(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35169
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#201

Post by realist »

Three and a half years later and courts are still explaining standing to these idiots.





:roll:They must have figured it out after filing, as Dummett then got on the ballot as a write-in(or at least attempted to IIRC). I think the judge called it attempting to create evidence or sumpin'. :-
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#202

Post by MaineSkeptic »

Three and a half years later and courts are still explaining standing to these idiots.





:roll:And just think -- if they ever overcame the standing hurdle, they would finally get to score an evidentiary triumph like Orly did in Atlanta!

Tarrant
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#203

Post by Tarrant »

Three and a half years later and courts are still explaining standing to these idiots.





:roll:They must have figured it out after filing, as Dummett then got on the ballot as a write-in(or at least attempted to IIRC). I think the judge called it attempting to create evidence or sumpin'. :-Well, sort of. He only filled out the form for write-in candidacy after the defendants pointed out they lacked standing because they were not candidates. The judge even said he'd have been slightly - slightly! - more sympathetic had he done so in advance of the case (although I'd argue still a lack of standing).

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28423
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#204

Post by bob »

Three and a half years later and courts are still explaining standing to these idiots.Still up at [/break1]org/certification-class-action/the-cca-strategy/]LLF:


Standing: the death knell for most challenges to date.





Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. We preempt the Defendants’ standing defense by having a class of plaintiffs that are candidates for the Presidency, including independent candidates that will be a part of the general election. Any candidate running in this election will be less likely to win if Obama appears on the ballot. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. It is the harm of lowering a candidate’s chance of winning. The speculative nature of the candidate winning an election is irrelevant to this argument. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections. In other words, standing does not require that a plaintiff be in exactly the same position as a defendant. All they must show is harm that is particular to them and is not speculative. We have overcome this initial hurdle.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#205

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

Still up at [/break1]org/certification-class-action/the-cca-strategy/]LLF:


Standing: the death knell for most challenges to date.





Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. We preempt the Defendants’ standing defense by having a class of plaintiffs that are candidates for the Presidency, including independent candidates that will be a part of the general election. Any candidate running in this election will be less likely to win if Obama appears on the ballot. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. It is the harm of lowering a candidate’s chance of winning. The speculative nature of the candidate winning an election is irrelevant to this argument. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections. In other words, standing does not require that a plaintiff be in exactly the same position as a defendant. All they must show is harm that is particular to them and is not speculative. We have overcome this initial hurdle.You can't lower someone's chances when they're zero.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 11133
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#206

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

You can't lower someone's chances when they're zero.But gsgs will give it a shot if you want him to.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35169
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#207

Post by realist »

You can't lower someone's chances when they're zero.But gsgs will give it a shot if you want him to. =))
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

chinacreekpj
Posts: 1347
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#208

Post by chinacreekpj »

I now have a link list of John Dummett's greatest hits up at my blog on the right hand side of the screen.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#209

Post by Piffle »

I now have a link list of John Dummett's greatest hits up at my blog on the right hand side of the screen.Nice job! It's a good reference manual on Venn Aryan too.

chinacreekpj
Posts: 1347
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#210

Post by chinacreekpj »

I now have a link list of John Dummett's greatest hits up at my blog on the right hand side of the screen.Nice job! It's a good reference manual on Venn Aryan too.Thx. http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt20 ... lashes.gif

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#211

Post by vic »

Still up at [/break1]org/certification-class-action/the-cca-strategy/]LLF:


Standing: the death knell for most challenges to date.





... Any candidate running in this election will be less likely to win if Obama appears on the ballot. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. It is the harm of lowering a candidate’s chance of winning. ......


Mebee this is gonna be Orly's next move - - - Its not fair that all those other republicans ran for the CA senate seat cause they hurt my chance of winning... and it it the GOP's fault cause they didn't endorse me me me me me...

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#212

Post by AnitaMaria »

Venn Aryan speaks:


[snip]


We were very surprised by the court’s order, in part because an earlier order from this court had seemed favorable. [no, it wasn't. You just told your donors is was] This latest order was also shocking because of the legal acrobatics used by the court to reach its ruling. It acknowledged precedent that candidates for a given office have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates. It then refused to acknowledge the standing of one of our named plaintiffs, Presidential candidate John Dummett. [because he did not have standing when the suit was filed... gotta have that... and in fact still doesn't/wouldn't] The court refused to accept a filing from LLF proving that Mr. Dummett had registered with the Tennessee Secretary of State as a write-in candidate. It also refused to allow LLF to amend our complaint to reflect the fact that Mr. Dummett had registered with the Tennessee Secretary of State. It noted that Mr. Dummett had only recently filed his paperwork with the State of Tennessee while ignoring the fact that the deadline to do so was still months away. [no, it noted that you tried to pull a fast one and creat standing AFTER filing suit... it didn't work] It also ignored that precedent regarding competitive candidate standing does not require such a candidate to perform any specific registration or to appear on any ballot. The precedent simply says that if a plaintiff is running for the same office in the same election, he has standing to challenge the eligibility of competing candidates. [then how, exactly, would he be "competitive? I doubt the opinion of the Ninth includes someone who opens a facebook account and merely says I'm running for president qualifies] It seems clear that this court simply did not want to address the substance of a politically sensitive case. [snip] :^o


