Page 7 of 13

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:32 am
by scirreeve
poplove wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:22 am
scirreeve wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:43 am
poplove wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:09 am Update: Two short letters agreeing to a 30 day extension. One from Harney Co and the other from State of Oregon. Philpot has medical issues it seims.

Docket item 185 Sep 13, 2021 Response to Motion

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .185.0.pdf

Docket Item 186 Sep 14, 2021 Response to Motion

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.186.0.pd
Thanks Poppy (and also for the Joshy stuff). I think it is Mrs. Philpoot that has the medical issues if I am reading the stuff correctly. Also too, your second link doesn't work for me for some reason. Here it is.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62 ... f-america/
Hey, thanks for the new link. I usually test links before I post but I didn't this time because I was lazy. Also, my CL links come up a little different than yours because I'm usually logged into my account.
I like how "eleventh" is boldened (is that a word?)

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:48 am
by Uninformed
I believe the correct term is embolden, like embiggen. :biggrin:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:04 pm
by Gregg
Uninformed wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:48 am I believe the correct term is embolden, like embiggen. :biggrin:
Embiggen is a medical condition related to COVID caccine reactions, the symptoms are swollen testicles on your cousin's friend. :rotflmao:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 1:20 am
by scirreeve
Today was the deadline for Philpoot to file an amended complaint. He did - I haven't read it yet but I am sure it is stoopid. Pierce is listed as an attorney (PHV pending). Still talking about North Korea for some unknown reason.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62 ... f-america/
ETA - I scrolled through it and it appears Philpoot just recycled shit. He refers to many dismissed defendants as current defendants. He is just mailing it in to keep the poot bucks coming in I guess.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:40 am
by Uninformed
From the last part of the lawsuit:
“332. These Defendants engaged in voluntary acts that caused intentional harm and contact with LaVoy Finicum, including shooting him three times in the back.
333. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of these actions, LaVoy suffered deprivation of his constitutional rights, injury, harm, pain and suffering, and compensable economic loss.”

So he’s not dead?

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:04 am
by Gregg
Uninformed wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:40 am From the last part of the lawsuit:
“332. These Defendants engaged in voluntary acts that caused intentional harm and contact with LaVoy Finicum, including shooting him three times in the back.
333. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of these actions, LaVoy suffered deprivation of his constitutional rights, injury, harm, pain and suffering, and compensable economic loss.”

So he’s not dead?

He lives in the hearts of True Patriots!

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:16 am
by Dave from down under
His legend* will never die!


* like King Arthur’s - a fabrication

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:01 am
by RTH10260
Hasn't LaVoy already made himself a hero by writing that gun slinger epos?

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:50 am
by Gregg
Has he preformed the three miracles to be beautified?

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:55 am
by qbawl
Gregg wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:50 am Has he preformed the three miracles to be beautified?
There does seem to be evidence he appeared to Loomer during her recent defugilty.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 3:43 pm
by jcolvin2
Dave from down under wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:16 am
* like King Arthur’s - a fabrication
Instead of Excalibur, LaVoy had a .45 caliber.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:45 pm
by RVInit
Mr brolin wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:19 am Every time I see this pop up, my mind seems to automatically change the title to "Jarndyce v Jarndyce"...... :shrug: :whistle: :faint:
:lol: Thanks a lot. And now for me, too. :lol:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:59 am
by Phoenix520
Off Topic
Where on earth did I get the idea that Zinwhit is a woman? :confuzzled:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:02 pm
by Foggy

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:33 pm
by somerset
Foggy wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:02 pm
A classic. And still true today :thumbsup:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:29 pm
by poplove
Some updates including Motion to Dismiss. Apparently Mr Philpoot is super duper busy with other cases, or something, because he won't answer any phone calls or emails from the defendants.

