WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#51

Post by SueDB » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:33 pm

Nice threadjack... 8-) 8-) 8-)
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14314
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#52

Post by Dolly » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:39 pm

Off Topic
Michael Jackson - Thriller (Official Music Video) HD Complete I am done, finished... sorry about the threadjack. But it was a good one! :D
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

Circumspect
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:47 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#53

Post by Circumspect » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:54 pm

Wolf is a small, nasty snot-slinger. If you're going to attempt to leverage such a pompous, sarcastic tone, you need to earn the right. Moreover, you better be right about what you're writing about.Another day, another birther, another fail. It's just too bad that these morons are incapable of recognizing when they've embarrassed themselves so thoroughly.I'm gonna tape this one to my wall--thanks Piffle--you've captured the essence of this so beautifully! =D>

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#54

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:21 am

For someone who claims to be not a birther, he sure talks a lot about Obama's birth certificate. :-kThis is Wolf's work alone, correct? The older attorney from Hawaii did not stay on for the appeal as I recall.Correct (-ish). I don't think this is Wolf's work at all; I suspect the out-of-state lawyer that Wolf originally retained ghostwrote this.John Carroll was initially listed as counsel of record on the appeal, I believe, but has since withdrawn. I've read the reply. I'll be generous, and assume that this was written by Wolf, without the assistance of a licensed attorney. If it was ghostwritten, Wolf should demand a refund. The reply brief is not written at the same level as the opening brief. The structure and organization of the opening brief were not totally incompetent, the frivolous arguments within the brief were presented clearly enough that a reasonable person could understand why they were blatantly wrong without recourse to liquor, and the level of invective did not exceed the bounds of professionalism by more than a factor of four or five. The reply brief lacks those virtues.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Somerset
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#55

Post by Somerset » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:10 am

For someone who claims to be not a birther, he sure talks a lot about Obama's birth certificate. :-kThis is Wolf's work alone, correct? The older attorney from Hawaii did not stay on for the appeal as I recall.Correct (-ish). I don't think this is Wolf's work at all; I suspect the out-of-state lawyer that Wolf originally retained ghostwrote this.John Carroll was initially listed as counsel of record on the appeal, I believe, but has since withdrawn. I've read the reply. I'll be generous, and assume that this was written by Wolf, without the assistance of a licensed attorney. If it was ghostwritten, Wolf should demand a refund. The reply brief is not written at the same level as the opening brief. The structure and organization of the opening brief were not totally incompetent, the frivolous arguments within the brief were presented clearly enough that a reasonable person could understand why they were blatantly wrong without recourse to liquor, and the level of invective did not exceed the bounds of professionalism by more than a factor of four or five. The reply brief lacks those virtues.I may have to steal this :lol: Can or not?

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34944
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#56

Post by realist » Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:00 pm

Docket Update...





2013-05-31 - Wolf v Fuddy (Appeal) - [link]Summary Disposition Order - Affirmed,[/link]
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12226
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#57

Post by Whatever4 » Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:21 pm

:lol: I love how decisions in birther cases now refer to prior birther cases.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34944
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#58

Post by realist » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:22 am

:lol: I love how decisions in birther cases now refer to prior birther cases.sYes. Isn't it great. They've been making their own precedent for losing since the very first birther case. Bless their little hearts. :P
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

MetoDC
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:37 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#59

Post by MetoDC » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:16 am

:lol: I love how decisions in birther cases now refer to prior birther cases.s





Yes. Isn't it great. They've been making their own precedent for losing since the very first birther case.





Bless their little shriveled up and hateful hearts. :PFIFY

gshevlin
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Contact:

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#60

Post by gshevlin » Sun Jun 02, 2013 6:53 pm

Docket Update...





2013-05-31 - Wolf v Fuddy (Appeal) - [link]Summary Disposition Order - Affirmed,[/link]I think that is a Total Smackdown on three counts.

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#61

Post by Epectitus » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:40 am

I think that is a Total Smackdown on three counts.I continue to be entertained at how the birthers have so comprehensively drawn the noose around their own necks (NADT) by creating a significant corpus of legal precedent with their previous epic fails. Nothging pleases me more than to see previous birther cases cited as support for tossing a current birther case. :-bd
"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#62

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:43 pm

Here's something that might be of interest. I was browsing the Federal Election Commission's website, and looked up the reports for John Carroll (the attorney in this case, and an attorney who joined the Sunahara case for the appeal). He was a candidate for the Republican nomination for the open US Senate seat in 2012. His campaign received two large contributions ($2,000 and $2,500) in early May, 2012. The contributions were received shortly before the appeals were filed in these cases. Both came from a Texas resident with a familiar name - Gary Laconis. Mr. Carroll's campaign took in a total of just over $13K in itemized individual contributions. Laconis was by far his single largest donor.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI Intermediate Court of Appeals)

#63

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:35 pm

Here's something that might be of interest. I was browsing the Federal Election Commission's website, and looked up the reports for John Carroll (the attorney in this case, and an attorney who joined the Sunahara case for the appeal). He was a candidate for the Republican nomination for the open US Senate seat in 2012. His campaign received two large contributions ($2,000 and $2,500) in early May, 2012. The contributions were received shortly before the appeals were filed in these cases. Both came from a Texas resident with a familiar name - Gary Laconis. Mr. Carroll's campaign took in a total of just over $13K in itemized individual contributions. Laconis was by far his single largest donor.Interesting, in January 2012 another $803.57 was received from a Texas based Gary Laconis but with a different address.
Edit: ETA I wonder if that January 2012 payment was in Iraqi dinars?

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”