Kansas ballot challenge

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Kansas ballot challenge

#1201

Post by jtmunkus » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:42 pm

Thus endth the lesson. :D

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34885
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1202

Post by realist » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:45 pm

Thus endth the lesson. :D =))
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Kansas ballot challenge

#1203

Post by Northland10 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:30 pm

KS 2012-10-22 - TAITZ - [link]Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,[/link]Thanks for getting those docs for us, Slash!! :-bd





...compares herself to Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP several times and manages to insult just about everyone else involved in the case. IShe claims she is doing in Kansas what Thurgood Marshall and the NACCP did for African-Americans in the south. If it were anybody else, I would think that was an odd statement.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1204

Post by AnitaMaria » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:54 pm

From the opposition to motion to dismiss:Additionally, actions by Kobach are even more devastating than actions of others. Kobach is known as one of the leaders and rising stars of the Republican party, a conservative leader, a tea party leader. His actions were more devastating to Taitz, who fought this fight for four years, more so than actions of anyone else. the media had a field day and article appeared in Huffington Post and other National publications that were in essence saying "If someone like Kobach does not believe her, neither should anyone else. All of her on going lawsuits are frivolous"I wonder if the Orlylaw statute that makes ignoring Orly Taitz a crime has enhanced penalties if the perp is a Republican. :-k

User avatar
aarrgghh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1205

Post by aarrgghh » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:32 pm

I wonder if the Orlylaw statute that makes ignoring Orly Taitz a crime has enhanced penalties if the perp is a Republican. :-kas boromir reminds us:






TexasFilly
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1206

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:43 pm

KS 2012-10-22 - TAITZ - [link]Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,[/link]Thanks for getting those docs for us, Slash!! :-bd





...compares herself to Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP several times and manages to insult just about everyone else involved in the case. IShe claims she is doing in Kansas what Thurgood Marshall and the NACCP did for African-Americans in the south. If it were anybody else, I would think that was an odd statement.Please recall that the case that put Thurgood Marshall on the map as a Supreme Court advocate was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Just like Orly reminded the Judge in Hawaii about the Korematsu case (although it, too, had no relevance to the case she was arguing).
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1207

Post by raicha » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:48 pm

I wish she'd pull something like this in Mississippi, where earwigging is against the law.

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

Kansas ballot challenge

#1208

Post by Piffle » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:51 pm

Yet another hat tip to slash2k... :-bd





KS 2012-09-27 - TAITZ - [link]Motion in Limine,[/link]Mark my words: This motion in limine may amount to the unveiling of a brand-new tactical maneuver in the Taitzkrieg arsenal. It's more brilliant than anything Guderian or Rommel ever came up with!





Think about it:





1. It eliminates the problem of travel costs for her witlesses.





2. Her experts come pre-qualified (subject, of course, to the court being too dense to understand that they've been rejected by other courts in the past).





3. No cross-examination if necessary because the witlesses have already been x-examined or, as in Georgia, the right to confront has already been waived by the President's lawyer.





4. Cross-examination on the hearsay pronouncements of Shurff Joe aren't needed because, ya know, he's a highly respected law enforcement official. Also too, he doesn't have to be sworn in because his oath of office kinda covers that. We can pretend his press conference is under oath, can't we?





5. Come to think about it, it isn't just the nuisance of cross-examination that can be avoided; you don't even need direct examination or evidentiary rulings! Now there's efficiency for ya!





6. It's obvious that she's on firm legal footing because the Kansas defendants have already conceded the validity of her motion. All they could do is try to delay it by asking for stays and engaging in fancy footwork.





7. It benefits society because everybody knows that recycling is a good thing. And Orlylaw uses only free range renewable materials.





8. It's a wonderful time-saver. By jumping over dilatory motions to dismiss or seek summary judgment -- not to mention eliminating pesky depositions -- you can take a case to trial faster than you can say sudetenland.





I predict we'll see this brilliant strategy again in the not-so-distant future.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Kansas ballot challenge

#1209

Post by Northland10 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:18 am




She claims she is doing in Kansas what Thurgood Marshall and the NACCP did for African-Americans in the south. If it were anybody else, I would think that was an odd statement.Please recall that the case that put Thurgood Marshall on the map as a Supreme Court advocate was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Just like Orly reminded the Judge in Hawaii about the Korematsu case (although it, too, had no relevance to the case she was arguing).I am quite aware of that. In an attempt to avoid helping Orly, apparently I was too subtle.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Penguin 0302
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:40 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1210

Post by Penguin 0302 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:10 am

From the Motion In Limine: 1-Motion to allow phone testimony.(redacted) got a phone in so she wants one too, dammit!!Gawd that woman is juvenile.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7248
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1211

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:28 pm

From the Motion In Limine: 1-Motion to allow phone testimony.





