Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

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:

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1801

Post by Kriselda Gray »

:twisted: [link]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=91776,ht ... m/?p=91776[/link] :twisted: Certified mail receipts showing that the suboenas to appear at the hearing on June 12 in the Indiana Superior Court Marion County were sent to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Astrue,Ken Bennett, Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, Miriam Goderich and othersAh, yes. Another set of useless papers that show nothing other than that someone mailed something on a specific date, but nothing about WHAT was sent. Orly just LOVES those! I wonder if she's saving them up to throw a Certified Mail Receipt parade when the Usurper is frogmarched out of office?


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
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:

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1802

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Ok, this falls under "something that's probably wrong because I got it from TV" but on cop shows, one point of drama is always whether they have enough probable cause to get a subpoena from a Judge (in the middle of the night, natch) to go search the Currently-Presumed-(But-Soon-To-Be-Found-Alibied-Out)-Dirtbag's apartment, and once they've gotten the subpoena, when they go to arraign the CP(BSTBFAO)D, the defence attorney will announce that there were insufficient grounds for the subpoena and demand that the nice lady judge void the warrant. The judge will then turn into SUPER DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS LADY and with her superpowered withering look and blade-sharp voice she will congratulate the prosecutor for being able to pull the wool over crusty ol' Judge Jackson's eyes, but NOTHING gets by SUPER DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS LADY and SHE can see that the subpoena is, in fact, deficient and how DARE the prosecutor darken her courtroom door with such an over-reaching hand!My point is, they have to justify the subpoena before they can get a judge to sign off on it. Is that just wrong, a basic difference between criminal and civil courts, or something else I haven't thought of yet?


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
MsDaisy
Posts: 5623
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1803

Post by MsDaisy »

Ok, this falls under "something that's probably wrong because I got it from TV" but on cop shows, one point of drama is always whether they have enough probable cause to get a subpoena from a Judge (in the middle of the night, natch) to go search the Currently-Presumed-(But-Soon-To-Be-Found-Alibied-Out)-Dirtbag's apartment, and once they've gotten the subpoena, when they go to arraign the CP(BSTBFAO)D, the defence attorney will announce that there were insufficient grounds for the subpoena and demand that the nice lady judge void the warrant. The judge will then turn into SUPER DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS LADY and with her superpowered withering look and blade-sharp voice she will congratulate the prosecutor for being able to pull the wool over crusty ol' Judge Jackson's eyes, but NOTHING gets by SUPER DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS LADY and SHE can see that the subpoena is, in fact, deficient and how DARE the prosecutor darken her courtroom door with such an over-reaching hand!My point is, they have to justify the subpoena before they can get a judge to sign off on it. Is that just wrong, a basic difference between criminal and civil courts, or something else I haven't thought of yet?Wouldn't that be a search warrant, not a subpoena? :-k


Birfers are toast
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 10 years Admin Law Judge for 4 state agencies.

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1804

Post by SuzieC »

Don't need probable cause for a subpoena. Probable cause has to be shown to a judge before he or she will issue a search warrant.


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

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1805

Post by realist »

Don't need probable cause for a subpoena. Probable cause has to be shown to a judge before he or she will issue a search warrant.Not to be confused with "probably cause" as in Orly issues subpoenas "probably cause" she believes it will increase the PayPal button hits, not "probably cause" she expects anyone to honor them. I know... it's complicated. :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16798
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1806

Post by Reality Check »

My question is WTF is a "witness" doing issuing subpoenas? This has to be breaking new ground even for Orly Law.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016
Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1807

Post by Mr. Gneiss »

My question is WTF is a "witness" doing issuing subpoenas? This has to be breaking new ground even for Orly Law.Welcome to my confuzzlement. One day she was a witness getting scolded by the IN Election Commission and then, poof, she lists herself as the first plaintiff on some POS motion.I know that her smackdown is inevitable, but it really pisses me off that she will be squawking that Obama ignored another subpoena. She is still screeching that the Hawaii DOH ignored her Federal subpoena in the Astrue case. She is like a zoo chimp with a pile of poo in its hand. Ready to fling whenever it suits her.Sekrit Stuffs!
Hey Orly. :twoup:


User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 10 years Admin Law Judge for 4 state agencies.

