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

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

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

#11376

Post by Plutodog » Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:05 pm

Sam's right, I think.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

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

#11377

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:06 pm

I wouldn't say they owe it - something about putting it that way feels wrong, like it's somewhat minimizing the generosity of all those involved to imply they expect some recompense - even if it's just something like the thrill of satiating a vicarious metaphorical bloodlust - but it could make for a nice "thank you" gift :)

But I trust that whatever they decide, it here will be sound reasoning behind it, even if we don't all necessarily like it, eh?
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28317
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#11378

Post by Foggy » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:14 pm

The only duty the lawyers owe is to their clients' best interests.



Not speaking for anyone else, but I volunteered my own services and expect nothing in return. I'd enjoy it if there was a motion for sanctions, but nobody owes me.
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34803
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#11379

Post by realist » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:17 pm





The only duty the lawyers owe is to their clients' best interests.



Not speaking for anyone else, but I volunteered my own services and expect nothing in return. I'd enjoy it if there was a motion for sanctions, but nobody owes me.







:yeah:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3473
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

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

#11380

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:41 pm





As all the Fogbar Presidential Support Squad apparently gave significant assistance to Team Teppernator (Mr. (redacted) and Mr. Begley), doesn't that pair owe a favor in return?

A favor, as in submitting a simple motion (or should that be demand?) for sanctions against Taitz? Gosh, I bet the Fogbar would draft the motion too, wouldn't they?

The Fogbar Soupy Heroes deserve the lolz. And those of us in the peanut gallery want to see our team run in another touchdown or two.

Well done all those who assisted, I assumed there was some interaction behind the scenes, but that it was probably something that the conspirators (I choose that term to annoy Taitz, not to imply misdeed) did not wish to publicize, for whatever reason.

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:







I for one will be especially disappointed if Mr. (redacted) and Mr. Begley do not file something. True, being forgotten is a punishment fit for OrLena. But remember, this is the rich bitch who begs for money from those of little means, who stuffs bills into her purse from her adoring idiot minions, at hearings where she's made a fool of herself. She measures her success by donations, so even if it were just a pittance of her entire wealth, it would pain her so. And she deserves to feel pain.



And there is something else that is more important. Successful sanctions by any court could lead to her disbarment, at last. If she is sanctioned, she must explain herself to the California Bar. Remember them? The ones who sent the stupid letter to her about Mr. (redacted), that only egged her on? The same Bar that won't act against her because she's never had a paying client that could be damaged?



Come on B & T! Do it. It's time SOMEONE did.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15618
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#11381

Post by Reality Check » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:42 pm

Is there a :yeah: X 2 emoticon? It's entirely up to the defendants in the case to weigh the pros and cons of asking for sanctions.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 15757
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

#11382

Post by ZekeB » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:47 pm

I'd like to see the defendants ask for sanctions only because I know it would make Taitz squirm. She may even hire a real lawyer with that at stake. OTOH I'm not the one doing the leg work and incurring the expenses. I don't know what the odds are of winning. I'll defer this to Mr. (redacted). He knows the odds and if this is worth it much better than I.
Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

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

#11383

Post by esseff44 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:48 pm











As all the Fogbar Presidential Support Squad apparently gave significant assistance to Team Teppernator (Mr. (redacted) and Mr. Begley), doesn't that pair owe a favor in return?

A favor, as in submitting a simple motion (or should that be demand?) for sanctions against Taitz? Gosh, I bet the Fogbar would draft the motion too, wouldn't they?

The Fogbar Soupy Heroes deserve the lolz. And those of us in the peanut gallery want to see our team run in another touchdown or two.

Well done all those who assisted, I assumed there was some interaction behind the scenes, but that it was probably something that the conspirators (I choose that term to annoy Taitz, not to imply misdeed) did not wish to publicize, for whatever reason.

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:







I for one will be especially disappointed if Mr. (redacted) and Mr. Begley do not file something. True, being forgotten is a punishment fit for OrLena. But remember, this is the rich bitch who begs for money from those of little means, who stuffs bills into her purse from her adoring idiot minions, at hearings where she's made a fool of herself. She measures her success by donations, so even if it were just a pittance of her entire wealth, it would pain her so. And she deserves to feel pain.



And there is something else that is more important. Successful sanctions by any court could lead to her disbarment, at last. If she is sanctioned, she must explain herself to the California Bar. Remember them? The ones who sent the stupid letter to her about Mr. (redacted), that only egged her on? The same Bar that won't act against her because she's never had a paying client that could be damaged?



Come on B & T! Do it. It's time SOMEONE did.