This ruling reflects that an appeal in this particular case would likely be futile. [brilliant.. just as the suite was futile/frivolous in the first place] However we are still considering our options. [it depends on how much money you fools are still willing to send us] We will continue to earnestly pursue the other two eligibility lawsuits (Georgia [hasn't filed with SCOTUS] and Arizona [to be soon also dismissed]) . We will let you know when we have decided our next course of action in the Tennessee CCA lawsuit.A bit more at the link [/break1]org/2107/court-dismissed-our-tennessee-obama-eligibility-lawsuit/]http://libertylegalfoundation.org/2107/ ... y-lawsuit/

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16248
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#213

Post by Reality Check »

This ruling reflects that an appeal in this particular case would likely be futile.Now wait just a minute. You just spent the rest of the page telling us what a terrible ruling the judge made then you say an appeal would be futile? Aren't appeals supposed to be for incorrect rulings? It sounds like to me the money machine has dried up and after three defeats Venn Diagram is looking to exit.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#214

Post by AnitaMaria »

Another possible explanation for Aryan's apparent reluctance to appeal is that he knows he blew his argument that Dummett had standing because he submitted the paperwork to enter Dummett into TN's fall election too late (or filed the case too early). The argument isn't a winner anyway, but he can't even make the competitive standing argument on appeal since Dummett was clearly not a candidate for anything in TN when FAC was filed. Note the outright lie about the court refusing to let him amend the complaint to show Dummett's candidacy. He never asked for leave to amend the complaint. I think he's lying to cover his ass so that his hatriotic followers don't see that he fucked up this indispensable part of his litigation strategy.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#215

Post by Piffle »

Venn Aryan speaks:


[snip]


It (the court) acknowledged precedent that candidates for a given office have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates. It then refused to acknowledge the standing of one of our named plaintiffs, Presidential candidate John Dummett.


[snip]Setting aside the fact that Venn's pitches to the public are facially disingenuous, his actual performance was a case study in terrible lawyering.





One of the trendiest mantras currently plastered on every signpost and bridge throughout birtherdom is the grossly over-simplified belief that an opposing candidate for president automatically has standing to challenge presidential eligibility. This -- the unwashed birthers claim -- is established precedent by virtue of the 9th Circuit's ruling in Drake v. Obama.





Ignoring for a moment a few "technicalities" about the application of precedent (e.g., that an opinion by the Ninth Circuit is not binding in the Sixth), Venn Aryan fell far short of building upon Drake (as well as other prior case law, some of which is cited internally) to demonstrate that his clients were entitled to "competitive standing".





So what were the 9th's actual holdings in Drake with respect to competing candidates? In a nutshell, the panel held that the claims of the candidate-plaintiffs in that case (Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot) failed because their complaints were filed after the election of President Obama. (“Plaintiffs’ competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed.”)





What the birfers latched onto were a few convenient lines in the discussion of how competitive standing might apply in a case timely brought by a candidate threatened with the substantial injury of losing an election that might otherwise be won. And in fairness, the 9th does suggest that under the right set of circumstances, the court might recognize "competitive standing" to sue an ineligible candidate. But is it as simple as saying, "Hey, I have my own campaign button and I haven't lost the election yet"?





That appears to be Venn Aryan's misconception. And relying on his sophomoric view, he did little to develop a plausible set of circumstances under which Dummett and/or Volodarsky would suffer a cognizable concrete injury. What he ignored altogether was this inconvenient footnote in the Drake opinion:





4 Defendants argue that “competitive standing” does not apply in this case because Plaintiffs were not deprived of the ability to win. Drake and Lightfoot ran only in California, while Keyes’s name appeared on the ballot in only three states: California, Colorado, and Florida. Defendants argue, and Plaintiffs do not contest, that none of the political candidate plaintiffs were in any position to win a majority of the 270 electoral votes required to win the election. We need not decide, however, on Defendants’ success-based line-drawing to conclude that Plaintiffs no longer had competitive standing.And that's why the the so-called "precedent" that Aryan relies upon is nothing more than an inchoate exposition of a competitive standing analysis written for the purpose of teeing up the dismissal for untimeliness. The 9th noted that, for the purposes of the case before it, the panel did not need to address the totality of circumstances that might convey competitive standing.





A competent lawyer advancing the competitive standing theory would not have taken a snippet from Drake and claimed that it was a slam-dunk precedent for finding competitive standing on the part of virtually anyone who claimed to be a candidate or filled out an FEC form, or whatever.