191
Oct 28, 2021
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Titled "State Defendants' FRCP 12(b)(6) Motions Against Third Amended Complaint"). Oral Argument requested. Filed by Oregon State Police, Katherine Brown, State of Oregon. (Smith, James) (Entered: 10/28/2021)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .191.0.pdf

192
Oct 28, 2021
Declaration of James S. Smith in Support of FRCP 12(b)(6) Motions Against Third Amended Complaint. Filed by Katherine Brown, Oregon State Police, State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 191 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Smith, James) (Entered: 10/28/2021)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.2.pdf

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:07 pm
by scirreeve
Thanks Poppy - you are the best. I will read this stuff later but a quick look confirms what I though when Philpoot filed the 3rd complaint. He just recycled his old shit.
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (100.08 KiB) Viewed 1770 times

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:04 am
by scirreeve
LOL - I finally got around to reading this. Philpoot is missing as Poppy noted. Wonder if the widder didn't pay him.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:20 pm
by scirreeve
Hmm - filings today. Did case get dismissed? Can't tell for sure cuz no PACER.
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (13.94 KiB) Viewed 1663 times

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:10 am
by poplove
scirreeve wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:20 pm Hmm - filings today. Did case get dismissed? Can't tell for sure cuz no PACER.
Capture.JPG
I went and grabbed them and no, not dismissed yet.

193
Oct 29, 2021
Main Doc­ument Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .193.0.pdf

194
Oct 29, 2021
Main Doc­ument Declaration
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .194.0.pdf
Attach­ment 1 Attachment Exhibit 1
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .194.1.pdf
Attach­ment 2 Attachment Exhibit 2
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .194.2.pdf

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:19 am
by scirreeve
Thanks Poppy. I owe you some PACER bux. Sounds like no one can find Philpoot.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 pm
by northland10
The other interesting docs are from James Smith.
I, James S. Smith, declare under penalty of perjury:
1. I am a Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Oregon Department of Justice and make this declaration in support of the State Defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) Motions against the Third Amended Complaint.

2. Mindful of the LR 7-1 requirement that there be conferral before motion practice, I sent an email to plaintiffs’ counsel October 18, 2021. A copy of that email is attached as Exhibit 1.

3. Having received no response from counsel, I called his office and left a voicemail October 22, 2021, at about 3:30pm PDT. I heard nothing from counsel, and left another voicemail message October 26, 2021, at about 11:30am PDT.

4. Having received no response to my email or my phone messages, I sent counsel another email October 26, 2021. A copy of that email is attached as Exhibit 2. I received a response to this email from California attorney John Pierce, who indicated that he was adding his “associate” Ryan Marshall to “coordinate as necessary”, but heard nothing further from Mr. Philpot, Mr. Pierce or Mr. Marshall. Neither Mr. Pierce nor Mr. Marshall are attorneys of record
for plaintiffs in this case.
Pisspot listed Pierce as "Lead Counsel" and "PHF Admission Pending" on the TAC (third amended complaint) but I cannot find any petition for PHV on the docket nor have I seen an appearance. We all know Ryan Marshall is not admitted to practice law, anywhere.

Pisspot appears to be trying to get out of the case, but Pierce has not done his part to make that happen. Pee Pee (PHilpot and Pierce) appear to be doing nothing.

James Smith declaration (which I basically copied above.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.0.pdf

Attachment 1 - email to Pisspot to confer as per the court requirements.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.1.pdf

Attachment 2 - email to Pisspot. Executive summary: "Hello, is this thing on?"
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .192.2.pdf

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:24 pm
by poplove
Docket update: Ryan Marshall from Pierce Bainbridge officially asking to join in on the fun.

195 Nov 8, 2021 Main Doc­ument Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .195.0.pdf

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:31 pm
by northland10
To the attorneys, what is the rule on Provisionally Licensed attorneys and PHV? California shows him as Provisionally Licensed as of 2 Nov 2021, i.e. last week.

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:37 pm
by Flatpoint High
northland10 wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:31 pm To the attorneys, what is the rule on Provisionally Licensed attorneys and PHV? California shows him as Provisionally Licensed as of 2 Nov 2021, i.e. last week.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Sp ... ed-Lawyers:
In response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, in July 2020, the California Supreme Court directed the State Bar "to implement, as soon as possible, a temporary supervised provisional licensure program—a limited license to practice specified areas of law under the supervision of a licensed attorney." The State Bar convened the Provisional Licensure Working Group, led by Trustee Hailyn Chen, which crafted the draft rule and amendment. Both were circulated for public comment and approved by the Board of Trustees before being submitted to the California Supreme Court for final approval.