Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#76

Post by northland10 »

Reality Check wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:09 am
northland10 wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:43 pm :snippity:
Dennis Rasmussen, the attorney that was on some of the filings in the district court, has recently entered an appearance for the Constitution Association in this appeal.
I do not see anything new on the docket since December 10th on Court Listener. Was this on PACER?
It is from the 9th Circuit docket and appeals dockets are not on CourtListener.

As it happens, since the attorney made an appearance, all things have gone downhill for the appellants. As best as I can tell, Doug Gibbs and Dennis Jackson have been dismissed as appellants as they failed to include their signature on the NOA after a warning in December. The Constitution Association has a litany of deficiencies they have to fix. If they fail to fix that, Rombach will be the only appellant left.

This is what happens when Rombach ghosts writes for everybody but cannot fallow instructions.

For completeness, and so Bob can correct my IANAL errors...
11/29/2021 1
60 pg, 951.47 KB DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Constitution Association, Inc., Douglas V. Gibbs, Dennis R. Jackson and George F.X. Rombach opening brief due 01/25/2022. Appellee Kamala D. Harris answering brief due 02/24/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12299389] (JBS) [Entered: 11/29/2021 10:30 AM]

12/10/2021 2
3 pg, 141.48 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): A review of the record reflects that the November 26, 2021 notice of appeal was signed by one individual on behalf of the individual plaintiffs-appellants George F.X. Rombach, Douglas V. Gibbs, Dennis R. Jackson, and the corporate plaintiff-appellant Constitution Association, Inc. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2) (notice of appeal considered filed on behalf of the signer). Although the caption of the notice of appeal appears to list Dennis A. Rasmussen as counsel, no attorney has entered an appearance in the district court or this court on behalf of the individual plaintiffs-appellants or the corporation...If appellants fail to comply with this order, the appeal will be dismissed as to the non-complying appellants automatically by the Clerk under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the address for attorney Dennis A. Rasmussen listed on the California State Bar website: Law Office of Dennis Rasmussen, 40639 Rosalie Ave, Hemet, CA 92544. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [12312916] (JMR) [Entered: 12/10/2021 02:41 PM]

12/10/2021 3 A copy of 12/10/21 Order [2] was served on Dennis A. Rasmussen at Law Office of Dennis Rasmussen, 40639 Rosalie Ave, Hemet, CA 92544. [12312937] (JMR) [Entered: 12/10/2021 02:46 PM]

01/03/2022 4 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Dennis Alan Rasmussen (Dennis Rasmussen 40639 Rosalie Avenue, Hemet, CA 92544) for Appellant Constitution Association, Inc.. Date of service: 12/31/2021. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12329968] [21-56287] (Rasmussen, Dennis) [Entered: 01/03/2022 06:12 PM]

01/04/2022 5 Added Attorney(s) Dennis Rasmussen for party(s) Appellant Constitution Association, Inc., in case 21-56287. [12330064] (NAC) [Entered: 01/04/2022 07:24 AM]

01/25/2022 6 COURT DELETED INCORRECT ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [7]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellant George F.X. Rombach answer to Miscellaneous petition. Date of service: 01/21/2022. [12351364] [21-56287] (Rombach, George) [Entered: 01/25/2022 10:28 PM]

01/25/2022 7
18 pg, 827.5 KB Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George F.X. Rombach. Date of service: 01/25/2022. [12352001]--[COURT ENTERED FILING to replace entry [6].] (LA) [Entered: 01/26/2022 12:50 PM]

01/27/2022 8
2 pg, 127.04 KB Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): The opening brief for this appeal was due on January 25, 2022. On January 25, 2022, pro se appellant George F.X. Rombach electronically filed a “petition in appeal.” The January 25, 2022 submission is electronically signed by pro se appellant George F.X. Rombach on behalf of himself, and by attorney Dennis A. Rasmussen as attorney for appellant Constitution Association, Inc. The January 25, 2022 submission appears to be intended as the opening brief for this appeal. The Clerk will file the January 25, 2022 submission (Docket Entry No. [7] ) on the docket as the opening brief for pro se appellant George F.X. Rombach only. Although signed by counsel for Constitution Association, Inc., the brief does not comply with the court’s rules for a brief submitted by counsel. The Clerk will not file the January 25, 2022 submission as the opening brief for Constitution Association, Inc. The court will issue a separate brief deficiency notice directing counsel for Constitution Association, Inc., to correct the deficiencies in the brief. A review of the record reflects that pro se appellants Douglas V. Gibbs and Dennis R. Jackson have not complied with the court’s December 10, 2021 order directing them to file a signed copy of the notice of appeal in the district court, and did not sign the January 25, 2022 submission in this court. The December 10, 2021 order warned that the appeal would be dismissed as to the non-complying appellants automatically by the Clerk under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Accordingly, appellants Douglas V. Gibbs and Dennis R. Jackson are dismissed as appellants for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk will update the docket to reflect that Douglas V. Gibbs and Dennis R. Jackson are plaintiffs only, and not appellants in this appeal. The briefing schedule will be reset by separate order after appellant Constitution Association, Inc. complies with the brief deficiency notice. [12353750] (RT) [Entered: 01/27/2022 03:50 PM]

