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

[Reality Check]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) lets you, as one permitted method of service, follow "state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of ... the state where the district court is located or where service is made." California state court, IIRC, permits service on an out-of-state defendant by certified mail. So he may not have been as fractally wrong on that issue as he was on others.

IANAL but I do not believe 4(e)(1) provides an exception to rule 4(i) "Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees". 4(e) seems to be a general rule for service upon individuals. If 4(e) was an exception to 4(i) then there would be no reason to have a separate rule for service upon federal employees. At least that is the way I read Rule 4.

[Dr. Caligari]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) lets you, as one permitted method of service, follow "state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of ... the state where the district court is located or where service is made." California state court, IIRC, permits service on an out-of-state defendant by certified mail. So he may not have been as fractally wrong on that issue as he was on others.

IANAL but I do not believe 4(e)(1) provides an exception to rule 4(i) "Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees". 4(e) seems to be a general rule for service upon individuals. If 4(e) was an exception to 4(i) then there would be no reason to have a separate rule for service upon federal employees. At least that is the way I read Rule 4.

You're right. I was responding to the comment that, even if Harris was a private citizen, she wasn't properly served.

[Reality Check]

You're right. I was responding to the comment that, even if Harris was a private citizen, she wasn't properly served.

Thanks, I didn't read all the way back in the discussion. I believe in one of the district court filings Rombach explained why he mailed the service documents to the White House. I will look it up if a get a chance.

Edit: The correct mailing address for the Office of the Vice President is the White House at least according to this site:
https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/Contact ... /President

What is interesting is that the initial complaint was filed on December 7, 2020 and the court issued a summons the same day. However according to the Affidavit of Service which was filed on April 15, 2021 the service was not mailed until February 26, 2021. The USPS tracking document shows it was received on March 9, 2021. It was mailed to "The Office of the Vice President" at the White House yet Rombach claims the Vice President is not a federal officer BTW.

VP Harris as a federal officer should have had 60 days to respond but Rombach of course claimed she is not a federal officer so he assumed after 21 days he could file for a default. On April 26, 2021 Rombach filed a motion for default with the shipping clerk (I believe the title is very appropriate in this case). On the very same day the shipping clerk (through an assistant shipping clerk) entered a default. On May 12, 2021 the local US Attorney filed an ex parte motion to set aside the default since Rombach had never filed proper service on the Vice President.

We all know how it played out from there.

[Reality Check]

I checked the docket over the weekend. No additional filings since Rombach's reply. I suspect there will be no oral argument and it will be decided dismissed on the papers. What say you bob, et. al.?

[bob]

I suspect there will be no oral argument and it will be decided dismissed on the papers. What say you bob, et. al.?

Yes: The question only is when, and not if. This is a low-priority case (non-criminal, non-immigration), so it'll sit in the stack for a while.

It will most likely get screened, i.e., go to an oral-screening panel. Meaning one day a memdispo ("memorandum disposition") will announce a 3-0 affirmance (that occurred without notice and without oral argument). This is the likely path because Rombach is representing himself. (There is a sekrit screening, in which the 9th will seek to attach counsel to worthy cases with an unrepresented party. So Rombach's remaining unrepresented is a tell, and not a good one for him,)

It is possible (but very, very doubtful) the case will get sent to an argument calendar. But the argument panel can (and, in this case, would) just order the case submitted on the briefs without argument. And affirm in an unpublished opinion. IIRC, Grinols went this path, but the plaintiffs there were represented by an attorney (technically; it was Taitz). The association is nominally represented by an attorney, but I don't think that will be enough to save this case from a memdispo.

Regardless, the result is the same. It is just inside baseball and timing on the different paths to the same conclusion.

[Reality Check]

Regardless, the result is the same. It is just inside baseball and timing on the different paths to the same conclusion.

Thanks bob. The details are quite helpful.

[Reality Check]

I just checked PACER. There is nothing new on the Ninth Circuit docket since April 29th.

[Reality Check]

Has anyone checked the Ninth Circuit docket on the appeal lately? I will have to re-educate myself on how to do that on PACER.

[Luke]

Dang! Thought this topic coming up meant the beginning of the BIRTHER RENAISSANCE™ starting with VICTORY and the MARCHING OF FROGS!

But with still no conclusion, THERE'S STILL HOPE! It sucks that Rharon has shrouded this incredible, historic case at P&E, this could have been a multi-part series with tons of views and comments. I mean, it has CONSTITUTION right in the title! Would say she's slipping, but she did feature that BREAKING NEWS story, "How Come You Haven’t Put Me in Jail Yet?" 5 days ago by Tom Arnold. https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/08/30 ... -jail-yet/

It's time for another BIRTHER SUMMIT™. What's wrong with these birthers? It's ONLY been 14 years, are they really going to wimp out already? They just need TONS MORE SHERIFF'S KITS. Don't let Birfestan down again, Mike Volin.

Tom's column got a lot more comments than usual over there and even Chuckles put in a rare appearance. Chuckles has been slowing down on his comments and Twitter... at one point wondered if he was going to join Mario Apuzzo in the #DeadBirthers topic but he's back!

It's still one of my fav things about birthers that they are so dedicated they take the time to post their brilliance on holidays. While most Americans are enjoying a holiday weekend, they don't want to miss a minute of educating their fellow citizens and proclaiming they were RIGHT ALL ALONG.

