has ever been deposed before. If so, they might notice one or two differences that might make them uneasy ... :lol:

Jez · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:30 pm

The IANAL question:

Hokay. Isn't Orly's "discovery" based on the perceived answers to her Original complaint? If she files an amended complaint, and it's accepted, doesn't that negate the Answers given by the Defense? If I understand correctly, the Amended Complaint (if accepted) kinda starts things over?

YesNo?

Edit: sloppy typoing

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9353

SueDB wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Let the record reflect that I would NEVER respond to a judge's request for suggested dates hearing dates that it is "pointless."

Never.

Well, for Orly...it is pointless....She's gonna lose again. 8-)

If I were the judge, I would be tempted to decide on the papers, since the plaintiff feels a hearing date would be pointless, dismissing the case and inviting the defendants to submit a bill of costs and a motion for fees.

rosy · **Joined:** Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:36 pm **Posts:** 725

Tcha! Forms, rules, even hearings, all those things are for the little people. Orly's in the midst of a konstitushional krisis the like of which has never been seen before, so pettifogging little rules do not apply. In what passes for her mind, at least.

Telling the judge the hearing is pointless is just another reminder of how this case is so explosive and unique, the judge don't need no stinkin' hearing to rule in favour of our Lady Liberty.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:41 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

SueDB wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Let the record reflect that I would NEVER respond to a judge's request for suggested dates hearing dates that it is "pointless."

Never.

Well, for Orly...it is pointless....She's gonna lose again. 8-)

If I were the judge, I would be tempted to decide on the papers, since the plaintiff feels a hearing date would be pointless, dismissing the case and inviting the defendants to submit a bill of costs and a motion for fees.

If I were the Judge, I'd be tempted to have her fly in to appear in person at a status conference to set the date for the hearing, fly in again for a hearing on her PHV motion, fly in again for a case management conference to discuss the logistics for the hearing, and then fly if or the hearing. Then dismiss the case and invite the motion for costs and fees. YMMV.

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:43 pm

Jez wrote:

Isn't Orly's "discovery" based on the perceived answers to her Original complaint? If she files an amended complaint, and it's accepted, doesn't that negate the Answers given by the Defense? If I understand correctly, the Amended Complaint (if accepted) kinda starts things over?

Yes, yes, and yes.

But Orly isn't a model of clarity, once again. There are two defendants in the original complaint, as I understand it: The Secy. of St. of Mississippi, and the Democratic Party of Mississippi.

She says "the defendants filed answers to the complaint". But that is not true. Only the Secy. of St. filed an answer. The Dem. Party filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending.

Damn I hope I have that much right. This case is convoluted. Coleman can simplify his life by not allowing the amended complaint. He has no reason to start things over, and he'll see that adding plaintiffs and defendants and RICO and all is just going to screw things up.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

Orly did reveal last night to an unnamed caller $\:D/$ on BTR that she fully expects President Obama and Nancy Pelosi to appear in Mississippi, once things are rescheduled.

I wonder if they share Orly's belief that rescheduling would be "pointless?"

[-X

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23543

jtmunkus wrote:

Orly did reveal last night to an unnamed caller $\:D/$ on BTR that she fully expects President Obama and Nancy Pelosi to appear in Mississippi, once things are rescheduled.

[snip]

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:52 pm

MS Democratic Party has in fact submitted an answer:

Quote:

40 04/13/2012

ANSWER AND DEFENSES
OF MS DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTI
VE COMMITTEE
SAMUEL L BEGLEY,SCOTT J TEPPER

But come to think of it I don't think it's been mentioned here.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2107

Foggy wrote:

She says "the defendants filed answers to the complaint". But that is not true. Only the Secy. of St. filed an answer. The Dem. Party filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending.

I believe both defendants filed motions to dismiss shortly after she filed the complaint and both filed answers after the hearing was postponed. The docket is available here

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9353

AnitaMaria wrote:

Foggy wrote:

She says "the defendants filed answers to the complaint". But that is not true. Only the Secy. of St. filed an answer. The Dem. Party filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending.

I believe both defendants have filed motions to dismiss shortly after she filed the complaint and both filed answers after the hearing was postponed. The dockets is available here

This was my impression as well, after perusing this somewhat oddly formatted docket. I do not believe the filing of the answers waives the pending motions to dismiss, so there are still dispositive motions on the docket. So much for Orly's discovery. However, the filing of the answers does, I believe, mean that Orly cannot file an amended complaint without leave of the court (as she has attempted to do), and while it may differ in Mississippi, I also believe she can't get out of this mess just by voluntarily dismissing.

In short, the trap has already snapped shut, but Orly is still charging forward, stupidly as always.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23543

Both defendants have filed answers

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89253501/2012 ... swer-Filed

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89490780/2012 ... es-4-13-12

They also had previously filed Motions to Dismiss

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86956847/MS-2 ... to-Dismiss

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86956850/MS-2 ... -Sanctions

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:09 pm

Crap, I didn't even get that much right.