01/27/2022 9
3 pg, 132.88 KB Filed clerk order:The opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. [7] will not be filed as the opening brief for appellant Constitution Association, Inc. due to the following deficiencies:
• The brief is missing a corporate disclosure statement, which is required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(a).
• The brief is missing a jurisdictional statement, under the appropriate heading, which is required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4) and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.2.
• The brief is missing a statement of issues, under the appropriate heading, which is required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(5).
• The brief is missing a statement of the case and facts, under the appropriate heading, which is required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).
• The brief is missing citations to excerpts of record, which are required by Ninth Circuit Rules 28-2.8 and 30-1.6.
• The brief was not accompanied by excerpts of record, which are required by Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.2(a).
• The brief’s cover is missing an accurate title and counsel’s office and telephone number, which are required by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(2).
• The brief’s right-side margin is smaller than the size required by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(4).
• The brief’s font is smaller than the size required by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5).
Within 7 days of this order, counsel for appellant Constitution Association, Inc. shall submit a new brief and excerpts of record curing the deficiencies.
If counsel for appellant Constitution Association, Inc. fails to submit a timely opening brief and excerpts of record that comply with court rules, Constitution Association, Inc. will be dismissed as an appellant for failure to prosecute pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. [12353764] (LA) [Entered: 01/27/2022 03:56 PM]

01/27/2022 10
2 pg, 96 KB Filed clerk order: The opening brief [7] submitted by George F.X. Rombach is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [12353781] (LA) [Entered: 01/27/2022 04:01 PM]

01/27/2022 11 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Answering Brief by Appellee Kamala D. Harris. New requested due date is 03/28/2022. [12353940] [21-56287] (Norris, Brett) [Entered: 01/27/2022 05:49 PM]

01/31/2022 12 Streamlined request [11] by Appellee Kamala D. Harris to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellee Kamala D. Harris answering brief due 03/28/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12356604] (JN) [Entered: 01/31/2022 05:24 PM]

02/03/2022 13
132 pg, 1.29 MB Filed (ECF) Appellant George F.X. Rombach answer to Miscellaneous petition. Date of service: 02/03/2022. [12360631] [21-56287] (Rombach, George) [Entered: 02/03/2022 10:10 PM]
The "answer to Miscellaneous petition" is titled "amended opening brief." I may upload it somewhere eventually but it is too large for here (132 pages).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#77

Post by northland10 »

I figured out why the "amended opening brief" was so long. It is actually up to 7 copies of the opening brief. Remember that line about him needing to file paper copies of the same brief he originally filed? While this amended one was "signed" by the attorney for the Constitution Association only (I did not look closely but it may have taken care of issues) it looks like it tried to take care of the paper copy rule by just including the brief multiple times in the PDF.

:bangwall:

With that in mind, I removed all the duplicate copies in the PDF and shrank it to fit.
Appeal Petition 9th Circuit Con Assoc.pdf
(444.63 KiB) Downloaded 65 times
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#78

Post by Foggy »

Oh, c'mon, that's genius! Nobody at the court would ever figure out that you can print one PDF a bunch of times! Print it once, and break it out into 7 separate copies, that's what! :lol:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
chancery
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#79

Post by chancery »

noblepa wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 2:10 pm Doesn't an attorney risk court sanctions by doing so? For that matter, does an attorney have a legal or ethical responsibility to filter out the nonsense that a litigant may ask him/her to submit?
In addition to what Foggy & bob wrote here https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 172#p81172 and here https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 180#p81180:

Yes, an attorney does have such an obligation. However, sanctions are rare, for reasons both good and bad. Also, while there are other factors, the likelihood of sanctions is generally proportional to the amount of effort and aggravation resulting from a lawyer's bad conduct.

