Thanks, Slash!!

When did Pink Floyd's former bass player join the suit?

I thought the same thing when I saw the heading, but this guy is Walters, and the PF guy is Waters. But, yeah, kinda threw me for a loop at first, too

"For completeness": C-J: Judge rejects challenge to include Obama on ballot.

Has a report of this Epic and Expensive Fail appeared on Lena's House of Malware? I don't think so.

A late entry here for the Fogbow, but a big H/T to slash2k

Apparently the SoS had filed a response to the opposition to the MtD that we had no knowledge of nor had we seen... we can now.

KS - 2012-11-05 - Response to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Kobach's attorneys are saying, to sum it up in two words, that Taitz is an "officious intermeddler."

Last I checked the Constitution did not grant a Moldovan seditionist the power to vet our Presidential candidates. As a result, this case ended the same way all of the cases have ended. Neither Taitz nor those she represents, either officially or effectively, have standing.

Thanks Slash and Realist! You rock! I only wish she had gone after Kobach harder and longer; I'd love to see him reap the full benefits of his initial idiocy.

I like the reference in footnote 2 to Monty Burns.

Did we already notice that Taitz is after four years litigation is still unable to recognize the need and correct way of getting and serving summons

Taitz doesn't care about service. She thinks it's easier if the other side isn't there.

It is. Except those damned empty chairs keep showing up.

And kicking her ass.

This is what I don't get: How hard is it to hire a QUALIFIED process server? I mean four years in, and it's always the same problem. One thing I learned over four years of Lena is that she cannot -- learn, that is. Same errors over and over, and then same message to her FMs: Lena Error = Corrupt Judge. Friday next is gonna be FUN.

Isn't the Sheriff's Department available for service in many states? It is here in Oregon. As I recall 20 years ago, it was available in Nebraska for a mere $19. I would expect those people to know how to serve papers.

I'm pretty sure that if a ten-year old started a blog called "I am going to sue the President" and had access to the same amount of help that Orly has had from the Fogbow, they would frack it up less than Lena. I'm pretty sure the kid wouldn't get to being fourteen without figuring out how to hire a reputable process server. I'm reasonable sure that the conversation would go something like this.

10 year-old: So they court threw out my my lawsuit against President Obama without pre-ju-dis because I didn't serve him properly. You said that I can refile because of that, but I want to know how can I fix the service thing.

The Fogbow: Well there's the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure which tell you how to do this in Federal Court. See sections [IANAL and am lazy, so I won't look them up].

10 year-old: OK, it doesn't seem too hard but I don't want to pay the filing fee a third time because I screwed up twice in a row. Can I pay someone to do this for me?

The Fogbow: Yes of course. Many sheriffs' offices do it for a fee, or maybe you could ask a reputable lawyer who is a friend of the family to to recommend a firm.

The problem, though, is you have to tell the sheriff, or the process server, who it is you want them to serve. Here in Kansas, she hired a professional process server and told him to go serve the Secretary of State, which he did. She never bothered even to obtain a second subpoena for the State Objections Board, much less tell the process server to go serve the Objections Board via the Attorney General's office.

Which would require you to know who to serve precisely and to give lucid directions, something beyond the ken of OrLena. Her analysis of everything is so superficial and slap-dash, there never is even the most minimal care. The amount of money she has wasted on Fed Ex without any evidence of proof of delivery would feed the hungry of Orange County for a month!

^^^^ This.

It's not the process server's job to read the lawsuit and figure out who is supposed to be served and how.

After four years of bumbling around, there are a couple of fundamental points that Orly appears not to understand at all. For one, she doesn't grasp that the summons and pleadings initiating a suit have to be personally served on an individual, upon an officer or authorized agent of an organization and/or upon legally designated recipients for government departments and agencies. (After initial service, other methods such as mail may suffice, depending upon the procedural rules in effect.)

When serving government officers, employees and agencies, it is usually the case that more than one recipient must be served. In state cases, one must typically serve the attorney general as well as the party. (This is not an either/or proposition; both must be served.) When suing a federal cabinet officer, a designated department official must be served (often the agency's general counsel) as well as the appropriate U.S. Attorney.

