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
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#51

Post by bob »

"For completeness," their 9th Cir. case number is 21-56287.

PACER monitor link for the 9th's docket.
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

#52

Post by Reality Check »

I bought the latest documents on the appeal on PACER:
16086981-0--32357.pdf
Scheduling order
(125.11 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
16125507-0--30454.pdf
Order requiring an attorney to enter an appearance representing the Constitution Association, Inc.
(149.7 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
Opening brief due 1/25/2022
Reply due 2/24/2022

Appellants have 21 days to have an attorney file notice of appearance for CA, Inc. Else each individual will have to sign a notice of appeal in the district court and CA, Inc. will be dropped. That's how I read the order.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#53

Post by bob »

Thanks for getting these. I had seen their availability, and they're as I expected.

The Constitution Association must be represented by counsel.

I noticed the boys in the district court had added an attorney's name to some of their later filings, but the attorney didn't sign anything or make an appearance. So we'll see if this attorney will actually do something besides lending his s name out.

My WAG is the boys will drop association, personally sign NOAs, and proceed pro per.
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

#54

Post by Luke »

Thanks, RC!

But gosh, those powerful papers look so official... how PANICKED should Realist and I be?

Between this and Laity's "Big 'PLAN B'", Kamala Harris must be terribly worried. At least, thank goodness, Sharon Rondeau hasn't published stories about this to her millions of readers at the Post and Email, that would be a total 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
notorial dissent
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:36 pm

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

#55

Post by notorial dissent »

Well, yes, total disaster, but the question is for whom???? It's always nice seeing the CAI boys self-sanctioning again, and again, and again. The line about insanity comes to mind.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#56

Post by bob »

Gibbs' blog: Publius:
The use of Publius as a pseudonym was likely used to hide the writers' connections to the Constitutional Convention, as well as to hide their identities from the British since such writings were considered to be high treason against the British Empire.
The first Federalist Paper was published in 1787. The Treaty of Paris, which acknowledged the United States' existence as a sovereign nation, went into effect in 1784.

:brickwallsmall:
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

#57

Post by northland10 »

Amazing how many things somebody can get wrong in such a short statement.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
notorial dissent
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:36 pm

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

#58

Post by notorial dissent »

northland10 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:37 pm Amazing how many things somebody can get wrong in such a short statement.
Fractally wrong you say????
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

#59

Post by Luke »

:lol: They are working to perfect STERNSIG! Remember they had the benefit of decedent attorney Orly Taitz' counsel.
The Sternsig rule: When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz et al will find an infinite number of ways to do so.
Not sure which to PANIC over more -- this brilliant appeal, or Rev Dr Laity Esq's "BIG 'PLAN B'" with all the letters and congresspeople he says he has onboard. We're keeping our OBOT GO BAGS ready just in case. The batteries in the bags expired, it's been so long, we're replacing them along with the survival seeds and freeze-dried MREs. Lin Wood said since 2020 to have those ready.
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
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

#60

Post by Foggy »

OMG, the batteries! :shock:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#61

Post by bob »

Gibbs' blog: Publius:
The use of Publius as a pseudonym was likely used to hide the writers' connections to the Constitutional Convention, as well as to hide their identities from the British since such writings were considered to be high treason against the British Empire.
The first Federalist Paper was published in 1787. The Treaty of Paris, which acknowledged the United States' existence as a sovereign nation, went into effect in 1784.
And:
Gibbs wrote:[It] was still considered high treason. Britain didn't recognize the United States as an independent sovereign country until after the War of 1812. In fact, when they lit the White House on fire and Madison was whisked away it was because if he was caught he would have been hanged as a traitor against the British Empire saw him as claiming to be the leader of a country that was illegally in existence since from the British point of view we were still a cluster of petulant English Colonies.
The Treaty of Paris of 1783:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
:brickwallsmall:

Dude just can't admit he's wrong, ever.
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

#62

Post by northland10 »

This reminds me of some birther I debated years ago. They just make stuff up and use the reasoning "common sense" (i.e. "it makes to me"). Just ignore that one of the folks involved in writing the Declaration of Independence (and whose signature is on the document) and was on the delegation to the Treaty of Paris negotiation was the first minister to Great Britain in 1785. John Adams lived in London (I think or at least somewhere in England) and even had an audience with King George. Thomas Jefferson also visited Adams in England. Neither of them were scooped up, ever.