This doomed pipsqueak appeal isn't going to make anyone at the court break a sweat, which greatly reduces the already low risk of sanctions, even though no self-respecting minimally competent attorney would dream of signing the forthcoming drek.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#80

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:28 pmWith that in mind, I removed all the duplicate copies in the PDF and shrank it to fit.
Thanks for posting that! :towel:

I'll take the over on the boys ghostwriting it and the attorney just signing it.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#81

Post by Luke »

That document is awful. Thank you for posting it Northland! The only cool thing is the references to failed birfer cases like Orly's failed case Grinols. When it comes to the meat of the two-parent citizen nonsense, the "facts" are so weak folks would send the coffee back. All in all, an enormous #FAIL. Which is what birfers do.

However, I'd feel better if Realist read it over and agreed... there still was a bit of PANIC and made sure the batteries in the GO BAG were still holding a charge (battery test meters are good to have). :P
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#82

Post by realist »

orlylicious wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:03 pm That document is awful. Thank you for posting it Northland! The only cool thing is the references to failed birfer cases like Orly's failed case Grinols. When it comes to the meat of the two-parent citizen nonsense, the "facts" are so weak folks would send the coffee back. All in all, an enormous #FAIL. Which is what birfers do.

However, I'd feel better if Realist read it over and agreed... there still was a bit of PANIC and made sure the batteries in the GO BAG were still holding a charge (battery test meters are good to have). :P
Just gave it a quick read. I agree, no need to . :panic: :thumbsup:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#83

Post by Jim »

realist wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:14 pm
orlylicious wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:03 pm That document is awful. Thank you for posting it Northland! The only cool thing is the references to failed birfer cases like Orly's failed case Grinols. When it comes to the meat of the two-parent citizen nonsense, the "facts" are so weak folks would send the coffee back. All in all, an enormous #FAIL. Which is what birfers do.

However, I'd feel better if Realist read it over and agreed... there still was a bit of PANIC and made sure the batteries in the GO BAG were still holding a charge (battery test meters are good to have). :P
Just gave it a quick read. I agree, no need to . :panic: :thumbsup:
Ditto, just telling the court that they are wrong and you are right is not going very far IMO.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#84

Post by northland10 »

For completeness, here is the "Petition in appeal" that was originally filed. It is "signed" by both Rombach and the attorney for the Constitutional Association. This one was accepted as to Rombach but for the Constitution Association, there were many deficiencies that may have been corrected by the later one. I am not sure if both are considered briefs or not (though I should note the 9th Circuit has not accepted the latest one as filed, yet).

I have not read either one and though, at a glance, much of it is the same, some parts are different. I would think they may have included some of the deficiencies pointed out by the clerk but who knows. It looks like the whole mess about service is not in the more recent one.

For your reading displeasure.
Initial Rombach Petition 9th.pdf
(436.08 KiB) Downloaded 45 times
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#85

Post by bob »

From Rombach's "petition":
Defendant / Appellee has not yet answered any of the merits of this action, pled, defended or otherwise responded in any way to the Verified Complaint on file in this action for her personally committing an unconstitutional action of running for the office of Vice President of the United States of America for which Plaintiffs allege she is not eligible to hold. She is in total Default!
How Taitzian.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#86

Post by northland10 »

The birthers have still not discovered that default, or total default, or super-duper default with Unicorn sprinkles, will not mean the defendant loses automatically. IANAL, but my understanding is they lose the ability to defend themselves in court. In cases that are dependent on a trier of fact (pardon if I used the term wrong), such as contract dispute, the defense would not be able to present their arguments and could very likely lose. In cases dependent mainly on the interpretation of law since the facts are not in dispute (nobody is disputing Harris's circumstances) the only thing that the defendant loses is the ability to argue their interpretation of the law. As we have seen, the defendant is seldom needed to help the judge in birther cases.

Default does not mean your legal argument wins. The law is the law, whether the defendant answers or not.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#87

Post by bob »

Even when default has been entered, the plaintiffs must prove their case.

Which includes proving jurisdiction, so the only issue before the 9th is whether the plaintiffs had sufficient standing as to invoke the federal district court's jurisdiction (hint: no, they did not).

But the parts about Harris not answering, or the DOJ not being a party to this case, were trimmed from the "brief" signed by the attorney. Which suggests the attorney did look it over and remove some of the really ridiculous stuff.

