MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

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 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:12 am

RTH10260 wrote:
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 ?
Dispose = affirm.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:30 am

Northland10 wrote:The panel has said no to oral arguments.

:snippity: :snippity:
The court members do not want to endure seeing and hearing our hero Larry.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4755
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:20 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
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 ?
I think it's an indication of the judge and clerk screaming "Pleeease make it stooooppp!"

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 Sep 13, 2017 1:43 pm

It is GIL we are talking about here, so I would say that is a good if euphemistic answer.

It is also and equally good bet he will be demanding a reconsideration and a hearing en banc, almost immediately they announce the decision.
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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:46 pm

The court said oral arguments were unnecessary, Larry disagrees but will be busy because of the Bundy trial so wants them soon. He says he can take time from pre-trial in the Bundy case.

Funny thing, his SCOTUS case is scheduled for the long conference next week. Odd that he is claiming to represent Bundy.
09/18/2017 Open Document RESPONSE [1693482] to order [1690505-3],[1690505-2] filed by Dennis L. Montgomery (Service Date: 09/18/2017 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 194 Words. [16-7096] (Klayman, Larry)
Montgomery v Risen appeal request for argument.pdf
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
Estiveo
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Estiveo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:54 pm

OMG Soooooo important yer honerzez that I bee allowed to speak, at great length, because yer majesties is too stoopit to understand the written record unless I 'splains it to ya.

Also, too, you need to hold the hearing on these dates because after that I am the lead attorney for Cliven Bundy and it is imperative that I be in Las Vegas to be his lead attorney because only I can be his lead attorney no matter what that nasty Judge Navarro sez. :nope:
"Moths are velvety-soft abominations attracted to light." --Puck, reporter from Breaking Cat News

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

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by bob » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:58 pm

Klayman wrote:[A]s the undersigned counsel will at a minimum be present at criminal trial thereafter that will last approximately 2-3 months in Las Vegas, Nevada involving Defendant Cliven Bundy. He can take a day from pre-trial preparation to travel to Washington, D.C. to participate in oral arguments before this Court between these suggested dates.
The coffee vendor outside the courthouse will also "be present"; as with Klayman, there's no court order compelling attendance.

Klayman can be involved all he wants in pre-trial "preparation"; he just can't file motions or otherwise appear on Bundy's behalf in trial.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

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 Sep 19, 2017 9:16 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:58 pm
Klayman wrote:[A]s the undersigned counsel will at a minimum be present at criminal trial thereafter that will last approximately 2-3 months in Las Vegas, Nevada involving Defendant Cliven Bundy. He can take a day from pre-trial preparation to travel to Washington, D.C. to participate in oral arguments before this Court between these suggested dates.
The coffee vendor outside the courthouse will also "be present"; as with Klayman, there's no court order compelling attendance.

Klayman can be involved all he wants in pre-trial "preparation"; he just can't file motions or otherwise appear on Bundy's behalf in trial.
Or sit at the big kids table.
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”