Arizona Special Operations Group

OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#126

Post by OPF » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:00 am

bob wrote:
In Re Gary Hunt

Gary Hunt, as "next friend", and on behalf of Larry Mikiel Myers, Demandant,
v.
Jeffery K. Adkins, Supervisor of New Cases, through William K. Suter, Clerk, United States Supreme Court, Respondents
You (not Myers) petitioned SCOTUS, "counselor."
The Petition I filed is in a PDF at my webpage.
The Docket listing is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx ... 3-5008.htm



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#127

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:04 am

OPF wrote:So, who can explain Habeas Corpus and dispute what I have written?
Read above.
Why do the courts avoid answering the Petition?
Because you aren't an attorney and therefore can't represent Myers. (And Myers needed to file in the federal district court.)
The attorneys I have spoken to, about that, have no answer and don't understand why the court doesn't simply answer and put it to rest.
You've already shown you won't accept an answer you don't like, so why should anyone bother? But send over here these attorneys to whom you have spoken.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#128

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:07 am

OPF wrote:The Petition I filed is in a PDF at my webpage.
The Docket listing is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx ... 3-5008.htm
The PDF of the petition on your site with that docket number is captioned "In re Hunt."

Another purported petition on your site has no case number and no indicia of ever being filed.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9248
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#129

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:59 am

OPF wrote:So, who can explain Habeas Corpus and dispute what I have written?
Why do the courts avoid answering the Petition?
The attorneys I have spoken to, about that, have no answer and don't understand why the court doesn't simply answer and put it to rest.
I am reminded, for some reason, of one of my favorite M*A*S*H* episodes - Season 4's Quo Vadis, Captain 495 U.Chandler, which featured the treatment of Captain Chandler, a bombardier who was convinced that he was Christ. At one point in the episode, psychiatrist Sydney Freedman asks Chandler, "Tell me, is it true that God answers all prayers?" Chandler answers, with a tear running down his face, "Yes. Sometimes the answer is no."

I have not reviewed all of the filings in all of your attempts to represent (without benefit of law license) other people, but as far as I can tell from the ones that I've seen you have been answered. You may not like the answer, but that doesn't mean the answer does not exist. The federal courts cannot entertain your habeas filings on behalf of other people because: (1) you are not the person seeking habeas relief; (2) you are not a licensed attorney; and (3) you utterly fail to meet the requirements for "next friend" standing. As a result, the federal courts cannot entertain your buffoonery without exceeding the limitations placed on them by the Constitution.

And, yes, I have read Whitmore. That case, in fact, makes it clear that you may not act as a prisoner's "next friend" unless you meet a list of specific requirements:
Most important for present purposes, "next friend" standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another. Decisions applying the habeas corpus statute have adhered to at least two firmly rooted prerequisites for "next friend" standing. First, a "next friend" must provide an adequate explanation -- such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the "next friend" must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested that a "next friend" must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. The burden is on the "next friend" clearly to establish the propriety of his status, and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.
... Indeed, if there were no restriction on "next friend" standing in federal courts, the litigant asserting only a generalized interest in constitutional governance could circumvent the jurisdictional limits of Art. III simply by assuming the mantle of "next friend."
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

In Quo Vadis, Chandler was able - despite his mental illness - to grasp the concept that an answer that you dislike is still an answer. You should try to grasp that concept.

There's another quote from that episode that's relevant to your complaints about your treatment here. Freedman is speaking to Colonel Flagg: "You're a victim too, Flagg. But you're such an unbelievable example of walking fertilizer, it's hard for me to care."


"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
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#130

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:21 am

This is, by far, my favorite thread in months. :rotflmao:


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26449
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#131

Post by Foggy » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:29 am

 ! Message from: Foggy
Kriselda Gray wrote:Is it just me, or is there a bit of a disconnect in complaining about a lack of fairness in being restricted to one thread ...
FEMA Campers are NOT restricted to one thread. They are restricted to one forum, with many, many threads.
... because that's what the proprietor of the place decided was appropriate ...
PLEASE remember that the ONLY people who can't see the FEMA Camp are MEMBERS OF FOGBOW WHO DON'T WANT TO SEE THE FEMA CAMP.

Guests and anyone who has joined "FEMA Staff & Visitors" can see this forum. If they didn't join that usergroup, they didn't want to see this thread anyway. I respect that decision and I ask you to join me in respecting that decision.

They don't want the trolls to clutter up other forums. OPF can read the recipes thread. He can't post sovcit bullshit in it.

They don't want to read a lot of flame wars. They have chosen - for reasons which I don't always know, but which I am determined to respect - that they don't want to see the FEMA Camp.