Which also suggests the "petition in appeal" was drafted by Rombach.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#88

Post by Reality Check »

IIRC there is nothing on the record to show that the CA, Morons Inc. ever actually served the defendant properly. The US filed an ex parte motion and never conceded on the service point. The lower court Trump appointed judge dismissed the bucket of fail without ever ruling on whether the complaint was properly served. Wouldn't the Ninth just punt it on this point alone?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#89

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:37 pm IIRC there is nothing on the record to show that the CA, Morons Inc. ever actually served the defendant properly. The US filed an ex parte motion and never conceded on the service point. The lower court Trump appointed judge dismissed the bucket of fail without ever ruling on whether the complaint was properly served.
Yeah: They threw a certified letter at the White House, and claimed that was valid service (on Harris personally). And then got peeved when the US DOJ showed up to argue against their case.

The district court ultimately didn't take the bait; it just dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no standing).

Wouldn't the Ninth just punt it on this point alone?
Yes: The first question is jurisdiction; if there was no jurisdiction, there was no case. The 9th will ignore the service issues.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#90

Post by Luke »

realist wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:14 pm
orlylicious wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:03 pm That document is awful. Thank you for posting it Northland! The only cool thing is the references to failed birfer cases like Orly's failed case Grinols. When it comes to the meat of the two-parent citizen nonsense, the "facts" are so weak folks would send the coffee back. All in all, an enormous #FAIL. Which is what birfers do.

However, I'd feel better if Realist read it over and agreed... there still was a bit of PANIC and made sure the batteries in the GO BAG were still holding a charge (battery test meters are good to have). :P
Just gave it a quick read. I agree, no need to . :panic: :thumbsup:
Whew, Thank you, Realist! My heart rate dropped, put the GO BAG back in the closet, got out from under the bed (it's hard to type there) and my poor teddy bear got a break from being held so tightly. We made it through another possible crisis and disaster.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#91

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:52 pm :snippity:
Wouldn't the Ninth just punt it on this point alone?
Yes: The first question is jurisdiction; if there was no jurisdiction, there was no case. The 9th will ignore the service issues.
I figured that was the answer. I think the district court punted on the service issue. That is the judge's prerogative of course. I guess he figured that was the easiest way to dispose of an obviously frivolous case. He knew the case was going nowhere due to lack of jurisdiction so better to kick it on that than to drag things out with a back and forth on service.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#92

Post by noblepa »

northland10 wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:25 pm The birthers have still not discovered that default, or total default, or super-duper default with Unicorn sprinkles, will not mean the defendant loses automatically. IANAL, but my understanding is they lose the ability to defend themselves in court. In cases that are dependent on a trier of fact (pardon if I used the term wrong), such as contract dispute, the defense would not be able to present their arguments and could very likely lose. In cases dependent mainly on the interpretation of law since the facts are not in dispute (nobody is disputing Harris's circumstances) the only thing that the defendant loses is the ability to argue their interpretation of the law. As we have seen, the defendant is seldom needed to help the judge in birther cases.

Default does not mean your legal argument wins. The law is the law, whether the defendant answers or not.
Wasn't that what happened when Orly Taitz lost to the empty chair? She sued Obama and no one showed up for the defense. She thought that she had a slam dunk, but the judge ruled against her anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#93

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 5:17 pmI think the district court punted on the service issue. That is the judge's prerogative of course. I guess he figured that was the easiest way to dispose of an obviously frivolous case. He knew the case was going nowhere due to lack of jurisdiction so better to kick it on that than to drag things out with a back and forth on service.
Yeah, except it really wasn't the district court's prerogative: If the court came to the conclusion it lacked jurisdiction, then it had no choice but to dismiss (for lack of jurisdiction).

Having said that, I could see a judge being willfully ignorant about jurisdiction until the service issues were resolved.

* * *
noblepa wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 5:36 pmWasn't that what happened when Orly Taitz lost to the empty chair? She sued Obama and no one showed up for the defense. She thought that she had a slam dunk, but the judge ruled against her anyway.
Sorta?

The Georgia ballot challenge was a mess; it is hard to say exactly what everyone was thinking. According to birther lore, the judge offered to rule against Obama, but Taitz, etc., wanted an evidentiary hearing to prove up their cases. Which actually was a smart thing to do :shock: , which is why I don't believe it was Taitz, etc., who saw the need for the plaintiffs to prove up their cases. And, as you noted, the prove-up went poorly for the plaintiffs.