This is not rocket science -- it simply involves reading the applicable procedural rule(s) and also doing a modest amount of research to identify the authorized designated official for the government department or agency. (Hint: For federal agencies, they're published in the Code of Federal Regulations. For state officials, anyone with decent skills with the Google can zero-in on state requirements with not too much effort.) For corporations, the Secretaries of the various states maintain web sites containing the names and addresses of registered agents for corporations incorporated or doing business in the state. And so forth.

The applicable rules governing service of process typically provide for "substituted service" when personal service proves impossible after reasonable dilligence has failed to effect process. While "substituted service" may permit use of certified or registered mail with return receipt requested, it does not mean the litigant can simply bypass attempts at personal service. (If that were the case, why would anyone use a process server when they could just skip the step and mail the stuff?) In short, if you're going to use substituted method #3, you have to 'splain why #1 and #2 could not be used.

But noooooo, Orly never bothers. She continues to believe that if the gubmint was served (wherever and however), then everyone associated with the gubmint is considered served. She never, never! attempts to identify authorized agents or legally designated recipients or to check on whether folks like attorneys general, U.S. attorneys, etc. must also be served. And, up until recently, she's operated on the assumption that since mail is sometimes OK, then it must be OK anytime.

And now she's started using process servers, thinking that this is a surer way of effecting service. However, she still doesn't bother to read the rules and related regulations to figure out who actually has to be served.

It's friggin' unbelievable how little she's learned -- so much so that it's obvious she isn't really trying to learn. To borrow a term, even a rhesus monkey could do better.

I thank both slash2k and Piffle for explaining some of Orly's problems with using process servers (and service). I maintain that my hypothetical ten-year old (and if I stretch the point maybe, if I tried really hard, I) could get service eventually right by asking the right people the right questions.

But then hey, I don't have a vanity law degree from a crackerjack box that I use to loudly proclaim that I am expert in konstitutional law and decedent civil rights. I can actually realize that I can screw up, that I do actually screw up and manage to deal with the fact that I have screwed up without believing silly conspiracies involving officers of the courts and random trolls on my blog.

Correct. OTOH, in most cities there will be a bunch of "cut-rate" process servers, who can nail & mail with the best of them, and have no problems finding their way to a corporation's registered agent for service.

There will also be one or more firms who charge 2-3 times the minimum rate, who may have a lawyer on staff, or who just have lots of experience and a brain in the usual place. This is the firm you hire when there's a limitations issue, or something else tricky. It's still your job to read and interpret the rules; but it's also your job to talk it over in a respectful manner with a guy who does more service of process in a month than you'll do in your lifetime.

It's all there in Butterfly's .sig line. If only Taitz would pay a little bit of attention, we'd have a much better chance of some real sanctions.

Once again a big H/T to slash2k!!!

KS - 2012-09-13 - Transcript of Proceedings of State Objection Board

This transcript contains all the objections heard that day. The Montgomery nuttery begins at page 84.

Do you know how many frickin' times over the past four years I have tried to post comments on her idiot blog telling her to consult the CFR? That woman is uneducable. She is totally clueless that there is a whole body of law referred to as "administrative law." I'm certain I could have cited the exact provision in the CFR guiding her to the agency's designated official for receiving service of process and she would have have ignored it.

Gosh, the birfer idea of allegiance is a very fragile one. Not only can North Korea determine who is a natural born citizen, but if you marry a foreigner or take your kid overseas apparently that might affect NBC status too. This could be trouble, because it really seems like foreign influence is contagious. Really, I hope that any of the Fogbowzers with two citizen parents are making careful logs about when they laugh at one of Suranis' awesome picture posts or listen to rajah on Reality Check Radio. Those of us who are dastardly foreigners don't really want to corrupt the allegiance of all the Americans here and put everyone's hopes for the Presidency in jeopardy. (Or maybe we do ).

I do find it hilarious that Obama's mother's choice to take her son with her overseas is a sign of "tenuous and unproven" allegiance but Montgomery doesn't even wonder if Mitt Romney's mission work in France corrupted him.

Remember how suspicious many or most of the RWNJ's have been about people who have spent time overseas. Romney's stay in Paris was OK because he was on a Mission. Soldiers overseas are not really in foreign lands. The xenophobia is very prominent. The number of them who support English-only legislation is a symptom of that.

What's funny about these inbreeds is they usually speak and write in something that barely resembles English. If they want to impose English-speaking, they should learn to speak English themselves first.