#Revote2017 SCOTUS Fail: In Re Diane Blumstein Writ of Mandamus 16-907 & Fail #2 Bailey v U.S., 16-1464 #NullifyNow

Post Reply
User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#151

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:35 pm

Well this escalated quickly. Yet I didn't reply to her. One sided escalation I guess. I've said nothing but facts and given my strong opinion that raising money on GoFundMe for a deadlisted, futile, frivolous case when there are real fights to win and charities to fund is shameful. But Kirstin takes it a wild level... and then blocks me so I can't see it? That didn't work.

She finishes with "targeted harassment" (How? They're running it and making money on GoFundMe, I'm not). I'm Martin Shkreli for calling them out. http://linkis.com/washingtonpost.com/LfsFp
KristanMartin.JPG
Five images this time! Start bottom of image 5. Her Twitter feed is https://twitter.com/KirstinElaine1/with_replies?lang=en

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Start here...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#152

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:42 pm

I mentioned this a few years ago.

In my yute I was a member of the National Lawyers Guild. :commiesmall: (Good health plan for my employees -- Kaiser.)

I was very involved with the Central Committee Los Angeles Guild directorate. When the facts began to come out that Nixon had done illegal things and won the election -- and Spiro Agnew resigned -- we thought about bringing a lawsuit to have Nixon removed from office. But we did the rudimentary legal research necessary to determine if we had a case, and we realized very quickly we did not.

So removing a President through court action is a fantasy, being pimped by those who want to make money off of it and raise false hopes.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#153

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:47 am

Wow. Methinks you struck a nerve, Orlylicious.

From the Tweet tantrum:

"You talk about kindness then slander true women patriots, slandering them."

After taking a moment to appreciate the eloquence... I was taken by the repeated and blatant playing of the "female" card. Too. also, I noticed the knee-jerk assumption that if you were not supporting their Quixotic crusade then you were obviously doing nothing to help free us from the clutches of the usurper and his tranny. Very common tactics amongst the birthers as well. Hopefully her threats are as empty as those of the birthers' --- after all, where is she going to get the money to sue? Out of her $27K in GoFundMe booty? And what damages could she show? That her GoFundMe didn't raise the bazillions that she thought it should? Then, of course, there's the little problem that you didn't lie (although you certainly stomped all over her precious fee-fees) which seems like a pretty good defense against defamation.

Nice catch on the goalpost moving, by the way --- I don't think there's any chance this one stops after the SCOTUS denies cert.

Keep up the good work, Orlylicious!
:thumbs: :clap: :dance:


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#154

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:03 am

I think Kirsten sounds just a touch on the unhinged side of things, and seems to be another of the crowd who doesn't grasp the concept of libel. I have a feeling having any kind of discussion with her is fraught. I've known people like that, and I usually make a concerted effort to avoid them.

Going to be a lot of unhappy people and frantic goalpost moving come Mon.


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
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#155

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:46 am

They are so frantic they're disrespecting and blocking innocent people who put tons of time and effort into this ridiculous project.
rachel 2.JPG
rachel 3.JPG
Rachel 4.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#156

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:56 am

Grant Stern* did the first podcast for Occupy Democrats and featuring Revote, that's at the end of the show around 31:00. Lawyer Mark Small starts it off (you gotta hear it, I'd love to hear Stern and Mike do some questioning :P ) and the others.

I don't understand what he means about "1st Circuit precedent." Huh? During the show, they seem to think the 1st Circuit denial was "something special," that the denial is different than if it was "tossed out." And that the denial could set "precedent for State Attorney Generals to take it forward" Makes no sense.
Grant Denial.JPG
Mar 17, 2017

Episode 1 of OD Political Radio featured an interview with members of Revote 2017, their lawyer, and the petitioners asking the Supreme Court to nullify the 2016 election results. The original OD story is from February:

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/23/s ... -election/
Podcast at

*Grant published some Scott Dworkin material on HuffPo and they tossed him off the platform.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9728
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#157

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:30 am

To refresh people's memory (and put the document somewhere I can find it), here's the 1st Circuit "precedent" that will be "preserved" by a SCOTUS denial:
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for those occasions when a petitioner demonstrates a clear entitlement to relief. See In re Sterling-Suarez, 306 F.3d 1170, 1172 (1st Cir. 2002). Petitioner cites no precedent legitimately supporting her novel constitutional claim, and we see no basis for concluding that there is a clear entitlement to relief. See California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 1997)("For this Court to determine that the United States has been 'invaded' when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibility of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.").