IIRC, she did not have clients. The other plaintiffs were not paying her and she claimed they were not clients. She sometimes did slide around on that while she was acting as their agent. It was a transparent mess but it would be hard to show an injury to any of the co-plaintiffs that was not self-inflicted.

TexasFilly
Posts: 18115
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

#11384

Post by TexasFilly » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:50 pm

But Messrs. (redacted) and Begley do have clients, and they have to follow their clients' wishes on this issue.
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

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

#11385

Post by Plutodog » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:07 pm

Of course they do. And I don't believe Sam or I were seriously demanding a sanctions action because we seriously believe we're "owed" it. Only that we'd dearly love to see it happen for various reasons, mentioned or not above. The lawyers involved -- the very capable, accomplished and excellent lawyers - -and their clients are quite capable and can be depended on to act in their best interests, nor to be unduly swayed by our personal desires.

So chill, please.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

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

#11386

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:11 pm

It's the client's decision and we need to respect that.

The court's well reasoned Memorandum Opinion is reward enough.
"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
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7049
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

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

#11387

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:18 pm

By "owe" I didn't intend to imply that there was a moral debt to be repaid or that the Fogbow team expected anything as they were simply doing A Good Thing. Sorry if I gave that impression.



No, what I meant was that just as when your neighbor does you a good turn unbidden, sometimes it often feels right to give them a box of chocolates or a bottle of wine, not because either side expects or requires it, but simply because that sort of consideration helps make the world go round, and it feels good to say "thanks!" in a concrete way.



Of course the lawyerly types are correct in that it's the defendants' choice on sanctions, but I don't see why the Democratic Party or anyone else should have to bear the expense of rebutting Taitz's lies and defamation. As has been discussed before, in many countries, the winning defendants would expect automatically to be reimbursed for their expenditure in an action not of their choosing. That may not be the way of American law, but it seems a damn good principle when the plaintiffs' entire complaint is constructed of untruths founded on racism and hatred.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

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

#11388

Post by Dr. Caligari » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:24 pm

It's the client's decision and we need to respect that.



Absolutely. The MDEC will decide if it wants to move for sanctions.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9368
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

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

#11389

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:00 pm

She rejected a proposed Settlement Agreement, right? And lied about its distribution. Clearly she knew there would be consequences.



Everybody just wants to get rid of her... the problem is she continues to birf and file. Since with this case it's been so much time already, maybe this can be a final deterrent (and dramatic climax!) to the Fails of the Chaleria.
Sekrit Stuffs!













NADT.
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

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

#11390

Post by gupwalla » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:41 pm

The really delightful thing is, Orly is so scared of even the possibility of sanctions that she will not comment about this case on her blog and isn't planning on an appeal or a motion to reconsider. For the next several weeks she's going to take a deep breath every time she goes to the mailbox lest there be a love letter from opposing counsel waiting for her.



She knows she's lost and she's praying that losing is the end of it.
In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 1271
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: No longer a Swing State Central
Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 8 years so far Admin Law Judge for 3 state agencies.

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

#11391

Post by SuzieC » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:07 pm





I'd like to see the defendants ask for sanctions only because I know it would make Taitz squirm. She may even hire a real lawyer with that at stake. OTOH I'm not the one doing the leg work and incurring the expenses. I don't know what the odds are of winning. I'll defer this to Mr. (redacted). He knows the odds and if this is worth it much better than I.





Same here! At the very least, I'd love to see a possible draft of a sanctions motion for our entertainment.



Very impressed by Judge Wingate's 64 page demolition of Taitz.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

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

#11392

Post by esseff44 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:20 pm





The really delightful thing is, Orly is so scared of even the possibility of sanctions that she will not comment about this case on her blog and isn't planning on an appeal or a motion to reconsider. For the next several weeks she's going to take a deep breath every time she goes to the mailbox lest there be a love letter from opposing counsel waiting for her.



She knows she's lost and she's praying that losing is the end of it.







I think you are right. That is the line she was loathe to cross. For all her stupidity and abuse of the system, she was clever enough to avoid sanctions after she got stung once or twice. But she still managed to use the sanctions to publish her propaganda and keep her cases going up the ladder.



I am waiting for her to change her focus to Hillary now that Obama is well into his second and last term. By any measure, she accomplished little except to make the birthers into a punchline. How many GOP politicians are going to let her take a picture with them from now on? The dustbin of history is waiting for her to tumble in.

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

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

#11393

Post by Mark » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:23 pm





It's the client's decision and we need to respect that.

The court's well reasoned Memorandum Opinion is reward enough.





