(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

Post Reply
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35667
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#1

Post by realist »

It's apparently filed...The indication on the docket is that the Complaint is not yet available.Case ID: CH-11-1757 Docket Start Date: Docket Ending Date: Case Description Case ID: CH-11-1757 - LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION V NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PAR Filing Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 Type: DJ - Comp/Declaratory Judgment Status: INITIAL - Initial case filingRelated CasesNo related cases were found.Case Event Schedule


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35667
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#2

Post by realist »

ID @76894 DUMMETT, JOHN unavailableCase: CH-11-1757 LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION V NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PAR Plaintiff 26-OCT-2011


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
bob
Posts: 31345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#3

Post by bob »

"For the purpose of completeness," here's the [/break1]libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-contentsrc="uploads/2011/10/DNC-TN-Compl.pdf]proposed complaint.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35667
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#4

Post by realist »

"For the purpose of completeness," here's the [/break1]libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-contentsrc="uploads/2011/10/DNC-TN-Compl.pdf]proposed complaint.Thanks, bob. I was just copying your prior post with the link... appreciate it.I'm not going to download it or send it to Jack to post until it has a file stamp on it, as "mostly" is the case. ;)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#5

Post by Piffle »

In a way, I think this suit is disappointing -- no new cockamamie theories, no new fake facts, and no new creative angles. The least they could have done is bring a reverse class action patent infringement suit alleging that We the People OWN the Constitution and Barry Soetoro is an unauthorized knock-off. :mrgreen: :roll:





There's just one thing that may bode well for those of us Obots who have season passes: Here, Fearless Irion has gone out of his way to make sure he's not suing a government entity. While I'm sure he thinks that is to his advantage because the suit won't be defended for free by the corrupt Holder Justice Department, it also means that whomever the Democratic Party choses as defense counsel might be given a charter to play hardball for a change. And that includes the client's permission to pursue sanctions and fees for frivolous pleadings.





Face it, the Justice Department is a big teddy bear. They've been loath to move for sanctions in all of Orly's suits because they go out of their way to avoid the impression that they are suppressing dissent or misusing government resources for political purposes. Hey, it's just public money she's wasting, so what the hell.





But if you sue a political party and claim a bunch of politically motivated lies, the gloves might come off. Might.


User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7423
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#6

Post by raicha »

If the DNC has not yet come up with a strategy for dealing with these nutballs, now is the time. They certainly must be anticipating a spate of "candidates" making idiotic claims.


User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#7

Post by Piffle »

If the DNC has not yet come up with a strategy for dealing with these nutballs, now is the time. They certainly must be anticipating a spate of "candidates" making idiotic claims.How'd you do that, raicha? In one line, you said what I was trying to say. Only better.


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47302
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#8

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Can this case be removed to federal court? It does "arise under" the Constitution.


A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#9

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

If the DNC has not yet come up with a strategy for dealing with these nutballs, now is the time. They certainly must be anticipating a spate of "candidates" making idiotic claims.True. It is not beneath the repugs to fund a bunch of these frivolous lawsuits just to cost the party money that would otherwise go to legitimate campaigning. Slapping these morons with sanctions would deter such conduct.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 31345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#10

Post by bob »

While I'm sure he thinks that is to his advantage because the suit won't be defended for free by the corrupt Holder Justice Department, it also means that whomever the Democratic Party choses as defense counsel might be given a charter to play hardball for a change. And that includes the client's permission to pursue sanctions and fees for frivolous pleadings.Birthers [/break1]perkinscoie.com/rbauer/]won't be happy:


[highlight]Bob [Bauer][/highlight] is General Counsel to Obama for America and General Counsel to the Democratic National CommitteeForget about the first-year associates, the big gun is in the house!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#11

Post by Piffle »

Can this case be removed to federal court? It does "arise under" the Constitution. =)) =)) Uh huh. Riiiight.





So let's say the DNC files to remove. \ :D /





And so you're Irion. You've already filed a subset of this lawsuit -- cut and pasted line-by-line -- in federal court claiming there's federal question jurisdiction and that it meets criteria for federal class action certification.





And now...drumroll...you're going to oppose removal, consolidation and assumption of supplemental jurisdiction for the "additional" so-called state claims? Heh, good luck!




Sekrit Stuffs!
Does the concept of estoppel resonate here?


User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7657
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#12

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) :-bd


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47302
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#13

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

The Chaleria has ripped the litigation again, pointing out that plaintiffs aren't on the New Hampshire ballot. She then gives some nonsensical argument about the class action aspect of the case and cites to "Lawyers.com" for some nonsensical position about class actions. (Apparently, you can't call them class actions until they've been certified.)What Taitz is really pissed off about is that Van Irion (whom she disses by name) is going to be getting all of the press for a while with a losing case -- that's solely Orly Taitz territory these days.The word salad of outrage can be found here: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26994]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26994 -xx


User avatar
realist
Posts: 35667
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#14

Post by realist »

As I stated before, I wish everyone the best. [highlight]It was important for me to clarify to the public what is really going on, put things in true perspective, stop insane hype of a case, which is highly hypothetical and tentative at best and with no standing, and to show the real picture.[/highlight] I believe, at this point the public knows, what is going on, and we can proceed fighting with clear heads.In other words, only Orly is allowed to constantly lie to her flying monkeys and the public about a case.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#15

Post by verbalobe »

As I stated before, I wish everyone the best. It was important for me to clarify to the public what is really going on, put things in true perspective, stop insane hype of a case, which is highly hypothetical and tentative at best and with no standing, and to show the real picture. I believe, at this point the public knows, what is going on, and we can proceed fighting with clear heads.In other words, only Orly is allowed to constantly lie to her flying monkeys and the public about a case."What's going on," apparently, is commas.