For this reason, the motion for a stay is denied and the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
17-1029-denial.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


"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
Estiveo
Posts: 7423
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#158

Post by Estiveo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:44 pm

Revote2017 called me arrogant on their FB page when I told them they were wrong, then baned me when I posted the link to this thread. Like all good "patriots," they will brook no dissent.


Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3083
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#159

Post by Dallasite » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:11 pm

Slander!
Libel!
We're going to sue!

Hmm, now from where have we heard those threats before?


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#160

Post by SueDB » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:50 pm

Dallasite wrote:Slander!
Libel!
We're going to sue!

Hmm, now from where have we heard those threats before?
Sorry to say that "Pro Se" seems to be a synonym for "unhinged" :crazy: :dazed: :rolleye: .

Kinda like if you can't sell a case to a real/reputable lawyer :geezer: :geezerette: , mebbe you should try something else :roll: ???


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

boots
Posts: 2909
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#161

Post by boots » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:09 pm

SueDB wrote:
Dallasite wrote:Slander!
Libel!
We're going to sue!

Hmm, now from where have we heard those threats before?
Sorry to say that "Pro Se" seems to be a synonym for "unhinged" :crazy: :dazed: :rolleye: .

Kinda like if you can't sell a case to a real/reputable lawyer :geezer: :geezerette: , mebbe you should try something else :roll: ???
Is it even possible, a little bit, that they really believe in this being a possible good outcome? I'm trying to figure out how a loss at the appellate level, then another loss (or a denial of review) by the Sup Ct somehow creates anything other than a record of the futility of the matter.



boots
Posts: 2909
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#162

Post by boots » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:18 pm

SueDB wrote: Sorry to say that "Pro Se" seems to be a synonym for "unhinged" :crazy: :dazed: :rolleye: .
It often is.
SueDB wrote:Kinda like if you can't sell a case to a real/reputable lawyer :geezer: :geezerette: , mebbe you should try something else :roll: ???
Off Topic
A lot of judges think this way. Sometimes a pro se (or pro per as they are called her in California) will start a case, then when they've already filed a bunch of crap and lost a few hearings (or worse), then they try to lawyer up. I try to explain to them that there is no sympathy for the unlawyered in this system. Quite often, they know substantive law (though clearly that doesn't apply here), but make absolutely zero effort to understand or appreciate the importance of procedure. Rather, most tend to ignore procedure (e.g., filing this mess in the Court of Appeal) and then complain that they aren't getting "due process" when they get shut down for not following procedure. Few realize that procedure and process are forms of the same word.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25303
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#163

Post by bob » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:34 pm

I'm trying to figure out how a loss at the appellate level, then another loss (or a denial of review) by the Sup Ct creates anything other than a record of the futility of the matter.
Many unrepresented people (including but not limited to birthers) see power in "creating a record." History will judge, others can and will work toward success, etc.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#164

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:04 pm

Can't believe Mark Small is still pumping this, another Facebook Q&A today at Listen to this lawyer! He says it's not false hope. Mark says the Writ at SCOTUS was an "original action" and the 1st Circuit doesn't count.

8 Minutes in, Mark gets really really angry at the "online comments that this is like the birthers" and says it's really, really unfounded.

They start with the camera the wrong way but it gets fixed.
Mark Small.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#165

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:20 pm

Does anyone have Mark Small's email addy? I want to write him and shame him for pimping a deadlisted case.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#166

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:49 pm

"There's no cert on this, it's an original action." -- Mark Small. You really have to hear how outrageous he is. I saved a copy. What a bunch of garbage. The 91 year old lady is cool, she should throw them all out of her nice house.

Stern, he called me, I'll PM you his number. Email is listed below from their page (Yahoo with 2001? O RLY?). He totally missed the birther point... the point is that like birthers, they are pumping cash for a frivolous, deadlisted case. And it's true.
Letter Mark Small
Posted on 02/19/2017 by Analysis and Discourse
8510 EVERGREEN AVENUE, SUITE 104 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46240

Members of the Press

MARK SMALL ATTORNEY AT LAW

February 19, 2017

TEL: 317.252.4800 marksmall2001@yahoo.com

Re: Blumstein, et al. v. Pence, et al. Docket Number: 16-907

I represent Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman, Petitioners in a case they filed before the United States Supreme Court. The relief they seek is a new election of the offices of President, Vice President, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives decided in November, 2016.

