Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
-
ZekeB
- Posts: 18269
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
- Location: The nuttiest congressional district of a nut job state.
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.
Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.
Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Notorial Dissent
- Posts: 14401
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
La Taitz definitely gives a whole new meaning to the phrase double down stupid. Poster child in fact.
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.
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
x6 
x2 
x4 
x2-
TexasFilly
- Posts: 20544
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
I love the poorly educated!!!
Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett
Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
-
Reality Check
- Posts: 16787
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Didn't the Balling Ball write the reply to the sanctions order and that resulted in the doubling of the fine?
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”
Heather Heyer, November 2016
Heather Heyer, November 2016
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Yes. It was in his overly wrought style and the contumacious response was written by a native English speaker. For Taitz, English is an afterthought language, so we assumed it was her paramour who wrote it and "showed" Judge Land. He was writing her other dribble then, too.Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:35 pm Didn't the Balling Ball write the reply to the sanctions order and that resulted in the doubling of the fine?
-
Orlylicious
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
- Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
- Occupation: LDIT Supporters are "Shooketh"! -- Ali Akbar 11/29/20 #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
- Contact:
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Avatar: LDIT's Court FAILS. Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring titular Mama June returns 3/21. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
I think I am getting old(er) - a decade of Taitz along with TFB and its transitions.
X 4 -
Tiredretiredlawyer
- Posts: 11389
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
- Location: Animal Planet
- Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse, and 4 granddogs and one grandcat.
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
"Why Iron-man and why not Fe-male? This joke is not for everyone." - Monde Mobsinner Bakaqana to The Science Nerds on Twitter.
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
PS. did we evah get to hear the resolution of the Leaking Taiz Castle where they intended to sue the builders for a pony?
-
SuzieC
- Posts: 1407
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
- Location: Blue oasis in red state
- Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 10 years Admin Law Judge for 4 state agencies.
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
A link for our giggling pleasure this fair September morning?Sterngard Friegen wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:02 amYes. It was in his overly wrought style and the contumacious response was written by a native English speaker. For Taitz, English is an afterthought language, so we assumed it was her paramour who wrote it and "showed" Judge Land. He was writing her other dribble then, too.Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:35 pm Didn't the Balling Ball write the reply to the sanctions order and that resulted in the doubling of the fine?
-
Sterngard Friegen
- Posts: 47277
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
- Location: Over the drawbridge
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Judge Land's order: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... BBlb1BktEdSuzieC wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:43 amA link for our giggling pleasure this fair September morning?Sterngard Friegen wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:02 amYes. It was in his overly wrought style and the contumacious response was written by a native English speaker. For Taitz, English is an afterthought language, so we assumed it was her paramour who wrote it and "showed" Judge Land. He was writing her other dribble then, too.Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:35 pm Didn't the Balling Ball write the reply to the sanctions order and that resulted in the doubling of the fine?
The accusatory daffydavit is in this thread, on page 88. For lolz scroll up and down and go back and forward a few pages for the FogBar discussion: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=1007&start=2175
Re: Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09
Off Topic
I went to law school at the University of San Francisco. The same case came up in crim law, crim pro, civ pro, contracts, property, wills and trusts, international law, and maritime law. It involved an alumnus of the Law school who had left a life estate to his wife, a small sum to his “secretary” (which is what they called boyfriends back in the day), and a substantial endowment to the school. He died, and the secretary convinced the wife to challenge the endowment. The wife continued to employ the secretary as sort of a Man Friday. The secretary also had a friend who was some sort of Russian orthodox priest or something like that. I might have mistaken some of these details — it’s been a while.
Anyway, while the endowment was in litigation, the wife and the secretary went on a cruise to Alaska. At some point during the cruise, when the ship was in the Straits of Juan De Fuca, the wife was murdered (discovered in her cabin by Michael Michael, the Corsican cabin boy - that detail I do remember).
So the initial question was who had jurisdiction? If the murder was in US waters, The US did. If it happened in Canadian waters, the Canadians did. If it happened in international waters, then jurisdiction was in the Bahamas because the ship was registered in the Bahamas (I think it was a Norwegian Cruise lines ship, but I can’t remember that detail).
There was apparently a huge trial just on the issue of jurisdiction. Ultimately it was decided that the Canadians had jurisdiction. So the secretary, whose name I cannot recall, was tried and convicted in a Canadian court.
Then there was a big fight about the validity of a codicil to the wife’s well leaving everything to the secretary, and some stuff to this Russian orthodox dude.
I think Ultimately the school got everything. Maybe the Russian orthodox dude got a little bit of money, I can’t remember. But the secretary didn’t get anything because he was convicted of killing her. So under California law he could not inherit. The dean of the school when I was a student there in the late 90s was still driving around in the woman’s Cadillac.
The Canadian defense attorney who represented the secretary in the criminal trial, William Deverell, wrote a book about it called Fatal Cruise. It’s a really good book. I used to have a copy, but I can’t find it. But I highly recommend it.
Anyway, while the endowment was in litigation, the wife and the secretary went on a cruise to Alaska. At some point during the cruise, when the ship was in the Straits of Juan De Fuca, the wife was murdered (discovered in her cabin by Michael Michael, the Corsican cabin boy - that detail I do remember).
So the initial question was who had jurisdiction? If the murder was in US waters, The US did. If it happened in Canadian waters, the Canadians did. If it happened in international waters, then jurisdiction was in the Bahamas because the ship was registered in the Bahamas (I think it was a Norwegian Cruise lines ship, but I can’t remember that detail).
There was apparently a huge trial just on the issue of jurisdiction. Ultimately it was decided that the Canadians had jurisdiction. So the secretary, whose name I cannot recall, was tried and convicted in a Canadian court.
Then there was a big fight about the validity of a codicil to the wife’s well leaving everything to the secretary, and some stuff to this Russian orthodox dude.
I think Ultimately the school got everything. Maybe the Russian orthodox dude got a little bit of money, I can’t remember. But the secretary didn’t get anything because he was convicted of killing her. So under California law he could not inherit. The dean of the school when I was a student there in the late 90s was still driving around in the woman’s Cadillac.
The Canadian defense attorney who represented the secretary in the criminal trial, William Deverell, wrote a book about it called Fatal Cruise. It’s a really good book. I used to have a copy, but I can’t find it. But I highly recommend it.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