Msottement · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:15 pm

Quote:

R U L E 15. A M E N D E D A N D S U P PL E M E N TA L P L E A D I N G S

(a) Amendments. A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before
a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is
permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it
at any time within thirty days after it is served. On sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or for judgment on the
pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c), leave to amend shall be granted when justice so requires upon
conditions and within time as determined by the court, provided matters outside the pleadings are
not presented at the hearing on the motion. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by
leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party; leave shall be freely given when
justice so requires. A p arty shall plead in response to an amended plead in g w ithin the time
remaining for response to the original pleading or within ten days after service of the amended
pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders.

Considering that the Answers were on the docket and the Amended complaint is not, I would guess it won't be accepted. But then again, I'm a choir director, not a lawyer.

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:16 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Let the record reflect that I would NEVER respond to a judge's request for suggested dates hearing dates that it is "pointless."

Never.

The lack of respect by this person of our judges is personally disgusting to every lawyer, and everyone else here who works in the court system. Absolutely reprehensible. Judges are worthy of our respect not only because of some vague notion of social prestige, but primarily because of the role they play in our constitutional republic. Whether you agree or disagree with rulings or a particular judge's temperament, you respect the court. Period.

I can't believe I'm quoting a People's Court judge here but she is 100 percent on the mark:

poutine · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:23 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

Foggy wrote:

She says "the defendants filed answers to the complaint". But that is not true. Only the Secy. of St. filed an answer. The Dem. Party filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending.

I believe both defendants have filed motions to dismiss shortly after she filed the complaint and both filed answers after the hearing was postponed. The dockets is available here

This was my impression as well, after perusing this somewhat oddly formatted docket. I do not believe the filing of the answers waives the pending motions to dismiss, so there are still dispositive motions on the docket. So much for Orly's discovery. However, the filing of the answers does, I believe, mean that Orly cannot file an amended complaint without leave of the court (as she has attempted to do), and while it may differ in Mississippi, I also believe she can't get out of this mess just by voluntarily dismissing.

In short, the trap has already snapped shut, but Orly is still charging forward, stupidly as always.

Mississippi's rules of procedure appear to model the FRCP, just like Arizona's. MRCP 15(a):

Quote:

A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:34 pm

borealis wrote:

Offtopic :

OD:
You said the Clintons blackmailed Ted Kennedy to endorse a candidate during the 2000 primary? If he failed to comply, they would release damaging information about him?

What on earth could have damaged Kennedy more than Chappaquiddick? :shock:

Offtopic :

Oh for heaven sakes. LOTS of stuff. When his nephew was tried for rape, there was a lot of talk of Ted's behavior in Palm Beach. I know that when I was on Martha's Vinyard, I was shocked to see the smallness of the channel in question. Pretty damning. But it was in the past and he had pretty much assumed a place on a pedestal by 2000 -- despite his drinking, carousing, etc. That said, it bears stating that Ted Kennedy and Bill Bradley were very tight, especially because during the Reagan years, it was Bradley who continued to support Kennedy on healthcare reform and other liberal issues when the party was pretty much in disarray. Until he endorsed Gore, it was presumed in the Bradley camp that Ted was a supporter -- and he had even lent some behind the scenes help! So it wasn't just that he endorsed Gore, it was that Kennedy had given his tacit approval to Bradley and it was the first time Kennedy had ever buckled to pressure to endorse anyone in the primary. And then the ads that ran on TV were so at odds with the real situation on who had done what for healthcare. There wasn't a soul in the McCain camp or Bradley camp in Manchester that didn't believe there was some typical Bill Clinton ruthlessness involved. (And I adore Bill, but I am a realist about who he is and what he does.) As I said, when a large number of Kennedys came out in force for Obama, including an extremely vocal Caroline, it was clear that there was no love lost between the Kennedy clan and the Clintons and there was some payback involved. I cannot say for certain of course, but I could find no other explanation and I suspect that there are those who know exactly what went on.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23543

poutine wrote:

Mississippi's rules of procedure appear to model the FRCP, just like Arizona's. MRCP 15(a):

A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served.

The Motions to Dismiss were filed 2/29 and 3/7.

Taitz filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 3/12.

Orly's FAC is not on the docket but she purports to have mailed it on or about 4/13.

woodworker · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm **Posts:** 347

If I were the judge, I would be tempted to decide on the papers, since the plaintiff feels a hearing date would be pointless, dismissing the case and inviting the defendants to submit a bill of costs and a motion for fees.[/quote]

If I were the Judge, I'd be tempted to have her fly in to appear in person at a status conference to set the date for the hearing, fly in again for a hearing on her PHV motion, fly in again for a case management conference to discuss the logistics for the hearing, and then fly if or the hearing. Then dismiss the case and invite the motion for costs and fees. YMMV.[/quote]

Actually, I would like for Judge Coleman to admit her PHV. Then she will have to represent, under penalty of perjury, that she has read and is familiar with MS Code of Ethics and procedures, thereby allowing Judge Coleman to OSC her as to her RICO and other frivolous filings. As PHV she is held to a higher standard than pro se.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:27 pm

It was interesting to discover that a Motion to Dismiss can be zapped simply by filing a reply to it. I wonder why attorneys do not use this rule whenever there is a risk of dismissal of their case?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Mississippi Ballot Challenge (ACT I & I.5) :)

Who is online