Gibbs is an idiot.
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

#63

Post by Reality Check »

Yeah but he teaches the Constitution. :rotflmao:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#64

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:47 pmGibbs is an idiot.
Meanwhile:
Gibbs [citations omitted] wrote:You are partially correct. [ :o ] Yes, in the language of the 1783 Treaty of Paris a recognition of sovereignty was indicated, and Britain signed that document. But, despite that document the government did not recognize U.S. Sovereignty in the same way the other countries did, still considering the States to be petulant colonies who were in insurrection. If you read the story of when the Library of Congress and White House were burned in the War of 1812 Madison was ushered away due to the threat of being hanged as a traitor to the empire. One of the main causes behind the War of 1812 was British encroachments against American Sovereignty which included a refusal to surrender western forts as promised in the treaty because Britain saw no sovereignty in the first place. "The impressment or forcible seizure of American seamen by the British Royal Navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries has traditionally been viewed as a primary cause of the War of 1812. Americans at that time regarded impressment as a deliberate and dastardly act perpetrated by a foreign power against innocent men." . . . The impressment was done because as far as Britain was concern it was still their right to do so because Americans were still British subjects because they overall rejected American Sovereignty. They viewed American sailors as being British deserters. "To the British, a person born in the British Empire was a subject of that empire for life, a status they could not change." . . . The actions by Britain were clearly a "denial of American sovereignty" . . . .
Dude still can't admit he was wrong: he's confusing not respecting American sovereignty with not recognizing it.

All to protect his original lie that the Federalist Papers were published anonymously because they feared reprisal from Britain.
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

#65

Post by northland10 »

Oh, so if an invading army during a time of declared war invades the seat of government, you are supposed to leave the head of state in that city and not usher him away because of an invading army? If it was France invading, we would have left Madison in DC?

Gibbs is still an idiot.

While he is correct Britain was impressing our citizens on the high seas, it was not about our sovereignty but about how they viewed natural-born subjects. They viewed, at least through the time Seward was Secretary of State (based on his documents) that you could not toss off being a natural-born subject of the crown even if you naturalized in another country (or that other country separated thus making you a citizen of that new country). Since they needed more bodies in their navy to fight their many wars, they decided they could grab "former" subjects outside of US jurisdiction. They stopped impressment after Napoleon was defeated because they needed fewer sailors.

I would need to check, but I think officially, they probably were not allowed to impress sailors who were born after the Treaty of Paris as those sailors were never natural-born subjects of the crown. How diligent their navy was in following this? I suspect not very.

Like most birthers, Gibbs is only interested in things that support his already based conclusion and skims over anything else. This is how you make holes as he skips the actual facts and fills in the many gaps with his opinion.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#66

Post by bob »

:yeahthat:

All for the dumb point that the Federalist Papers were published anonymously because its authors feared Britain. :roll:

The more mundane reason was that pseudonyms were in vogue then, as the thinking class believed they removed ad hominem attacks and encouraged readers to focus on the substance.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#67

Post by bob »