It would have been interesting indeed if the Georgia judge had tried to remove Obama from the ballot simply for having the temerity of not deigning to dignify that circus.

And most people forget how that saga actually ended: The plaintiffs appealed, and the reviewing court dismissed the appeal because the first judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain challenges to a presidential candidate's eligibility. The whole circus never should have happened.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#94

Post by northland10 »

Not that we have much room to complain about the administrative judge having the circus. It proved to be grand entertainment for us all and even had an in-person meetup of some folks like the Doc and Foggy, IIRC.

I wonder if Orly is still trying to push all those DVDs of her historic event.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#95

Post by Foggy »

Yeah, except I was still sick as a dog from the Guillain-Barré disease I had in October 2011. I made it to the courthouse late and ended up in the overflow room. I made it through lunch with the Obots afterward, and then I went to my hotel room and slept about 14 hours and missed dinner with the group that night. :doh:

Worth it, though. I'd do it all again tomorrow (except for the Guillain-Barré part). I was on the Tee Vee in Atlanta, Georgia that night on the evening news, telling the world that just having a trial like that was an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.

I never did find a way to save that video. :(
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#96

Post by bob »

The Justia docket hasn't been undated since January, so I don't know if the plaintiffs (other than Rombach) actually filed an opening brief.

But the veep's response (to Rombach's brief) presently is due March 28. (The boys are going to pissed when no one cares that the DOJ is representing her.)
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#97

Post by Luke »

Gosh, when this topic pops up Realist and I have a visceral reaction. Will this be IT? Will this be PANIC and GOBAG time? Is "any day now" NOW?

Whew, we have until March 28. Thanks for the update. Realist, carry on.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#98

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:03 pm The Justia docket hasn't been undated since January, so I don't know if the plaintiffs (other than Rombach) actually filed an opening brief.

But the veep's response (to Rombach's brief) presently is due March 28. (The boys are going to pissed when no one cares that the DOJ is representing her.)
Is this a hint that somebody is slacking or forgot about the case?

Oh, okay.

Docket number 13, I think that was the one with all the extra copies was deleted. 14 is the correct entry.
02/03/2022 14 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Constitution Association, Inc.. Date of service: 02/09/2022. [12365513] [21-56287]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF, updated docket text to correct brief type, backdated entry to original submission date. 02/10/2022 by LA] (Rasmussen, Dennis) [Entered: 02/09/2022 03:03 PM]

02/09/2022 15 Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Constitution Association, Inc.. Date of service: 02/08/2022. [12365519] [21-56287]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected excerpts. 02/10/2022 by LA] (Rasmussen, Dennis) [Entered: 02/09/2022 03:06 PM]

2/10/2022 16 Filed clerk order: The opening brief [14] submitted by Constitution Association, Inc. is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: blue. The excerpts of record [15] submitted by Constitution Association, Inc. are filed. Within 7 days of this order, filer is ordered to file 3 copies of the excerpts in paper format securely bound on the left side, with white covers. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [12366630] (LA) [Entered: 02/10/2022 02:04 PM]

02/25/2022 17 Received 3 paper copies of excerpts of record [15] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellant Constitution Association, Inc. [12380023] (LA) [Entered: 02/25/2022 10:42 AM]

02/25/2022 18 Received 6 paper copies of Opening Brief [14] filed by Constitution Association, Inc.. [12380714] (SD) [Entered: 02/25/2022 03:48 PM]
Opening Amended Brief from Constitution Association
Amended Constitution Assoc Brief.pdf
(353.62 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#99

Post by Reality Check »

They are already complaining that the USA cannot represent Harris in their brief that I am not sure it has ever been docketed. I think it has but as pro se filing because their attorney totally fluxed up his filings.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#100

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:28 pmIs this a hint that somebody is slacking or forgot about the case?
:batting:
Oh, okay.
:notworthy:

* * *
Reality Check wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:52 pm I think it has but as pro se filing because their attorney totally fluxed up his filings.
The association's attorney /s/'ed the amended brief in the above ( :dance: ) link. So I think the association is set for now. (Nobody cares about the other, me-too pro se appellants.)

The feds can just respond, or move for summary affirmance, which is basically trying to fast-track the inevitable dismissal. Given the abysmal briefing, I wouldn't be surprised if summary affirmance was granted. Especially because the primary argument is Grinols was wrongly decided. :roll:
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”