Main Menu

Poor Jerry!

All the attention this week has been sucked up by Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse’s latest escapades. Jerry Collette has to make himself heard over all of that to get a bit of attention for his latest press release.

Recall, if you can amid the Arizona show, that Mr. Collette is suing to prevent President Obama from appearing on the Florida ballot this fall and to have Obama declared ineligible to be President. Collette, a paralegal, is representing himself in the suit styled Collette v. Obama, recently transferred to Leon County by a Pasco County judge who decided his county was not the proper venue since no defendants lived there and the alleged claim did not arise from conduct there.

Well, Jerry, I haven’t had time to read it yet, but at least you have a hyperlink!

,

126 Responses to Poor Jerry!

  1. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Doc, you’ve mentioned jurisdiction several times on this, but that wasn’t even the issue. It was venue, the proper county, upon which the judge ruled. Also, the county name is Pasco, with no “e” on the end.

  2. avatar
    Paul July 19, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Doc, you’ve mentioned jurisdiction several times on this, but that wasn’t even the issue. It was venue, the proper county, upon which the judge ruled. Also, the county name is Pasco, with no “e” on the end.

    Wait — WHAT?!?! You’re just a paralegal?? SERIUOSLY??!!!!! HAahahahHAhahhAHAhha!~@!@#

  3. avatar
    bgansel9 July 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Paul: Wait — WHAT?!?! You’re just a paralegal?? SERIUOSLY??!!!!!

    He says he has a gifted legal mind, you can read all about his gifted legal mind at http://www.giftedlegalmind.com

    “Not Your Typical Paralegal

    Some paralegals are more like glorified legal secretaries, while others are more like gifted attorneys without a bar card. Jerry’s in the latter category. If what you really need is more of a legal secretary to handle things like calendaring and boilerplate interrogatories, Jerry’s not who you’re looking for. There are many, many, far, far better legal secretaries available.”

    Bwahahahahaha!

    (I’m not joking)

  4. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 19, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 19, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

    Okay, I found a flaw in it!
    Obama’s citizenship and eligibility have been confirmed, re-confirmed, and re-re-confirmed.

  6. avatar
    RetiredLawyer July 19, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

    Substantial errors: (on a first reading)

    You argue way too much about the motivations of opposing counsel. All of which is without any legal basis for the case or for your motion. Judges are really not inclined to grant reconsideration on that basis.

    Your argument over the Tucker case would be a whole lot better had you bothered to actually cite something from the case that supports your theory. What the neutral observer is left with is your claiming Tucker says x and the opposition claims Tucker says y. Without something more, why should the judge reconsider? Never expect a judge to have read the cases or bothers to re-read the cases on motion.

    For example, you never, once, bother to state what the tort in Tucker might be. If it was a tort directed at the Plaintiff that’s one thing, on the other hand, if it is a tort not directed at an individual, then that would be helpful to your case. Most torts are directed at an individual, many, however, are not. It violates basic fairness to haul somebody into court away from where they are, over an action that they did not intend.

    I am not commenting on the formatting, since I’ve never practiced in Florida, but I really doubt your creative use of bold is going to help you any.

    The above has been done with about five minutes. I am sure that if I bothered I could find a few more substantial flaws.

  7. avatar
    verbalobe July 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Apparently Jerry considers it a personal attack to quote his web site.

    I agree with him. But he wants substantive flaws in his motion pointed out, which would necessitate quoting more of his work product. Which would constitute more ad hominem.

    It’s a pickle.

  8. avatar
    linda July 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    I stopped reading at the first sentence of your third paragraph, where you say “It turns out that property had no bearing, whatsoever, on the venue holding in Tucker. There
    was not even any property in the entire litigation!”

    Given that the second sentence of the Tucker case says the following, I would say you are grossly in error.

    “Based on allegations that he had rendered negligent professional advice and services with respect to the condominium conversion of a building in Dade County owned by his client, Chantal Fianson, she sued him for legal malpractice in the Dade County Circuit Court.”

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

  9. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 19, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    The Tucker case was addressed significantly in the supplemental brief. There was no need to repeat it.

    The tort in Tucker was stated in footnote 6 at the bottom of page 4: “6. Specifically, attorney malpractice, brought on a negligence theory.”

    Are you saying that the defendants did not intend to put Obama onto the Florida ballot and have him be elected?

    Even if all of what you say is true, none of it goes to the substantive merits of the motion.

    RetiredLawyer: Substantial errors:(on a first reading)

    You argue way too much about the motivations of opposing counsel.All of which is without any legal basis for the case or for your motion.Judges are really not inclined to grant reconsideration on that basis.