(redacted) got a phone in so she wants one too, dammit!!





Gawd that woman is juvenile.Simple Orlylogic, my friend:


(a) Mr (redacted) won.


(b) Mr (redacted) had a phone.


Therefore (c) Mr (redacted) won because he had a phone.





With that insightful analysis, it has to be a winning strategy!

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:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1212

Post by Kriselda Gray » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:58 pm

From the Motion In Limine: 1-Motion to allow phone testimony.





(redacted) got a phone in so she wants one too, dammit!!





Gawd that woman is juvenile infantile.FIFY :)
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...

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1213

Post by AnitaMaria » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:04 pm

While Mr. (redacted)'s appearance by phone might have inspired Taitz's request that witnesses be allowed to testify by phone, she does not cite it in her motion. She gives a very clear statement about why her witnesses should be able to testify by phone:Due to the fact that the hearing involves evidence on forgery and fraud in the identification papers of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, candidate for US President in 2012 election, Plaintiff Taitz respectfully requests the court to allow witness testimony by phone.Race itsa locator.

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Kansas ballot challenge

#1214

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:14 pm

.


And then this gem:





http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s43 ... profit.jpg


.


.


Either one of two things is true in regard to this:





1) She is lying when she says this


2) Her foundation does have non-profit status in which case she is flaunting the restrictions on non-profits regularly. The IRS should be interested, if so.

tjh
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1215

Post by tjh » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:39 pm

1) She is lying when she says this2) Her foundation does have non-profit status in which case she is flaunting the restrictions on non-profits regularly. The IRS should be interested, if so.It's registered in CA as a non-profit. She doesn't claim it's tax-deductible, which would draw the IRS's attention if she did.

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Kansas ballot challenge

#1216

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:07 pm

1) She is lying when she says this2) Her foundation does have non-profit status in which case she is flaunting the restrictions on non-profits regularly. The IRS should be interested, if so.It's registered in CA as a non-profit. She doesn't claim it's tax-deductible, which would draw the IRS's attention if she did.As I understand it, a non-profit under 501(c), whether eligible for tax-deductible donations or not is subject to certain restrictions regarding types of electioneering. Maybe I am wrong.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Kansas ballot challenge

#1217

Post by Northland10 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:57 pm




1) She is lying when she says this


2) Her foundation does have non-profit status in which case she is flaunting the restrictions on non-profits regularly. The IRS should be interested, if so.It's registered in CA as a non-profit. She doesn't claim it's tax-deductible, which would draw the IRS's attention if she did.Possibly not:





[/break1]sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx]http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Edit: This is from the Business Search for California's Secretary of State, not the non-profit search.

Entity Name: DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS


Entity Number: C3189036


Date Filed: 02/19/2009


Status: SUSPENDED


Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA


Entity Address: 26302 LA PAZ STE 211


Entity City, State, Zip: MISSION VIEJO CA 92691


Agent for Service of Process: BUSINESS FILINGS INCORPORATED


Agent Address: 555 CAPITOL MALL STE 1000


Agent City, State, Zip: SACRAMENTO CA 95814As for California non-profit registration:





[/break1]doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1381502&]http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerifica ... d=1381502&


Full Name: DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS FEIN:


Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 3189036


Registration Number:


Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration


Issue Date: Renewal Due Date:


Registration Status: Not Registered Date This Status: 4/13/2009


Date of Last Renewal:


North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1218

Post by woodworker » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:04 pm

You can be a non-profit and not be 501(c). As to whether or not her "foundation" otherwise qualifies as a non-profit, affiant sayeth naught.
Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Kansas ballot challenge

#1219

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:51 pm

You can be a non-profit and not be 501(c). As to whether or not her "foundation" otherwise qualifies as a non-profit, affiant sayeth naught.Which is what I thought. She calls it a non-profit, but it isn't. She is cavalier with her boasts, at best, most likely believing it's a minor thing to stretch the truth this way, that is, she thinks of what she does as non-profit anyhow. In reality: She is just a self-absorbed liar.