CDR Kerchner (Ret) says:
Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:48 PM
In that list of people you should include Obama’s key advisor, Valerie Jarrett. She is a Iranian born and citizen of Iran. She has been one of Obama’s key advisors (and maybe an Iranian controller) for many decades. From what I heard, she currently still lives with the Obama family in their walled home in Washington DC near to the White House. Yes, it is very unusual and interesting that the Obama family and crew never left Washington DC after Obama finished his usurpation of office in the White House. So, it is no wonder that the Obama puppet Biden is making overtures to Iran about removing the sanctions and other deals, including re-instating the nuclear deal. Iran has a back door into Biden’s brain via Obama and his key advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Obama has more legs of foreign influence on him since birth and otherwise that a centipede. Letting a person with foreign influence on them by birth is exactly why the founders and framers put the “natural born Citizen” restriction into Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution as to who could be the President and Commander in Chief after the founding generations was gone. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards. They wanted a person with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at and by birth. Obama has neither. See this website for more about Obama’s foreign influences since birth and thus him not being constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org/

Ray Fremick says:
Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 10:48 PM
William Rawle, who was President Washington’s pick to be the US Attorney for Pennsylvania wrote down the definition of a natural born citizen in 1825

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founder ... ips23.html

iontheball says:
Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:21 PM
We who have been with this from the very, very beginning have heard it all and I can hear Obozo laughing in the background. I knew we were in for a downward slide into the pits of hell from the moment I saw that lying Soros puppet. To this day, he is in the background engineering the demise of America. Sad that every single elected official sold the Country out by objecting to the electoral count in the January 2009 joint session of Congress. They did the same in 2021 with Biden. Is it no wonder the citizenry is beside themselves with the corruption?

Sharon Rondeau says:
Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM
Do you mean by “not objecting”?

[northland10]

Has anyone checked the Ninth Circuit docket on the appeal lately? I will have to re-educate myself on how to do that on PACER.

Last week, there had been no movement since April. I think it is fully briefed but has not yet been assigned a panel. Maybe by 2024.

IIRC, the 9th can be Wingate level slow.

[bob]

Last week, there had been no movement since April. I think it is fully briefed but has not yet been assigned a panel. Maybe by 2024.

IIRC, the 9th can be Wingate level slow.

Time from fully briefed to argument in the 9th can be long (well over a year), and non-immigration civil cases (which this is) have the lowest priority.

[bob]

The boys filed a notice of appeal today.

They probably won't get their dismissal affirmed until 2023.

In three weeks, I might be right about something.

[northland10]

The boys filed a notice of appeal today.

They probably won't get their dismissal affirmed until 2023.

In three weeks, I might be right about something.

Yeah, nothing has been docketed since April, when it was fully briefed.

[bob]

Can't believe Gibbs selected that image:

[realist]

As soon as anyone says our rights "come only from God" I pretty much am done listening.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[Suranis]

As soon as anyone says our rights "come only from God" I pretty much am done listening.

Ya. Rights come from lots of places, but not from God.

I would say People's dignity and value comes from God, but your rights come from the Law.

[Foggy]

But that's the problem, Señor Mousie. We see so many Earthlings without any dignity or value.


OK, maybe no value is overstating the case ...

[bob]

"For completeness":

It is almost 2023 and they're still yammering about Vattel.

[northland10]

On a related note, there were actually docket entries for the appeal recently:

12/14/2022 28 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Betsey Boutelle (Office of the US Attorney 880 Front Street Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893) for Appellee Kamala D. Harris. Substitution for Attorney Brett Norris for Appellee Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 12/14/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12610868] [21-56287] (Boutelle, Betsey) [Entered: 12/14/2022 03:46 PM]

12/14/2022 29 Attorney Brett Norris in 21-56287 substituted by Attorney Betsey Boutelle in 21-56287 [12610910] (BJK) [Entered: 12/14/2022 04:09 PM]

That was exciting.

Doug Gibbs apparently was not ready to explain his legal theories to the 9th circuit as he is not an appellant as of January 2022

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.

[bob]

Classic birther move: I'm right, and the courts that show I'm wrong issued invalid rulings.

[pipistrelle]

The original intent with regard to the 2nd Amendment, in addition to a "well-regulated militia," concerned single shot muskets, rifles, sidearms, and blunderbusses. Flintlocks are fun!

[RTH10260]

The original intent with regard to the 2nd Amendment, in addition to a "well-regulated militia," concerned single shot muskets, rifles, sidearms, and blunderbusses. Flintlocks are fun!

Somewhere hidden in the 2A is the saying of "don't get your powder wet", and these people seem to ignore that advice and wonder why they are not successful

[bob]

Gibbs and a fellow traveler for two hours. They are, ostensibly, discussing an article* about the Brunson case (SCOTUS Case No. 22-380), aka the birther-esque case about the 2020 election. They* are sooooo in love with their own voices, but surprisingly are quashing any hope the case will go anywhere.

And to return to this thread's topic, Gibbs repeatedly childes Brunson's case as being a quick-fix magic bullet, while also repeatedly referencing "his" case against Harris. As if he's somehow better than Brunson.


* The two discuss a RWNJ article that makes its points about Brunson's case more quickly and persuasively than Gibbs and The Hamster.

UncoverDC: The Truth About the Brunson Case:

This column isn’t going to earn anyone money—to the contrary—many of you will likely hate us for writing it. But the truth is the truth. The purpose is not to “create division” or call out other conservative “influencers” simply because we have differing opinions. We have all spent years watching blatant government corruption, constitutional rights being trampled, and elections stolen—all with no one being held accountable.

* * *

Sadly, there are people out there who will exploit, profit from, or simply “grift” off that desperation by filling the need with false hope—or “hopium.” It appears, unfortunately, that Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (No. 22-380)—also known as “The Brunson Case”—pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), is just such an example.

The article says nothing particularly new or novel; it is interesting because it is RWNJs trying to convince other RWNJs to keep their powder dry.


** Gibbs and @War_Hamster1776 on Twitter, who has since baned some jerk.***

***

[scirreeve]

The Brunson Boys amuse me. They are very silly.

Capture.JPG (29.95 KiB) Viewed 452 times