MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by p0rtia » Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:02 am

woodworker wrote:
:snippity:

And yes, I agree that the system is overly generous to the Giant Telcom and that the poor schmoe is generally screwed. But going the other direction just makes the Giant Telcom more powerful. Also, too, even if poor schmoe loses, he may bring some sunlight to a otherwise little-noticed but abusive practice and others then may join the fight.
Thanks for the reply, woodworker. That fleshes it out enough for me to get a clearer picture of the situation. I still don't quite get why an attempt to protect the poor schmoe must result in more power to Giant Tel, but it's not my field so I defer to your wisdom.

For the record, I realize that there is very little likelihood of me ever being the target of a vexatious litigant. My comment about identifying with the sued was more an admission of bias (whereas you sound more objective). I've followed Montgomery v. Risen for a long time. You don't need me to tell you that Montgomery and Klayman are scumbags who have lied to the court in every filing. The defendants know it; the court knows it. Bottom line, it makes no sense to me that the defendants should not receive attorney and court fees. I doubt Klayman will appeal, as he is too busy suing blah folk now for fuck-knows-what elsewhere.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Lindy Lou
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:09 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Lindy Lou » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:11 pm

woodworker wrote:And link to video of oral arguments - not for the faint of heart, absolutely brutal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... bZDipKRH0c
Thank you so much for that link. I watched the entire thing and was entranced - I couldn't stop watching until the entire thing was over. The judge on the left was pretty funny and a few times I thought he was going to tell the lawyer to just shut the hell up and grow up, but he handled himself well with the impertinence and stalling. But the older judge - was just a chuckle a minute. At first I was worried he was mentally slow, as it took him so long to get to his point, but then I saw that what he was saying was actually perfectly paced and ended with cymbals crashing and drums banging and the other judges trying not to laugh. Then the jokes made at the lawyer's expense - especially having him turn sideways for a profile shot - were sublime. The judge on the right seemed aghast when she kept asking if the lawyer knew what he was saying about what turning this into a criminal versus a civil case could mean for his clients. Then when the judge on the left suggested splitting the difference and trying the clients on both civil and criminal charges, I just lost it.
Thanks again - it was WELL worth the watch!

User avatar
Lindy Lou
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:09 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Lindy Lou » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:17 pm

A quick addition - the conversation about Alexander Hamilton's birthplace was a gem!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21700
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by bob » Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:10 pm

CNS: Risen Cleared on Labeling CIA Contractor a 'Con Artist':
In a phone interview, Montgomery's lawyer Klayman said he was considering an appeal, taking issue with what he called the judge's "flippant" introduction to his ruling.
"The twists and turns of this case could fill the pages of a book," Contreras quipped in the opening line. "In fact, much of it already has."
For Klayman, these lines show judge preparing for the sequel.
"He's going to start writing where the book left off," Klayman argued. "That's not his job. His job is to give it to the jury."
Because whining about the judge's tone was soooooo successful in Klayman's own defamation case. :roll:
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2504
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by gupwalla » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:22 pm

Lindy Lou wrote:A quick addition - the conversation about Alexander Hamilton's birthplace was a gem!
I wonder if Judge Pregerson is a HamFan. Maybe if the appeal hearing had been held a year later he would have dropped a verse or two...
How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a
Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a
Forgotten spot in the Caribbean by providence
Impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?
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
woodworker
Posts: 1931
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by woodworker » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:02 pm

gupwalla wrote:
Lindy Lou wrote:A quick addition - the conversation about Alexander Hamilton's birthplace was a gem!
I wonder if Judge Pregerson is a HamFan. Maybe if the appeal hearing had been held a year later he would have dropped a verse or two...
How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a
Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a
Forgotten spot in the Caribbean by providence
Impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?