Maybe you don't remember the early days, when a birther or troll would join the board. The rule was "no insulting your fellow members of the forum" and many people SIMPLY COULD NOT CONTROL THEMSELVES ENOUGH TO OBEY THE RULE. We'd have members begging me to ban the birthers immediately, and not allow them to participate at all. We had people begging me NOT to ban them, so we could claim the high ground and so that we could engage in discussion with people who think and believe differently from the way we think and believe. And as you can see in this thread, there are still people who are unable to control themselves and refrain from insulting OPF, and that happened BEFORE I moved the thread to the FEMA Camp.
... while simultaneously longing for the days when companies could refuse to serve anyone for any reason?
Instead of a disconnect, I would call that "a taste of his own medicine," IF THE FEMA CAMP WAS ANY KIND OF CENSORSHIP, WHICH IT IS NOT.

He's free to write whatever he wishes. He can start new threads about puppies and butterflies if he wants. There are only a few people who can't see what he writes, and that's because they chose not to read what he writes.

If you can devise a better plan for dealing with birthers, sovcits, and trolls, please tell me about it and I'll consider implementing that instead of what we have today, which is a NON-CENSORSHIP FEMA Camp. Number 7½, to be precise.


"When my fist clenches, crack it open,
before I use it and lose my cool,
and when I smile, tell me some bad news,
before I laugh, and act like a fool."
- The Who

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#132

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:36 am

:shock:
I got the impression that Lyss was pointing out O-Pee's inconsistency, not anyone else's.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5297
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#133

Post by listeme » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:57 am

I am a kind person. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and with me that's a lot of doubt in the benefit bank.

But yeah, I'm fine with insulting the guy advocating blowing up buildings and more. Frankly, I'd feel insulted if he were in the general population and I was being told not to "insult" him. In fact, if he were in the general population and "I" were the one being policed, I'd just stay away.

We matter more than this pissant even if we are crabby.


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7085
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#134

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:06 am

So Mr. Gary Hunt believes it is OK to kill American citizens when necessary to defend our country?

Does that include people who admit to trying to destroy America on public forums? This is one question you really should answer, Mr. Hunt.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#135

Post by Suranis » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:24 am

Oh her almost certainly thinks its ok to Kill me, considering I'm a dirty foreigner, challenging a paythreeoat.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Gnarly Goat
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#136

Post by Gnarly Goat » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:28 am

Personally, I like the concept of the FEMA Camp since it gives many of the nutters their own space to fling their feces without messing up the other threads. FEMA Campers have a safe environment to freely exercise their First Amendment rights no matter how abhorrent or disgusting while those members of the Boogle who desire to interact with them have a nice place to share their thoughts and perspective as well.


"Don't waste time mourning. Organize." - Joe Hill

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#137

Post by Suranis » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:34 am

Its a fairly elegant solution. The only problem is that it gives the nutters an excuse to start their favorite"help help I'm being repressed!! Now you see the violence inherent in the system"" act. Which All I can say is "FILTHY PEASANT!!"


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26449
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#138

Post by Foggy » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:14 am

Family Liberty Patriot wrote: :shock:
I got the impression that Lyss was pointing out O-Pee's inconsistency, not anyone else's.
Sure she was. She and I are best buds. See if you can identify the new smiley I put in yesterday at her personal request.

But it's Monday morning and I had to drive my boys to school, a 50 mile round-trip in the pouring rain. On occasions like this I never miss an opportunity to grump like the grumpy ol' cuss I am.

"Oh that Foogie, he's just a nice guy." Well I'm not a nice guy all the time. Some days I'm crabbier than a potful of crabs. :smokeears:


"When my fist clenches, crack it open,
before I use it and lose my cool,
and when I smile, tell me some bad news,
before I laugh, and act like a fool."
- The Who

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#139

Post by Suranis » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:35 am

OPF, you might be interested in the REAL source of your ideas. Its not the founders, its the John Birch society from the 1950.

Via Roadscholar at viewtopic.php?p=680039#p680039

http://claireconner.com/2015/02/05/time ... screaming/
Fifty-plus years before the Tea Party, the Birchers set out to return America to its glory days — that period before 1913 when men were free to do anything while the government did practically nothing.