User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#16

Post by majorbabs »

I checked Tennessee's SOS site, and found that the deadline to get on the GOP primary ballot is Dec 6. My question, assume that none of the parties in the lawsuit do the work to get on the primary ballot. Would that impact the question of standing in the state lawsuit? After all, the "candidates" did not perform the minimun tasks needed to placed on the primary ballot which impacts their chances of winning the GOP presidential candidate nomination (and yes, I know that their chances are zero). How could they support the claim of harm when their inactions have directly harmed their chances?The same question could asked about the federal lawsuit. Right now we know that none of these candidates have filed paperwork to be on the New Hampshire primary ballot. While I'm not sure, don't GOP presidential candidates need to win a certain number of primaries in order the win the nomination.For the curious, these are Tennessee's requirements for gettin on the primary ballot:"One method is to be named by the Secretary of State, who is required to submit a list of names to the State Election Commission no later than the first Tuesday in December (December 6, 2011). TCA §2-5-205. The Secretary of State has sole discretion to include only those candidates that he has determined are generally advocated or recognized as candidates in national news media throughout the United States. TCA §2-5-205.""The other method for a party candidate to gain access to the primary ballot is to submit a petition signed by at least twenty-five hundred (2,500) registered voters no later than 12:00 noon, prevailing time, on the first Tuesday in December (December 6, 2011)."[/break1]tn.gov/sos/election/qualify/US%20Pres%20Candidate%20Both%20Rev%20Dates%202012.pdf]TENNESSEE BALLOT ACCESS PROCEDURES


User avatar
bob
Posts: 31345
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#17

Post by bob »

I checked Tennessee's SOS site, and found that the deadline to get on the GOP primary ballot is Dec 6. My question, assume that none of the parties in the lawsuit do the work to get on the primary ballot. Would that impact the question of standing in the state lawsuit?A candidate for the democratic nomination could argue harm. A republican candidate, even if on the primary ballot, still lacks standing to challenge the NDC DNC.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47302
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#18

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Just as any Catholic man can theoretically be elected Pope, I suspect that any Republican goober could be nominated the GoP's candidate for POTUS. But I also agree that at this point no Republican candidate will have standing. And the case isn't ripe. Orly has finally gotten this right (only to ignore it when if she gloms on to a plaintiff she can pimp).


User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#19

Post by majorbabs »

I checked Tennessee's SOS site, and found that the deadline to get on the GOP primary ballot is Dec 6. My question, assume that none of the parties in the lawsuit do the work to get on the primary ballot. Would that impact the question of standing in the state lawsuit?A candidate for the democratic nomination could argue harm. A republican candidate, even if on the primary ballot, still lacks standing to challenge the NDC DNC.I fully agree with your comments. But that's not what I asking. Let's say it is Dec 7, could the DNC then ask for the case to be dismissed because the Liberty plaintiffs didn't comply with the requirements to get on Tennessee priamary ballot so they clearly do not have standing with regards to Tenneessee. I know that the DNC can argue that Liberty's plaintiffs lack standing regardless of whether or not the plaintiffs get on the primary ballot. I just think it would be even more dramatic if the DNC shows that the plaintiffs aren't even doing the barest minimum to win the GOP nomination. It's the whole, their chances of getting the GOP nomination were zero to start with and by the plaintiff's own actions, they've reduced their chances into the minus range.


User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8667
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#20

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Given how these cases have gone so far, I know that there's no way in hell that we'd ever see this happen, but I would SO love it if in their Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion to Dismiss did a point-by-point rebuttal of all the "facts" these idiots have listed, demonstrating just how false they all are. I know they'd also have to be sure to cover all the other, less "glamorous" problems, like lack of standing and so forth, but it would just be so great to put all of that debunking of all the old tropes in one handy, legal document.


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush


Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants... :thor:
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35667
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#21

Post by realist »

AFAIK we have no boots on the ground in TN and the state court does not provide download of documents from the docket. We have an update of the docket but no documents to go with it...





Case ID:


CH-11-1757 - LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION V NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PAR


Filing Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2011


Type: DJ - Comp/Declaratory Judgment


Status: EXECUTIONS - Service executions





26-JAN-2012 08:09 AM Amended (T)


IRION, VAN R





Entry:


FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ADDED TENN DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE)








26-JAN-2012 09:12 AM Process issued other (T)


IRION, VAN R


Entry: SUMMONS ISSUED TO DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE THRU PPS MAILED BACK TO ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE











26-JAN-2012 09:12 AM Process issued other (T)


IRION, VAN R


Entry: SUMMONS ISSUED TO TENNESSEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THRU PPS MAILED BACK TO ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE











26-JAN-2012 03:18 PM Returns other (T)


IRION, VAN R


Entry: SUMMONS RETURNED 1-15-12 "marked UNC" ON NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE USA INC THRU CERT MAIL







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#22

Post by DaveMuckey »

AFAIK we have no boots on the ground in TN and the state court does not provide download of documents from the docket. We have an update of the docket but no documents to go with it...26-JAN-2012 03:18 PM Returns other (T) IRION, VAN REntry: SUMMONS RETURNED 1-15-12"marked UNC"ON NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE USA INC THRU CERT MAIL Excellent! (Assuming that meant to read "UNK")


User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31136
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#23

Post by mimi »

UNC - Unclaimed Abbreviation: UNCDefinition: UnclaimedDefinition Rank: Categories: BusinessTopics by tags: postal, return to sender code and us postUnconfirmed Type: Syllabic Abbreviation[/break1]all-acronyms.com/UNC/Unclaimed/1192264]http://www.all-acronyms.com/UNC/Unclaimed/1192264


User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#24

Post by nbc »

Well, duh... How hard is it to send the subpoena to a properly named party?...


Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”