Pregerson, along with Stern, were contemporaries of Ham.
My avatar was by my bestest puppy ever, Bruin. I miss him every day.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40346
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:07 pm

I have actually tried lawsuits in the District Court before both Judge Harry Pregerson and his son, Judge Dean Pregerson.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8132
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:17 am

I'm still waiting for GIL to appeal or whatever it is he does next in situations like this, besides whine I mean.
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
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:19 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I'm still waiting for GIL to appeal or whatever it is he does next in situations like this, besides whine I mean.
Docket:
08/05/2016 276 BILL OF COSTS by HMH HOLDINGS, INC., HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY, JAMES RISEN. (Zycherman, Lisa) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/08/2016 277 NOTICE of Appeal by DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
The Notice is 80 pages long. I am not sure I want to buy this one (30 pages). The appeal is not yet on the DC circuit appeals docket.

The Bill of Costs executive summary - $7,000 and change. Most of it was for transcripts.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8132
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:10 am

Well, the NOA is no surprise, other than that it took so long, but 80 pages?
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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40346
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:27 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:Well, the NOA is no surprise, other than that it took so long, but 80 pages?
It's a one-page form. A sentence long. Unless you're grossly inappropriate in everything you do, and you're doing this for publicity.

(Like the multi-page notice of appeal Charles E. Lincoln, III prepared for Taitz in Rhodes v. McDonald. It was, if memory serves, 7-8 pages long and made long, irrelevant, disrespectful arguments. All it had to say was Taitz appealed the sanction award to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8132
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:31 am

:yeah: what I thought.
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.

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by chancery » Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:26 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:Well, the NOA is no surprise, other than that it took so long, but 80 pages?
The summary judgment decision might be attached. No reason to buy it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:01 pm

11/29/2016 Open Document UNOPPOSED MOTION [1648293] filed to extend time to file brief to 01/06/2017. filed by Dennis L. Montgomery Pages: 1-10. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)
What? I thought Dennis could die any day, yet GIL wants another 30 days to finish his homework.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:24 pm

Because Dennis is at death's doorstep:
10/27/2016 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1643201] filed setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 12/06/2016. APPELLEE Brief due on 01/05/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 01/12/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 01/19/2017. Final Briefs due 02/02/2017. [16-7096]

10/27/2016 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1643205] filed, on the court's own motion, that the October 27, 2016 briefing schedule be amended to reflect the following revised briefing deadlines: APPELLANT Brief due
12/06/2016. APPELLEE Brief due on 01/05/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 01/19/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 01/26/2017. Final Briefs due 02/09/2017. [16-7096]

11/29/2016 Open Document UNOPPOSED MOTION [1648293] filed to extend time to file brief to 01/06/2017. filed by Dennis L. Montgomery Pages: 1-10. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)

12/02/2016 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1649168] filed granting appellant's motion to extend time to file its brief [1648293-2], The following revised briefing schedule will now apply: APPELLANT Brief due 01/06/2017. APPELLEE Brief due on 02/06/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 02/21/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 02/28/2017. Final Briefs due 03/14/2017. [16-7096]

12/23/2016 Open Document CONSENT UNOPPOSED MOTION [1652905] filed to extend time to file brief to 01/27/2017.filed by Dennis L. Montgomery Length Certification: 97 words. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)

12/27/2016 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1653045] filed granting appellant's consent motion to extend time to file its brief [1652905-2], setting revised briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 01/27/2017. APPELLEE Brief due on 03/27/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 04/10/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 04/17/2017. FINAL BRIEFS due 05/01/2017. [16-7096]
Of course, you know GIL will oppose any motion to extend time for his opponent.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:19 am

Docket Update:
01/27/2017 -- DOC -- APPELLANT BRIEF [1657845] filed by Dennis L. Montgomery [Service Date: 01/27/2017 ] Length of Brief: 12648 words. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)

03/27/2017 -- DOC -- AAPPELLEE BRIEF [1668070] filed by HMH Holdings, Inc., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and James Risen [Service Date: 03/27/2017 ] Length of Brief: 12,947 words. [16-7096] (Handman, Laura)
Not much going on in Montgomery-litigation world, but I have updated Sectec Astronomy with what little there has been...
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21700
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by bob » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:17 pm

01/27/2017 -- DOC -- APPELLANT BRIEF [1657845] filed by Dennis L. Montgomery [Service Date: 01/27/2017 ] Length of Brief: 12648 words. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)
Needed more disparaging adjectives to describe Playboy. And more references to Montgomery being nearly dead. :roll:

Weak rehash of the losing arguments below, which won't fare better on appeal.