Fair enough. Live and let live. That poor deranged Moldovan does not deserve any more punishment than some judges' occasional tongue lashing. :sarcasm:
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

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

#11394

Post by Paul Lentz » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:24 pm

How many GOP politicians are going to let her take a picture with them from now on?



As long as Taitz ponies up the "donation" required for the photo op, there will be pictures of her with politicians. It's really rather sad, I think, as the only way anyone will pose with her is for money.
The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Rickey
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:29 pm

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

#11395

Post by Rickey » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:48 pm





She rejected a proposed Settlement Agreement, right? And lied about its distribution. Clearly she knew there would be consequences.









To me that is the crux of the matter. She was threatened with sanctions, and I believe that it sends the wrong message if the defendants back off now. If that happens, the next time she is threatened with sanctions - and I suspect that there will be a next time - Orly will regard it as an empty threat.



I suspect that (redacted) and Begley would have waived the demand for payment from her if she had agreed to withdraw her lawsuit. But she pressed on, and I would like to see her twist in the wind.

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

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

#11396

Post by Mark » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:56 pm

Orly reads what we post here. She has already stopped sweating bullets about any consequences in this case and is ready to move on to harass others.
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10272
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

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

#11397

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:09 pm





Orly reads what we post here. She has already stopped sweating bullets about any consequences in this case and is ready to move on to harass others.





Why do you think she's stopped sweating bullets? We have no idea if sanctions will be requested, and none of the opinions in this thread are anything other than rank speculation from people not personally involved in the case. I seriously doubt if the attorneys who are involved are inclined to post their intentions here, at least until they have filed whatever papers they may file. If I was in Orly's shoes, I'd be shaking like a leaf.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7037
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#11398

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:35 pm











Orly reads what we post here. She has already stopped sweating bullets about any consequences in this case and is ready to move on to harass others.





Why do you think she's stopped sweating bullets? We have no idea if sanctions will be requested, and none of the opinions in this thread are anything other than rank speculation from people not personally involved in the case. I seriously doubt if the attorneys who are involved are inclined to post their intentions here, at least until they have filed whatever papers they may file. If I was in Orly's shoes, I'd be shaking like a leaf.









This is a great point. I wonder if any of the lawyerly types (not party to this matter, of course) might speculate on how the Chaleria may have opened herself up to potential sanctions. We can't know whether or not the defendants will request sanctions, but that doesn't stop us from talking about what the grounds for those sanctions (or their size) might be, right? Besides, I'm sure Orly would enjoy a nice discussion about the liability she's potentially opened herself up to.



:wave:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

chancery
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

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

#11399

Post by chancery » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:31 pm











A favor, as in submitting a simple motion (or should that be demand?) for sanctions against Taitz? Gosh, I bet the Fogbar would draft the motion too, wouldn't they?





And there is something else that is more important. Successful sanctions by any court could lead to her disbarment, at last. If she is sanctioned, she must explain herself to the California Bar. Remember them? The ones who sent the stupid letter to her about Mr. (redacted), that only egged her on? The same Bar that won't act against her because she's never had a paying client that could be damaged?







IIRC, she did not have clients. The other plaintiffs were not paying her and she claimed they were not clients. She sometimes did slide around on that while she was acting as their agent. It was a transparent mess but it would be hard to show an injury to any of the co-plaintiffs that was not self-inflicted.





A pair of grumpy points (the quotes are edited).



As for the Fogbar drafting a motion, yeah, it's the kind of thing that sounds fun late on a boozy night, but since we're not entrusted with representing the interests of the MDEC, there's something about the concept that doesn't sit well with me. (I don't mean this personally to Sam the C, the wit and sagacity of whose posts I greatly admire; it's a lawyer thing, and yes, it probably involves economic rents, but still ...)



Second, esseff44 has it right on the disbarment front. Sanctions in this action will not change alter the fact that Taitz's sanctions rap sheet is in the low single digits. Nor would they change the most important factor in the California disbarment calculus. Taitz is not practicing as an attorney, i.e., representing the interests of clients who could be harmed by her craptice. Although Taitz is a foul carbuncle on the reputation of the profession, if I were actually in charge of the discipline of a bar, as opposed to my present status as a bomb thrower from the sidelines, I might well come to the same conclusion as the California Bar.

chancery
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

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

#11400

Post by chancery » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:35 pm





I have it on Good Authority that a number of others helped. Tes, A Legal Lohengrin, Dr. Caligari (our RICO expert), MikeDunford, Raicha, TexasFilly, ButterflyBilderberg and Foogie. If I missed anybody :oops: it's because I'm :geezer: and I ask to be corrected.







I caught a typo in a cite, but submitted it too late to do any good. It's lame of me to claim credit, but I'm lame.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”