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1808

Post by SuzieC »

I think she's probably (conveniently) forgotten that she told the Commission she was appearing before them as a witness. Must be hard to keep all her asinine lawsuits and frivolous pleadings straight in her "mind", the poor thing.


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47303
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1809

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

I just re-read all of the Indiana motion paperwork. Taitz, Kern and their clients have so completely failed to comply with the review provisions of the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act that I don't see this case getting beyond a discussion of that issue. Taitz, of course, is incapable of understanding that, so she is going to get an ass kicking. If she persists in pressing forward with the "merits," as I suspect she will do (this is all for publicity, after all), I think there is a good chance of another sanctions order. If I were the judge I would not let her speak for anyone but herself. Let's see if her "plaintiffs" bother to show up this time.I hope our Indiana Obot will be able to attend the hearing.


User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1810

Post by ObjectiveDoubter »

I just re-read all of the Indiana motion paperwork. Taitz, Kern and their clients have so completely failed to comply with the review provisions of the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act that I don't see this case getting beyond a discussion of that issue. Taitz, of course, is incapable of understanding that, so she is going to get an ass kicking. If she persists in pressing forward with the "merits," as I suspect she will do (this is all for publicity, after all), I think there is a good chance of another sanctions order. If I were the judge I would not let her speak for anyone but herself. Let's see if her "plaintiffs" bother to show up this time.I hope our Indiana Obot will be able to attend the hearing.What I don't understand (IANAL, blah, blah, blah) is why there is a hearing at all? Why can't/don't they just rule on the motions since she doesn't have standing and they can shut her down without a hearing? Unless something else is intended, like allowing her latitude to spew her usual crap.


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47303
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1811

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Three of the other "plaintiffs" brought the challenge and are listed (pro forma of course) by Taitz on the paperwork. (Their contact information, however, appears to be missing. Sound familiar?) They may be entitled to a hearing even though they also failed to follow the requirements of the AOPA (that is, Taitz failed to follow the provisions of the Act for them when she filed her latest pile of pig swill).A hearing is good, though. It gets Taitz out of California, even if only for a little while. And one day, while on one of her trips, Homeland Security may decide she's a threat and put her on a no fly list.Can you imagine driving 1,000 miles+ with Taitz in the car?


User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 18285
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: The nuttiest congressional district of a nut job state.

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1812

Post by ZekeB »

Can you imagine driving 1,000 miles+ with Taitz in the car?AMTRAK. She would need to purchase an entire car for herself. They wouldn't have it any other way.


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.
User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1813

Post by ObjectiveDoubter »

Three of the other "plaintiffs" brought the challenge and are listed (pro forma of course) by Taitz on the paperwork. (Their contact information, however, appears to be missing. Sound familiar?) They may be entitled to a hearing even though they also failed to follow the requirements of the AOPA (that is, Taitz failed to follow the provisions of the Act for them when she filed her latest pile of pig swill).A hearing is good, though. It gets Taitz out of California, even if only for a little while. And one day, while on one of her trips, Homeland Security may decide she's a threat and put her on a no fly list.Can you imagine driving 1,000 miles+ with Taitz in the car?http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userp ... uicide.gif


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:

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1814

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Wouldn't that be a search warrant, not a subpoena? :-kDon't need probable cause for a subpoena. Probable cause has to be shown to a judge before he or she will issue a search warrant.Oh, fine. Go and ruin a perfectly good runaway tangent by adding a bit of ...logic and correctness to the procedings!I must go pout now. (Thanks for fixing my brain fart guys - sorry to have smelled up the room with it :D )


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
MsDaisy
Posts: 5623
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1815

Post by MsDaisy »

Oh, fine. Go and ruin a perfectly good runaway tangent by adding a bit of ...logic and correctness to the procedings!I must go pout now. :lol: :lol: :hug:


Birfers are toast
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1816

Post by RTH10260 »

Suzie:Looking at the "subpoena," she apparently intends to "serve" it on the President through his attorney in Georgia. :-k But, to address the larger issue of Orly and serving legal documents, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit of money that she has never once properly served a single legal document on anyone, ever.I like the thought / image of performing service upon an Empty Chair :lol: :lol: :lol:


ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1817

Post by ducktape »

I like the thought / image of performing service upon an Empty Chair :lol: :lol: :lol:Sekrit Stuffs!
Like this?


Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1818

Post by Paul Pieniezny »

Suzie:Looking at the "subpoena," she apparently intends to "serve" it on the President through his attorney in Georgia. :-k But, to address the larger issue of Orly and serving legal documents, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit of money that she has never once properly served a single legal document on anyone, ever.I like the thought / image of performing service upon an Empty Chair :lol: :lol: :lol:Shades of Martin Luther. Orly nailing 95 of her dossiers onto an empty chair in a Georgia court room.And asked by a judge what that was about, answering "I could not do anything else."


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1819

Post by RTH10260 »

She is sticking her nose where it doesn't belong. Local folks remember and resent that. Her name is :turd: nationwide. She should stick to California. She would have been $20K richer(although I am sure she grif...err received donations to help cover her losses).Wherever she goes, she is the Democratic Party's very best wet dream. She causes irreparable damage to the GOP wherever she treads.While Yosi had to pay up in advance to cover the debt and prevent a lien from getting registered on their mansion, Orly repaid him on request of Yosi, and following her blog over approx half a year the stupid did press her Paypal button sufficiently at the time.


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1820

Post by RTH10260 »

The hearing on the 12th is based on this Order, submitted as a Proposed Order by the SoS then filled in by the Court, along with their Opposition to Orly's Petition for Emergency Injunctive Relief and their Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Appearance of Orly and Motion for Sanctions.





IN - 2012-05-21 - [link]Order Setting Hearing for June 12, 2012,[/link]Catching up with a backlog:


Comes now the Court and schedules a hearing on all pending motions and filings.Would such "pending matters" include subpoenas questioned by the judge?


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1821

Post by RTH10260 »







The way it usually works is that the lawyer submits either blank subpoena requests, or fills out the requests herself. A staff attorney at the court will review them for validity. They may fail at that point. But even if they are signed by the judge and issued officially by the court, that doesn't mean that they will be properly and officially served. As others have indicated, the recipient's lawyers will have the opportunity to raise all kinds of objections, which I would expect to be successful. Most courts will go ahead and issue a facially valid subpoena, and let the parties argue it out afterwards. The President's subpoena is not facially valid.Ahhh but if you recall Judge Malihi denied Obama's motion to quash in GA, and she's still bragging about that. I think she probably believes the same will happen here. Course, she also believes that she will ultimately win this crusade and have the name Obama stricken from every ballot across the country. the White House :lol:FIFY


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1822

Post by RTH10260 »

:evil: :evil: Court signed subpoena with the raised seal for Obama to appear in court on June 12 and present all of his identification records. ([highlight]Forgery that he posted on line does not constitute a valid record, not admissible in court)[/highlight]Posted on | May 31, 2012 | No CommentsNot that he'll be there nor bring anything,but that statement is ludicrous. ](*,) [/break1]photobucket.com/albums/nn315/nmgolfer_bucket/Political%20Pics%20and%20Related/IN-Subpoena-Barack-Obama-744x1024.jpg]http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn31 ... 4x1024.jpgJudge Taitz has ruled!!! =))Is Orlena expecting Obama to show up with "certified records" of his personal records of copies he may have or not have any more after all those years and have them certified, or is Orlena asking Obama to acquire said records from various agencies at own cost? Not to think of the short period she suggest giving Obama to pick up the paperwork...


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47303
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1823

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Taitz has to know by now her subpoenas are completely worthless. And that she is going to get her ass kicked at the hearing. She is doing this all for show for a few credulous suckers who will click her PayPal button.


User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11880
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1824

Post by Chilidog »

Taitz has to know by now her subpoenas are completely worthless.I dispute that. :mrgreen:


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29977
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Indiana ballot challenge (smackdown for Orly)

#1825

Post by RTH10260 »

All four motions are unopposed in that Plaintiffs have failed to file any objection to the motions.Plenty of time remains, in Orlylaw.She'll combine all her responses to all the motions in one brief, and add motions of her ownfor summary judgment in her favor and sanctions against respondents in the same brief, and file it about three days before the hearing.Then she'll show up in court and HER motions will be unopposed, and should result in default wins for her.Plus will add one humongous epic title that will crack the courts docket system :lol: :lol: :lol: #-o


Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”