I was a little surprised by the restraint the appellees showed. Only a few references to Klayman's record of fail. And they stuck to the record in showing Montgomery's desire for publicity (and thus proving he made himself a public figure) -- no zinger-y footnote showing that Montgomery and Klayman are still desperately trying to get someone -- anyone -- to pay attention to them.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 24040
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ (Rawly NC)
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Foggy » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:07 pm

WE pay attention to them. You would think that should be more than enough. :mrgreen:
♪ ♫ I'll stop the world and melt with you! ♫ ♪

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:54 pm

Foggy wrote:WE pay attention to them. You would think that should be more than enough. :mrgreen:
:like:
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8132
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:11 am

Foggy wrote:WE pay attention to them. You would think that should be more than enough. :mrgreen:
I think it's the wrong kind of attention, we laugh at them, don't take them seriously, and more importantly don't sent money. :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
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
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:19 pm

Docket update
04/03/2017 Open Document MODIFIED PARTY FILER--MOTION [1669284] to participate as amicus curiae [Disclosure Listing: Attached] filed by The Washington Post, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., Univision Interactive Media, Inc., Tully Center for Free Speech, Society of Professional Journalists, The Seattle Times Company, Reporters Without Borders, Radio Television Digital News Association, Penguin Random House, PEN America, Online News Association, News Media Alliance, The New York Times Company, National Press Photographers Association, National Press Club, MPA - The Association of Magazine Media, The McClatchy Company, Macmillan Publishers, Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, Investigative Reporting Program, International Documentary Association, Hearst Corporation, Hachette Book Group, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Freedom of the Press Foundation, Fox News Network L.L.C., First Amendment Coalition, The E.W. Scripps Company, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., Association of American Publishers, Inc., Association of Alternative Newsmedia, The Associated Press, American Society of News Editors and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [Service Date: 04/03/2017] [16-7096]--[Edited 04/04/2017 by KRM] (Brown, Bruce)
Montgomery V risen motion for ac.pdf
The brief is 30 pages, but I don't have time to get it now.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21700
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by bob » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:29 pm

The motion suggests that the amici would like to argue that Montgomery is a (limited) public figure, and thus must prove actual malice. And that the district court was correct in finding that he was, and that Montgomery failed to provide sufficient evidence of malice as to escape summary judgment.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:34 pm

Update:

06/08/2017 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1678811] filed scheduling oral argument on Friday, 09/22/2017. [16-7096]
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that this case be scheduled for oral argument on September 22, 2017, at 9:30 A.M. The composition of the argument panel will usually be revealed thirty days prior to the date of oral argument on the court's web site at www.cadc.uscourts.gov.

The time and date of oral argument will not change absent further order of the Court.

A separate order will be issued regarding the allocation of time for argument.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Northland10 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:35 am

The panel has said no to oral arguments.
08/29/2017 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1690505] filed that the court will dispose of the appeal without oral argument on the basis of the record and presentations in the briefs pursuant to Fed. R. App. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir.Rule 34(j). Before Judges: Griffith, Pillard and Edwards. [16-7096]
BEFORE: Griffith and Pillard, Circuit Judges; Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge
O R D E R The court concludes, on its own motion, that oral argument will not assist the court in this case. Accordingly, the court will dispose of the appeal without oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j)
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12417
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:00 am

Northland10 wrote:The panel has said no to oral arguments.
:snippity: O R D E R The court concludes, on its own motion, that oral argument will not assist the court in this case. Accordingly,the court will dispose of the appealwithout oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j)
Dispose? Is that standard legal jargon or an idication of the tubular round folder ?

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”