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

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:32 pm

poutine wrote:

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.

I like that he requested oral argument. I hope Venn Aryan has a nice flight.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:35 am

Mikedunford wrote:

poutine wrote:

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.

I like that he requested oral argument. I hope Venn Aryan has a nice flight.

pg.12,9-10 wrote:

This the Court simply cannot do, and as a result, it should not entertainPlaintiffs' frivolous request.

Show time or just a shot over the bows?

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:13 am

Come back Tes.

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 795

Having read the Motion to Dismiss, and given Footnote 9, what are the odds Van Irion responds by saying it is not he who is misinterpreting Minor and Wong Kim Ark, but rathe every other court to have ever considered them is wrong, an he is right?

I hope they smack him down. And I'm glad the MtD is quite clear about their belief that Van Irion filed against the non-existent NDP of the USA in order to get a default judgment to use for PR purposes (there no other explanation for why despite being informed of the proper parties he continues to insist he be granted a default against said nonexistent entity that prevents them from certifying a candidate said entity is not trying to nominate).

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23933

Docket Update...

Quote:

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)

04/17/2012 25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Liberty Legal Foundation. Democratic National Committee served on 3/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Irion, Van) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:04 am

So no explanation about why he served an apparent sham organization?

that's it?

:-?

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 795

mimi wrote:

So no explanation about why he served an apparent sham organization?

that's it?

:-?

I think any reply he tries to make on that will put him in hotter water. He's already twice tried to double down and insist he get a default even while admitting the sham organization isn't actually the Democratic Party. Now, in this Motion to Dismiss they specifically call him out on wanting to get said default solely for PR to claim he won against the "Demcratic Party". Given they've done that, how can he reply and continue to say he wants the default without essentially admitting that's the truth?

If he continues to push I can't see them not asking for the court to throw the book at him. His best choice of action now is to say "Oops, they were the wrong defendant", drop them from the suit, and then lose as the MtD is granted. Will he do that? We'll see.

It certainly seems like he's quite royally pissed off that his little scam here was found out. I think he was hoping to be free and clear with his default and raking in the Birther Bucks by now on account of his "win", with birthers not bothering to care that he won against a nonexistent entity.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23933

Docket Update...

Quote:

04/30/2012 26 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Liberty Legal Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Or. WDTN, # 2 Exhibit Welden v. Obama Prop. Or.)(Irion, Van) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

Quote:

Defendants’ motion asserts that “there is no question as to President Obama’s
status as a ‘natural-born citizen’”…concluding “President Obama is a natural born citizen
by virtue of his birth in the United States.” Defs. Mot. At 12. The Defendants cite United
States v. Wong Kim Ark in support of their conclusion. Id. citing 169 U.S. 649, 702
(1898). However, the holding of Wong Kim Ark (“WKA”) did not address the definition
of the term “natural born citizen” nor did it address Article II qualifications to serve as
President. Id. at 705.

Quote:

In contrast, the Minor Court’s explicit definition of “natural born citizen” was part
of its holding because that Court explained that defining this term was required in order
to reach its conclusion on the matter presented to the Court. :^o

88 U.S. at 167; See also
Black’s Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (Defining Holding
as, “A court’s determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn
from such a decision.”).

and that's just the beginning... 40 pages of crazy

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:37 pm

realist wrote:

and that's just the beginning... 40 pages of crazy

Yea, adding in 21 pages of a proposed order that was rejected by an administrative judge in another state will always add gravitas.

And dating your stuff using a Ziv calendar, has he been doing this all along?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:53 pm

Ziv is a month in the Hebrew calendar. Irion "dates" his dreck "9th Day of Ziv, in the year of our Lord 2012 (a.k.a. April 30,2012)." His dating efforts are on par with his legal efforts. The correct Hebrew calendar date would be 8 Iyyar, 5772. "Ziv" is no longer used.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23933

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

Date Filed
#
Docket Text

05/09/2012 27 REPLY to Response to Motion re 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/09/2012 28 First MOTION for Sanctions by Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Motion for Sanctions, # 2 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Sanctions)(Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

links shortly

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 795

You go, DNC! Sanctions request!

I'm firmly in the corner of "Birther suits will not stop until birthers start to be assessed sanctions for their conduct."

Slap Van Irion, Strunk, Orly, and others with a few zeros worth of costs and fees and see how quickly their insistence on two-parent theories and hackneyed Kenya birth certificate stories fades away.

bob · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:08 am

Quote:

05/09/2012 28 First MOTION for Sanctions by Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Motion for Sanctions, # 2 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Sanctions)(Eckstein, Paul) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

Unnecessary for the pleading; vital for conveying intent.

:-bd

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:19 am

Wait, I thought we were all supposed to thank Du-May for thinking up the brilliant strategy that was finally going to win a birther case. Wha' happened?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23933

Documents are now linked above...

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6758&p=375667#p375667

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:23 am

Is this case in USDC AZ or USDC TN?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23933

TollandRCR wrote:

Is this case in USDC AZ or USDC TN?

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

bob · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:34 am

My only quibble is that footnote 4 is too awesome to be a footnote. It buries that Irion lost in Georgia on this "theory"; that should be up and center.

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 795

From Footnote 4:

Quote:

In particular, the DNC Defendants direct the Court's attention to Farrar, in which Mr. Irion served as counsel for one of the unsuccessful challengers. As a result, he cannot in good faith claim that he was unaware of the fact that the legal theory he advances here has been rejected in any number of previous decisions.

Absolutely awesome. Time to start doing the same for Orly and Apuzzo (although I would guess Apuzzo will be smart enough to stay out of court going forward).

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:45 am

This seeks sanctions under Rule 11, F.R.Civ.P. The defendants can also seek sanctions under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927, which doesn't have a "safe harbor" provision.

kate520 · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 12:02 pm

Aha, it's from Perkins Coie! Where oh where have I heard that name before? :lol:

Clearly, it's a trap. Run, Orly, run! They're still after you.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6733

Paul Eckstein :xo

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 12:44 pm

Tarrant wrote:

From Footnote 4:

Quote:

In particular, the DNC Defendants direct the Court's attention to Farrar, in which Mr. Irion served as counsel for one of the unsuccessful challengers. As a result, he cannot in good faith claim that he was unaware of the fact that the legal theory he advances here has been rejected in any number of previous decisions.

I'm with bob, I would have made this the first sentence of this section of the brief. The key is not just that the "two citizen parents" theory has been discredited, but that Von Aryan knows it's been discredited; Judge Malihi's decision in Farrar was well-reasoned and well-written and should have been clearly understood by Von Aryan.¹ The key point should not be buried at the bottom of a footnote that straddles two pages.

Nonetheless. Good brief. Outstanding that everybody nationwide is starting to get tough on this pestilence.

__________________
¹ I suggest that Von Aryan forego the opportunity to inform the Court that Georgia was awarded a nuclear reactor because of Judge Malihi's corrupt perfidy. Yeah, even if he really, really believes that happened. Won't sell.

bob · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 1:31 pm

Foggy wrote:

The key is not just that the "two citizen parents" theory has been discredited, but that Von Aryan knows it's been discredited; Judge Malihi's decision in Farrar was well-reasoned and well-written and should have been clearly understood by Von Aryan.

Fortunately, the movants get the last word in the reply brief. Perhaps this point will be made more forcefully there.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10764

Come on people, everybody knows the footnotes are always the best part!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online