Welch spoke extensively on this idea of small government. “Our national government should protect its citizens from foreign trespass on our rights, and from invasion. But those are the limits at which the duties and responsibilities of governments, as an almost invariable rule, should sharply cease.” March 1977, Los Angeles national council dinner

To achieve Robert Welch’s goal of a tiny federal government, virtually every federal program, every federal department and most of the president’s cabinet would be wiped out.
The Birchers (and much of today’s Tea Party) believe that the federal government is authorized to do only four things

Run the post office
Conduct foreign policy
Raise an army in time of war
Coin money

Using that formula, Birchers gleefully anticipated the death of Social Security and Medicare the end of unemployment compensation and anything called welfare. Good bye to federal funding for highways and bridges. Birchers oppose all regulation of banks, of business, of the environment, even regulation of nuclear materials. All federal civil rights legislation and anything dealing with education from the federal lunch program to any federal funding equation for school is to be stopped.

The John Birch Society worked for a government 60 percent smaller than it was (in 1960). The IRS would be no more and the income tax rate would be zero.
Your ideas come from the same bunch that called Eisenhower a full blown communist. I advise you t read that.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#140

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:10 am

OPF wrote:So, who can explain Habeas Corpus and dispute what I have written?
Why do the courts avoid answering the Petition?
The attorneys I have spoken to, about that, have no answer and don't understand why the court doesn't simply answer and put it to rest.
Several have done so, but sometimes repetition helps, so here's my response:

Why do the courts avoid answering the petition? Looks like two reasons.

First, you can't represent the person in custody. Being a "next friend" is only permissible if you also have an attorney representing you and him. The "next friend" can verify the petition. He can't file the petition. Do you not understand the difference? (Educating yourself in the law isn't easy. It's clear you haven't grasped even the most simple of concepts.)

Second, the claim you have made does not demonstrate on its face that it is meritorious. The person in custody has not shown (or, rather, you have not shown) that the incarceration is unlawful.

Interestingly, had you made a claim in the right court (SCOTUS wasn't it) that appeared to have merit, the court would have appointed an attorney for the person in custody. In fact, the Supreme Court might also have done so, with orders that the attorney file in the district court.

Just because you think you're right (you weren't) doesn't mean you win. Lawyers who think they're right -- in fact lawyers who are right -- lose all the time. It's the nature of human endeavors. And because people make mistakes doesn't mean they're corrupt, or that in this case habeas corpus has been "suspended."

Time for you to quit pontificating on law and politics. Time to stop trying to practice law. Try something new. Like quantum mechanics. You'll have just as much success and most people won't know what you're talking about.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#141

Post by Northland10 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am

Suranis quoting article wrote:Fifty-plus years before the Tea Party, the Birchers set out to return America to its glory days — that period before 1913 when men were free to do anything while the government did practically nothing.
I have been reading "Bully Pulpit" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It covers Theodore Roosevelt, Taft and a golden age of journalism. If the Birchers and folks like OPF ever did any real research, they might understand why the federal government expanded their reach in the first place.

Even the early Republicans were interested in further investment in infrastructure, as it would help increase business oppurtunities and aid farmers in getting their crops to markets.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#142

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:39 am

This is just my take on it, IANAL, but I always was of the impression that in order to get a habeus to stand there actually had to be a reason for it, not just WAAH I filed a habeus and you have to do what I want. I just have this niggling suspicion that it is a bit more complicated than that, and that it usually applies to someone in jail who hasn't been charged or tried, not some one in prison that has been convicted and sent there . That's when you do something called an appeal, which again you can't do as a next friend unless you have a lawyer file it, and I really doubt you qualify at any rate.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#143

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:09 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:This is just my take on it, IANAL, but I always was of the impression that in order to get a habeus to stand there actually had to be a reason for it, not just WAAH I filed a habeus and you have to do what I want. I just have this niggling suspicion that it is a bit more complicated than that, and that it usually applies to someone in jail who hasn't been charged or tried, not some one in prison that has been convicted and sent there . That's when you do something called an appeal, which again you can't do as a next friend unless you have a lawyer file it, and I really doubt you qualify at any rate.
You can seek habeas relief after a conviction. Most habeas petitions actually are filed after the appeal is over.

Here, the nonsense in this case started as a mid-trial petition. And the basis for habeas relief?: That Myers was a citizen of Florida but not a citizen of the United States. :roll: All the foreign nationals in U.S. prisons will be glad to learn our laws don't apply to them. :roll:

To recap:
1. The wrong person,
2. In the wrong courts,
3. Attempted to file nonsense.

Other than that, it was a Taitz-esque masterpiece.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#144

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:18 am

Suranis wrote:
Via Roadscholar at viewtopic.php?p=680039#p680039
Ahem.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#145

Post by Suranis » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:26 am

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:
Suranis wrote:
Via Roadscholar at viewtopic.php?p=680039#p680039
Ahem.
I'm sorry I'm getting old/bald/irish/whimper. :doh:


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#146

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:34 am

We all look alike.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#147

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:40 am

The Great Writ means "deliver the body."