Somerset
Posts: 4270
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Kansas ballot challenge

#1220

Post by Somerset » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:58 pm

From the Motion In Limine: 1-Motion to allow phone testimony.





(redacted) got a phone in so she wants one too, dammit!!





Gawd that woman is juvenile.Simple Orlylogic, my friend:


(a) Mr (redacted) won.


(b) Mr (redacted) had a phone.


Therefore (c) Mr (redacted) won because he had a phone.





With that insightful analysis, it has to be a winning strategy!Cargo cult lawyern' at its best

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1221

Post by raicha » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:07 pm

Off Topic
You can be a non-profit and not be 501(c). As to whether or not her "foundation" otherwise qualifies as a non-profit, affiant sayeth naught.Which is what I thought. She calls it a non-profit, but it isn't. She is cavalier with her boasts, at best, most likely believing it's a minor thing to stretch the truth this way, that is, she thinks of what she does as non-profit anyhow. In reality: She is just a self-absorbed liar.Woodworker is correct: you can be formed as a nonprofit corporation and not be 501(c). The corporation lookup at the SOS does not tell you whether a corporation is formed as a for-profit or non-profit corporation. It is very possible that DOFF is organized under the non-profit law in California. However, the SOS site does tell you that her corporation is suspended. This is probably due to one or both of two things: 1) failure to file a state tax return, and/or 2) failure to file a statement of officers and directors.A suspended corporation, non-profit or for-profit, loses the ability to contract and to defend or prosecute a lawsuit.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16023
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Kansas ballot challenge

#1222

Post by ZekeB » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:08 pm

You can be a non-profit and not be 501(c). As to whether or not her "foundation" otherwise qualifies as a non-profit, affiant sayeth naught.Non-profit is one thing. Tax-deductible non-profit is quite another. If she is leading any of her contributors on to believe their contributions are tax deductible, both she and they may end up in trouble.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Kansas ballot challenge

#1223

Post by gatsby » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:57 pm

As for California non-profit registration:[/break1]doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1381502&]http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerifica ... d=1381502&Full Name: DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS FEIN: Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 3189036Registration Number: Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity RegistrationIssue Date: Renewal Due Date: Registration Status: [highlight]Not Registered[/highlight] Date This Status: 4/13/2009Date of Last Renewal: California has sent Taitz two letters -- in 2009 and 2011 -- requesting more information about the "foundation," but she apparently ignores them:[/break1]scribd.com/doc/111331044/Defend-Our-Freedoms-Foundation-First-Notice-to-Register] ... o-Register[/break1]scribd.com/doc/111331042/Defend-Our-Freedoms-Foundation-Second-Notice-to-Register] ... o-RegisterIn the past, I've tried to find state laws that might prohibit using words like "foundation" in a name unless the organization is registered as a charity. By using that name, it might suggest to donors that the entity is somehow government regulated when it's not.The bigger question: Does Taitz need to report to California and the IRS all donations to her foundation as personal income? If she does, she surely would have sought tax-exempt non-profit status to avoid paying taxes. Unless she simply is not declaring the contributions as income.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34885
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Kansas ballot challenge

#1224

Post by realist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:03 pm

The one and only Elliewyatt was all over Orly's "corporation" and "foundation"... Did extensive research, contacted the IRS, even confronted Orly on a radio show about its/their status.I hope a search would reveal all or at least some of it. I think it was all on PJ but am not certain.Ellie... We miss you. :((
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7347
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Kansas ballot challenge

#1225

Post by raicha » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:12 pm

Off Topic
The bigger question: Does Taitz need to report to California and the IRS all donations to her foundation as personal income? If she does, she surely would have sought tax-exempt non-profit status to avoid paying taxes. Unless she simply is not declaring the contributions as income.A corporation, non-profit or for-profit, would file a tax return and would report the "donations". Because DOFF is not a tax-exempt entity, it would be taxed on those donations (less legitimate business expenses of the organization).To the extent that Taitz receives money donated to DOFF over and above legitimate expense reimbursements, she has personal income that must be included on her own tax return.It appears to me that DOFF, after originally incorporating, has never filed a return, registered with the AG, or filed a statement of officers and directors with the SOS.That's why it is suspended today.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”