MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#526

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: 900
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#527

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: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#528

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: 8577
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#529

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: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#530

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: 6536
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#531

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:


"Cosmic apotheosis wears off faster than salvia." --Rick Sanchez

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#532

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: 8577
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#533

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.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#534

Post by Northland10 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:30 pm

Northland10 wrote:
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
And with no surprise:
O R D E R
Upon consideration of appellant’s renewed request for oral argument, it is ORDERED that the request be denied.

Per Curiam
If it was not mentioned previously, the panel is Griffith, Pillard and Edwards.


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

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8577
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#535

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:52 pm

But... but... but... GIL will have a reconsideration of the reconsideration filed almost immediately as per his standard practice. Shouldn't him claiming to be counsel when he isn't be considered lying to the court?


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: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#536

Post by Northland10 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:24 pm

I know this will come as a shock to all.

Summary Judgement Affirmed.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 704924.pdf
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT wrote:PILLARD, Circuit Judge: Software developer Dennis Montgomery appeals from summary judgment in his defamation action. Montgomery claimed that author James Risen, together with publishers Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company (collectively, Defendants or Risen), made false and damaging statements about Montgomery in the book Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War (2014). A chapter of the book focuses on software that Montgomery pitched to the United States as a counterterrorism tool, but that ultimately was widely seen as a “hoax.” Id. at 33. Risen describes Montgomery and his phantom software as “the perfect case study to explain how during the war on terror greed and ambition have been married to unlimited rivers of cash to create a climate in which someone who has been accused of being a con artist was able to create a rogue intelligence operation with little or no adult supervision.” Id. at 31-32.

This is Montgomery’s defamation case—he chose to bring it. To sustain it against a motion for summary judgment, he would have had to marshal sufficient evidence to create a triable issue for a jury as to each element of his claim. The district court held that he failed to take the basic steps necessary to do so. Critically, he produced virtually no evidence of the software’s functionality to factually rebut Risen’s statements that it never worked as Montgomery said it did.

Risen’s reporting is, at its core, about how authorities at the highest levels of government fell for a “ruse,” id. at 32: software that could never be verified. This lawsuit, too, has been defined by the software’s persistent absence. That lacuna in the record dooms Montgomery’s case. We affirm the district court’s well-reasoned grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
And on to the request for a rehearing en banc.
Edit: It's a Friday smackdown. :shootin:


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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33988
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#537

Post by realist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:33 am

:thumbs:


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

Hercule Parrot
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

#538

Post by Hercule Parrot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:40 pm

Excellent result.



Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”