In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution imagined various means by which a tyrant, a foreign power, or mobs could take over our government. The Framers obviously did not cast their votes by electronic means. They could not have foreseen an additional means by which a foreign power could take over our government—hacking of computer programs. The Framers understood the concept of “invasion,” and in Article IV, Section 4, provided the government owes a duty to protect us from foreign invasion. The Constitution addresses the imperfections of human beings. In Federalist Number 51, James Madison described how the separation of powers of the branches of the government is necessary to protect us from despotism.

Today, evidence indicates the dictator of Russia illegally influenced the election of the President and the Vice President, as well as races for seats in the Congress. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch can investigate, without conflict, Russia’s cyber invasion as members of those branches benefitted from such an invasion if it occurred. Madison saw the judicial branch as the only branch able to resolve such matters.

On Friday, February 17, we filed a motion in which we ask the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master, a role created under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to investigate the 2016 elections. If the elections were stolen from the American people, the relief we would seek would include new elections of all Federal offices that were on the ballot in 2016. My clients are the people who were courageous enough to raise this challenge. Others might attempt, through peaceful means as contemplated by the Framers, other avenues to challenge the election results. No one else should be mistaken, however, for Diane Blumstein, Nancy Goodman, and Donna Soodalter-Toman as the brave people who challenged the election via this Court action.

Any inquiries may be directed to my office number or e-mail.

Sincerely,

/s Mark Small.

Mark Small
https://analysisanddiscourse.com/2017/0 ... ark-small/

According to an unclaimed Yelp page, Mark's on Broad Ripple Ave, makes sense!
Mark Small Attorney at Law
Unclaimed
Criminal Defense Law
1915 Broad Ripple Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Phone number (317) 252-4800
https://www.yelp.com/biz/mark-small-att ... dianapolis
Mark Small Discipline.JPG
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/46240-in ... 00912.html

From the "NoEthics" website (wonder if he knows Taitz?):
Mark Ethics.JPG
http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php? ... Itemid=100

Meanwhile, poor Rachel who made the postcards that she says were posted on 70 Facebook pages is still trying to get Kelly Sennholz to unblock her, Kelly did that when Rachel asked for proof the Special Master motion was actually filed. :brickwallsmall:
Rachel block.JPG
Rachel block 2.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#167

Post by SueDB » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Yeah, no amount of money will resuscitate this dead corpse...


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7381
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#168

Post by RoadScholar » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:55 pm

Money and effort being limited, how is it rude or irrational to suggest that they should be put behind a plan that could work vs. one that can't? :think:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#169

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:05 pm

RoadScholar wrote:Money and effort being limited, how is it rude or irrational to suggest that they should be put behind a plan that could work vs. one that can't? :think:
I think that is the heart of their cognitive bias --- the idea that their way is the best (or only) way to fight back. Depressingly similar to the birther pathology.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#170

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:31 pm

And it's all my fault!
Keith Sill.JPG
Back to their original pumping:
revote 3-19.JPG
Which I think Realist addressed very, very well over a month ago:
writ.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#171

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:21 pm

He's a solo and he uses a YAHOO email address, how Taitzian. Are we altogether certain that he didn't get his degree by correspondence from Daft skool of pretend lawyering and dentistry??? This certainly reads like something they would have produced.

A question, if he is really representing the petitioners, then why isn't his name on the filing, they could always have amended it, couldn't they?

I think the thing that disturbs me the most here is incredibly ignorance of both our political and legal system that they people are demonstrating, and are resistant to hearing anything about.


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
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#172

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:19 am

Cleaning up a few odds and ends before this morning's denial... Here's the denial on the App for Stay at SCOTUS (this is the infamous "Ginsburg is considering this")
16907 App For Stay.JPG
And looks like Kelly and Jerroll Sanders (who are now in a fight over the copyright to the Writ) started playing this game in Colorado and appealed to the Tenth Circuit. So I guess it started with them, then after whatever beef Kelly and Jerroll had Kelly went to Blumstein et al (maybe money?). Why am I not surprised. Read from bottom. Think Kelly knows what WITH PREJUDICE means? :P
Sennholz et al v. Biden et al
Federal Civil Lawsuit Colorado District Court, Case No. 1:17-cv-00048
District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, presiding
docket://gov.uscourts.cod.1-17-cv-00048