Dude can't stop being wrong:
Gibbs wrote:There's an old saying. "Actions speak louder than words." While on the surface Britain made it look like they accepted our sovereignty, i.e. accepting the terms of the 1783 Treaty, and accepting John Adams as the first “United States Minister to the Court of St. James’s,” thereby establishing diplomatic relations on June 1, 1785; the reality was that we had committed three great sins against the British that in the beginning was not acceptable, and our very existence outside the British Empire was considered high treason by the monarchy as a result. 1. We dared to proclaim independence and commit insurrection (in their minds) to achieve it. As stated earlier, the belief was that to be subject to British rule was something that lasted a lifetime. It wasn't something you legally end simply because you want to, or declare independence. 2. We separated our monetary system from them. Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution established that Congress had the job of coining our money, and our unwillingness to play ball in the larger banking scheme of things was among the reasons for the American Revolution. Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton was quick to temporarily change that separation through the creation of the Bank of the United States, which damaged our economy, caused massive inflation, and placed wealth into the hands of a very few. Once the charter expired in 1811 the sin of going it on our own monetarily was so egregious to the British and the European Bankers (largely controlled at that time by London) that some argue the War of 1812 was ordered largely due to the unwillingness of the Americans to renew the charter of the First Bank of the United States. 3. We separated from the international legal system. The international bar association became an illegal membership for our own lawyers and judges with the passage of the original 13th Amendment, of which, when it came to timing, interestingly had a creation date that coincided with the demise of the Bank of the United States. While the original records were burned up when the British burned the White House and surrounding government buildings a couple years later (including the Library of Congress) evidence has emerged showing that Virginia likely became the final ratification vote in 1811. An 1819 document sought to reestablish that ratification vote because of the reality of the original documents being destroyed. Numerous publications between 1820 and 1860 show the original Thirteenth Amendment (a friend of mine has one of those books, I have an image of the pages revealing that fact if you care to see it). Also, various papers from State Houses reveal the existence of that Constitutional Amendment that later was largely erased from existence by the legal institution and bankers of the time. The British saw the members of the United States not only as petulant insurrectionists that had won the favor of many of their enemies but also as a protectionist entity that dared not to play ball on the world stage the way they would be expected to. Therefore, U.S. Sovereignty was not respected and U.S. Sovereignty, even though Britain signed a treaty saying they accepted it, was not recognized in truth. That is a reality in history. Often the tyrants say one thing but act in the opposite manner. Tyranny lies, they use deception. They don't usually mean what they say.
:yawn: :yankyank: :callonme:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#68

Post by bob »

OMG!:
[some jerk*] wrote:Nations routinely show disrespect for each other's sovereignty. You continue to confuse not respect with not recognize.

All of which just to justify your notion that the authors of the Federalist Papers used a pseudonym because they feared being labeled as traitors. When the more mundane reason is that pseudonyms were in vogue then, as the learned class believed they discouraged ad hominem attacks. The proponents of the U.S. Constitution want[ed] the debate to be about the U.S. Constitution, and not its authors.
Gibbs wrote:I can't count how many sources I have read that basically say, "After the Revolutionary War, Britain continued to see the United States as nothing more than petulant rebellious colonies. Even though Britain signed a treaty to end the war, the monarchy and British parliamentary leadership felt that the new country would not survive long and when it fell apart, Britain would simply reclaim as many colonies as it could and hang those they believed to have been party to what they considered to be high treason. This attitude led in part to the later War of 1812, and was largely not extinguished until after the end of that war." I have thousands of books, many of them more than a century old, and the recurring theme in the books that point to that particular moment in history is that while technically on paper the British said they recognized our sovereignty, they actually did not; and when the White House was lighted ablaze they rushed President Madison away worried that if captured he would be hanged for high treason against the British Empire for being the leader of what Britain considered (though, perhaps, not on paper) an illegitimate government that existed due to insurrection against the empire. The funny thing is that narrative is stated less and less as we get further away from that moment in history in my books. But, based on my research and a lifetime of reading about American History, the reality is that despite the official paperwork saying they recognized our sovereignty, the truth is, in reality, they did not. The Framers were fully aware of this truth, and though you are partially correct in much of what you say about the idea that pseudonyms were in vogue, and they did wish to discourage ad hominem attacks since two of them were directly involved in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and they did in fact wish that the conversation was more directed at the Constitution rather than at who they were, the reality of, and the emergence of the use of, pseudonyms in the first place during that time period, was also largely because there were worries about the attitude of the British in the sense of loyalty to The Crown. As Ben Franklin said when they got the whole independence thing officially launched with the Declaration of Independence, if we don't hang together we will surely hang separately. For example, in today's political arena there is no official designation of the current administration in Washington today as being illegitimate or the result of an unlawful administrative and electoral coup, but there is a huge contingency that believes that to be true. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the January 6 Trump Supporters were a bunch of insurrectionists, and there is evidence up the wazoo showing that it was a false flag staged Reichstag-style operation, but there are also a lot of people who believe it was indeed an "insurrectionist riot" by a bunch of "crazy right-wing white supremacist Trump supporters." For some people, that is a reality in history. From my studies, from my point of view regarding those actions taken that were clearly tied to the fact that Britain did not respect America's claim to sovereignty, and from the historical perspective of a long list of writers going all the way back to that time period (unfortunately, most of my books are at my other home right now as we are in the process of possibly moving our primary base of operations to that location) the British Empire's inner-circle still believed that the "colonists" were in a state of high-treason and despite pressure by other countries who saw things otherwise, the British did not respect nor recognize America's sovereignty and from their point of view through the War of 1812 they were going to take back those petulant colonies as soon as their silly little experiment put them into a position of begging to take back their place as subjects to the empire.
:yankyank:

* :whistle:
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

#69

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:57 pm Thanks for getting these. I had seen their availability, and they're as I expected.

The Constitution Association must be represented by counsel.

I noticed the boys in the district court had added an attorney's name to some of their later filings, but the attorney didn't sign anything or make an appearance. So we'll see if this attorney will actually do something besides lending his s name out.

My WAG is the boys will drop association, personally sign NOAs, and proceed pro per.
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.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#70

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:43 pmDennis 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.
Thanks!

It'll be "interesting" to read their opening brief. I'll take the over on the boys' ghostwriting it and the "attorney of record" signing it.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#71

Post by bob »


:shock: :nope: :talktothehand:
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

#72

Post by Reality Check »

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?
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

#73

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:53 pm
northland10 wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:43 pmDennis 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.
Thanks!

It'll be "interesting" to read their opening brief. I'll take the over on the boys' ghostwriting it and the "attorney of record" signing it.
Just getting caught up on this thread, so please forgive the late response.

I don't doubt your prediction that "the boys" will write the opening brief and ask the attorney to file it, but isn't that somewhat of a risk for the attorney? Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard, but licensed attornies are expected to refrain from frivolous court submissions.

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?

Can an attorney simply say "I don't believe this BS, either, but the client made me do it. I'm just here because the court ordered that the litigant have an attorney."?
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

#74

Post by Foggy »

You're asking about a very wide range of behavior that could trigger a very wide range of responses.

Let's just say, good attorneys don't ghost-write briefs for deranged conspiracy loons, and those who do, I suspect, are more likely to be caught.

For example, during the birther movement, when there were 230 lawsuits to remove the scary scary black man, it turned out in a shocking number of instances that the document properties in a PDF file revealed "hidden" authorship or other information that the people submitting them to the courts did NOT want revealed.

All of us saw that, and learned our lesson (hopefully) not to expose unwanted information in the meta properties of a document, not ever again. But the birthers made the same mistake repeatedly, and these are birthers. :shrug:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#75

Post by bob »

When it comes to ghostwriting, usually it is the other way around: an attorney ghostwrites a brief signed by the client. Which is the "best" of both worlds (for everyone except the courts and the opposing parties): the pro se parties get the benefit of not being represented while the attorneys face almost no risk for doing so.

An attorney signing a brief ghostwritten by the clients, however, is a really bad, unethical ideer, for many of the reasons Foogy articulated.

And I don't know what this attorney will do. But if you are a real estate attorney signing onto this mess, I suspect the attorney is a fellow traveler. Because the attorney always could have said no. And I doubt the boys have sufficient money to hire a competent attorney. Too (also): the boys are insufferable know-it-alls.
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”