Habeas challenges detentions of any kind -- pre-conviction, post conviction, detentions where there are no charges. During the Viet Nam War era I filed writs typically to seek the discharge of men who were being "detained" in one of the military forces. While it becomes complicated, there are even some circumstances in some jurisdictions where habeas can be used to attack post-conviction restraints which do not include detention.



noblepa
Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#148

Post by noblepa » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:16 pm

bob wrote: To recap:
1. The wrong person,
2. In the wrong courts,
3. Attempted to file nonsense.

Other than that, it was a Taitz-esque masterpiece.


Isnt' that, plus

4. Failure to affect proper service

the very definition of a Taitz-eque masterpiece?


My America already IS great. Sorry about yours, Donald.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#149

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:50 pm

noblepa wrote:4. Failure to affect proper service

the very definition of a Taitz-eque masterpiece?
:fingerwag:

You are correct that failing to properly serve is required to reach Taitzian levels of competence. But Hunt clearly explained this was a common law writ, and proper service could only be made by serving the "goaler,"[*] which Hunt says he did. And, then, he sent a certified letter to the judge! So, clearly, proper service and filing!

* * *
OSP wrote:In a more recent effort, the Montana District Court is dancing around avoiding hearing it be alleging that the $5 fee was not paid. However, their Rules provide that fees most be paid, except Habeas Corpus petitions. Montana then removed my phone number from the numbers that Wolf was allowed to call. So, our filing in that case are substantially delayed, as mail, including censoring, takes over a week, one way.
Hunt is referring to William Wolf:
Wolf makes plenty of statements on his webcasts that certainly can be interpreted as incendiary. In June of 2014, he welcomed guest Gary Hunt to discuss “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,” which is outlined in 50 pages of detail on Hunt’s website, outpost-of-freedom.com. Referred to on the webcast simply as The Plan, Hunt’s treatise professes to be modeled after one used during the American Revolution to replace British authority. It includes extensive use of “committees” and militias for the establishment of a new governmental structure. In his interview with the Pioneer, Wolf conceded that The Plan did not meet with widespread approval from his webcast listeners, nor from himself.

“The Plan was not something I completely agree with—I put Gary on in order for him to exercise his First Amendment Rights,” Wolf said, acknowledging that broadcasting such details would certainly raise the eyebrows of government officials. “I don’t agree that it is the way it should go—that’s why we need to find a peaceful solution. But if government continues to destroy our freedom, the people will rise up.”

During the June webcast, Hunt said that in taking over county governments and establishing state militias, “committees of safety would play a big role here.” Such committees of safety, which Wolf discussed at various times in his webcasts, apparently drew the attention of the FBI.
Wolf was later busted in a FBI sting for attempting to buy a machine gun.

Hunt tried his "next friend" game in the Montana federal district court, which was not impressed:
On May 8, 2015, Defendant Wolf's "Next Friend and Attorney in fact" Gary Hunt filed "Next-friend" documents which requested various forms of relief on behalf of Wolf. (Doc. 14). On May 15, 2015, the United States filed its response and requested this Court strike these documents from the record. (Doc. 15).

The United States points out that because Gary Hunt is not a licensed or member of the State Bar of Montana, he cannot represent Wolf. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654 (allowing parties to "plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel" only). Further, because he is not licensed to practice in Montana, Hunt has violated two local rules by appearing on behalf of Wolf in this action. See D. Mont. L. R. 83.1(a)(2) (allowing only an attorney authorized under the Rules to appear on behalf of another); see also D. Mont. L.R. 83.1(b)(1) (only allowing attorneys who are members in good standing of the State Bar of Montana to be admitted as members of the Bar of this Court).

Finally, Wolf is currently represented by appointed counsel Mark Werner. (Doc. 4). So, Wolf may not file motions or pleadings on his own behalf. See United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394, 396-97 (9th Cir. 1974) (a criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel); see also United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978) (whether to allow hybrid representation remains within the sound discretion of the trial judge). Under such circumstances, "[a] district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party." Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001).

Defendant Wolf's "Next Friend" documents are not permitted in this Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons cited above, this Court STRIKES Wolf's "Next-friend" documents (doc. 14) from the record.
Hunt's record remains unblemished.

*
► Show Spoiler


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#150

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:04 pm

bob wrote: Hunt's record remains unblemished.
Hmmm... so Gary Hunt goes through a lot of motions, makes a lot of noise, but never affects the outcome and always escapes unscathed, eh?

Maybe Chef Kessler has a point; that's exactly the behavior of a federal informant.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”