17 Filed: 2/27/2017, Entered: None
TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD ON APPEAL to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as to 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Jerroll Sanders. Volume I - Electronic Documents; (USCA Case No. 17-1043). Text Only Entry (athom, ) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

16 Filed: 2/21/2017, Entered: None Court Filing
ORDER denying 15 MOTION to Remove Petitioner from Case and Appeal by Petitioner Kelly Sennholz. This Court dismissed the case. The case is now on appeal, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction to enter further orders such as that requested in the motion. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/21/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

15 Filed: 2/16/2017, Entered: None
MOTION to Remove Petitioner from Case and Appeal by Petitioner Kelly Sennholz. (athom, ) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

14 Filed: 2/7/2017, Entered: None
USCA Case Number 17-1043 for 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Jerroll Sanders. (jhawk, ) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

13 Filed: 2/7/2017, Entered: None
LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Jerroll Sanders to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Pro Se, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record Part 1, # 3 Preliminary Record Part 2, # 4 Preliminary Record Part 3)(jhawk, ) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

12 Filed: 2/7/2017, Entered: None
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 9 Judgment by Petitioner Jerroll Sanders. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt COX078437)(jhawk, ) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

11 Filed: 1/11/2017, Entered: None Court Filing
ORDER finding as moot 10 MOTION to Withdraw 6 MOTION to Withdraw Petitioner, Motion to Expedite Review of Motion to Withdraw Petitioner and Other Pending Motions by Petitioner Jerroll Sanders. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/11/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

10 Filed: 1/10/2017, Entered: None
MOTION to Withdraw 6 MOTION to Withdraw Petitioner, Motion to Expedite Review of Motion to Withdraw Petitioner and Other Pending Motions by Petitioner Jerroll Sanders. (athom, ) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

9 Filed: 1/10/2017, Entered: None Court Filing
FINAL JUDGMENT: this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/10/17. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 01/10/2017)


8 Filed: 1/10/2017, Entered: None Court Filing
ORDER: the Court sua sponte dismisses this action with prejudice by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/10/17. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 01/10/2017)


7 Filed: 1/9/2017, Entered: None
MOTION to Withdraw Defendants by Petitioner Kelly Sennholz. (athom, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

6 Filed: 1/9/2017, Entered: None
MOTION to Withdraw Petitioner by Petitioner Jerroll Sanders. (athom, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

5 Filed: 1/5/2017, Entered: None Court Filing
Case assigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson and drawn to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Text Only Entry (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

4 Filed: 1/5/2017, Entered: None
Addendum to MOTION for emergency hearing by Petitioners Jerroll Sanders, Kelly Sennholz. (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

3 Filed: 1/5/2017, Entered: None
MOTION for request for Emergency hearing by Petitioners Jerroll Sanders, Kelly Sennholz. (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

2 Filed: 1/5/2017, Entered: None
MOTION to Stay Pending Petition re 1 Petition by Petitioners Jerroll Sanders, Kelly Sennholz. (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

1 Filed: 1/5/2017, Entered: None
Emergency PETITION for Writ of Mandamus (Filing fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 77941), filed by Jerroll Sanders, Kelly Sennholz.(amenz, ) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33p68 ... den-et-al/

Here's Kelly's Document 15 :lol:
Kelly Remove.JPG
"DENINED"
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10906
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#173

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:31 am

Copyright??? Of the writ???? Seriously????? Well, that was what $800 well spent to NOT learn anything> :brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall: These people are amazing in their ignorance. :rotflmao:

Tomorrow is not going to be a happy happy joy joy sort of day I don't think.


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
Orlylicious
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#174

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:43 am

Yes ND, a fight over the copyright :lol: Pastor Gloria revealed Kelly's been served with papers. It's really something.
► Show Spoiler


Avatar Photo: Michael "Who Says?" Cohen. Says SDNY & Mueller. What it's like at the prison in Otisville where Michael Cohen may go? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/micha ... index.html

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9728
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: #Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

#175

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:54 am

It's ED Mich case 17-cv-10578. Pro se complaint, the legal acumen of which is broadly equivalent to the writ itself. The speed at which the thing will head for dismissal will entirely depend on the whether the defendants decide to remain pro se or lawyer up. Had the defendants not been engaged in their fundraising efforts, I'd feel mildly bad for them.


"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.

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”