A competent lawyer would have looked to all of the case law supporting the existence of competitive standing and argued that his clients met all prongs of the test (if, that is, it was possible to do so on behalf of his bogus candidate-clients). Foremost among the missing prongs was a plausible articulation of how his plaintiffs would suffer actual concrete injury and this guy didn't come close.





Sure he's disengenuous but, IMO, he also isn't very bright.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16248
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#216

Post by Reality Check »

Thanks Piffle! That citation of the Barnett/Drake appeal has been bothering me all week because it was not as I remembered it. The court said that just being a candidate was not enough. The candidate would have to show that they were competitive. The ruling said that since the Barnett case was filed after the President was sworn in that they didn't even need to address whether any of the alleged candidates were "competitive". You nailed it. =D>
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#217

Post by Piffle »

Thanks Piffle! That citation of the Barnett/Drake appeal has been bothering me all week because it was not as I remembered it. The court said that just being a candidate was not enough. The candidate would have to show that they were competitive. The ruling said that since the Barnett case was filed after the President was sworn in that they didn't even need to address whether any of the alleged candidates were "competitive". You nailed it. =D>Tanks, RCAdding: The trial court (Carter) actually dismissed a little too glibly on the basis of "anyone can see that da bums didn't have a snowball's chance" (I'm paraphrasing --> ) and so the court of appeals "corrected" slightly by finding that the late timing was the shorter and surer logical path. Neither ruling left a clear roadmap for an improbable candidate to perfect a competitive standing claim to contest eligibility.But any way you want to look at it, the analysis still centers on bringing a plausible concrete injury claim. That is, pleading "competitive standing" is not a magical incantation conveying a presumption of injury.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35169
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#218

Post by realist »

DOCKET UPDATE!!





08/24/2012 [link]32,[/link] ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/24/12. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)


"Sounds Like" to me it could have been more but defendants screwed up their Rule 11 request. :((





But hey, it's at least one FRIDAY SMACKDOWN!! :-bd





link shortly
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#219

Post by BillTheCat »

DOCKET UPDATE!!





08/24/2012 [link]32,[/link] ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/24/12. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 08/24/2012)


"Sounds Like" to me it could have been more but defendants screwed up their Rule 11 request. :((





But hey, it's at least one FRIDAY SMACKDOWN!! :-bd





link shortly

:banana:
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#220

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

The section 1927 sanctions are probably the same as what Rule 11 sanctions would have been. So there is probably no harm no foul. I hope Du-May and Irion enjoy paying the sanctions. Maybe they can get Orly Taitz and Jonathan Levy to take an appeal for them on the issue. Taitz and Levy are experts on the issue.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#221

Post by esseff44 »

=)) =)) :bwaha: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: Now the donors to Liberty Legal Foundation will see their hard-earned $$$$$ go to pay legal fees for defending against this crap.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#222

Post by AnitaMaria »

The judge has ordered this money to come directly out of Venn Aryan's pocket:Having determined that counsel for Plaintiffs reasonably should have known that all Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' claims were frivolous and without any arguable basis in law. As such, counsel for Plaintiff has multiplied the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously and should therefore be required to satisfy personally the attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by Defendants because of such conduct. :-bd

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35169
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#223

Post by realist »

As much as I'm pleased Irion will have to spend some of his grifter birther bucks on attorney fees, I wish Dummett had to share in these sanctions. Perhaps after a couple of hits of this order he'd figger out what it's really going to cost he and his family to be a lyIng seditionist asshole.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#224

Post by SueDB »

It's about time someone other than the taxpayer has to pay for this lunacy.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

(REMOVED TO) WESTERN DIST. TN - LLF, et al. v NDP, et al. - ACT I & ACT II

#225

Post by Piffle »

The section 1927 sanctions are probably the same as what Rule 11 sanctions would have been. So there is probably no harm no foul.Frankly, I'm delighted to see a judge award Section 1927 sanctions because I've long been of the opinion that this approach is a better tactic than Rule 11 to discourage frivolous birther suits. The principal disadvantage, as I see it, is that 1927 sanctions will not generally reach the wallets of the parties. (That is, except to the extent that the parties stand in the shoes of an attorney. But that's another matter.)All in all, I see this as an important ruling because it holds that the threshold "standing issue" -- which has been resolved against birther litigants time after time -- is so well settled that most future birther plaintiffs place themselves in immediate jeopardy of being sanctioned upon filing their suits in federal courts regardless of whether there is additional litigation misconduct. Furthermore, those bringing suits with no plausible basis for standing cannot, with confidence, assume that a 21-day safe harbor protects them from having the door slammed in their faces very soon after filing.To my way of thinking, this is a devastating result for Birthistan because of the breadth of the ruling's potential applicability as persuasive authority throughout the federal (and perhaps even state) courts.YMMV.

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”