    Your argument over the Tucker case would be a whole lot better had you bothered to actually cite something from the case that supports your theory.What the neutral observer is left with is your claiming Tucker says x and the opposition claims Tucker says y.Without something more, why should the judge reconsider? Never expect a judge to have read the cases or bothers to re-read the cases on motion.

    For example, you never, once, bother to state what the tort in Tucker might be.If it was a tort directed at the Plaintiff that’s one thing,on the other hand, if it is a tort not directed at an individual, then that would be helpful to your case.Most torts are directed at an individual, many, however, are not.It violates basic fairness to haul somebody into court away from where they are, over an action that they did not intend.

    I am not commenting on the formatting, since I’ve never practiced in Florida, but I really doubt your creative use of bold is going to help you any.

    The above has been done with about five minutes.I am sure that if I bothered I could find a few more substantial flaws.

  10. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 19, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    Well, you obviously rushed to judgment without reading the whole case. The property was only part of the parties’ earlier history together, not part of the litigation. Furthermore, it had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the venue holding. Try reading the entire case. It’s only three pages long.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2348550799592330897

    linda:
    I stopped reading at the first sentence of your third paragraph, where you say “It turns out that property had no bearing, whatsoever, on the venue holding in Tucker. There
    was not even any property in the entire litigation!”

    Given that the second sentence of the Tucker case says the following, I would say you are grossly in error.

  11. avatar
    RetiredLawyer July 19, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    But, you do not explicitly state what the tort is, and what the tort you are supposedly suing on is. A footnote? You put the tort in a footnote? And you expect the judge to review the prior pleadings, which he has already ruled on? Idiot pretend lawyer you are.

    If your claim is that you, personally, suffered damages from Obama being on the ballot, you do not state that in the complaint, nor could you get damages for that.

    On the other hand, if you want the State of Florida not to put Obama on the November ballot, you have not named them, nor have you brought suit in the proper court. IIRC Florida, like most states, requires any suit against the state be brought in the state capital.

    Having given you good advice, which you won’t take, I am now going to sit back and watch you crash and burn. When you have crashed and burned, I will tell you “I told you so”.

    Jerry Collette:
    The Tucker case was addressed significantly in the supplemental brief. There was no need to repeat it.

    The tort in Tucker was stated in footnote 6 at the bottom of page 4: “6. Specifically, attorney malpractice, brought on a negligence theory.”

    Are you saying that the defendants did not intend to put Obama onto the Florida ballot and have him be elected?

    Even if all of what you say is true, none of it goes to the substantive merits of the motion.

  12. avatar
    linda July 20, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    I read the case. Tucker, of Broward county, was accused of malpractice with regard to a condominium conversion of a building in Dade county for his client, Fianson. Fianson filed in Dade county, Tucker appealed venue, the Court upheld Dade county as the proper venue.

    What I don’t understand, is why you told the Court “There was not even any property in the entire litigation!”

    Jerry Collette: Try reading the entire case. It’s only three pages long.

  13. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    RetiredLawyer:
    But, you do not explicitly state what the tort is ….

    I explicitly stated what the tort was in Tucker.

    The tort in Tucker was stated in footnote 6 at the bottom of page 4 [of the MTR]: “6. Specifically, attorney malpractice, brought on a negligence theory.”

    and what the tort you are supposedly suing on is.

    That I am bringing a tort action has never been questioned. If you look at the docket, it says:

    Case Type: OTHER NEGLIGENCE.

    You put the tort in a footnote?

    Yes. What the tort was in Tucker didn’t matter. The venue ruling, based upon where the injury accrued, would have been the same, no matter what the tort was. However, in case he cared what the specific tort was, I put it in a footnote.

    Even if I should have put it into the body of my MTR, and you consider that a substantial flaw, it isn’t substantive. I challenged you to find substantive flaws, not formatting flaws.

    And you expect the judge to review the prior pleadings, which he has already ruled on?

    That’s part of my motion, that he reconsider and rehear the past motion. I only cited two venue cases in that brief, and one of them was Tucker. He’ll probably remember it, without even looking at it.

    If your claim is that you, personally, suffered damages from Obama being on the ballot, you do not state that in the complaint ….

    It’s clearly stated in my complaint, in two tort causes of action.

    … nor could you get damages for that.

    Whether or not I can get damages for it is not relevant of the MTR and has nothing to do with venue. Let’s stay on point, counselor.

    On the other hand, if you want the State of Florida not to put Obama on the November ballot, you have not named them, nor have you brought suit in the proper court.IIRC Florida, like most states, requires any suit against the state be brought in the state capital.

    Again, off point of the MTR, and completely unrelated to venue. Threads on this blog often go off point, and I’ve even drifted myself. I’m staying on point on this one. I invite you to do the same, counselor.

    Having given you good advice, which you won’t take, I am now going to sit back and watch you crash and burn.When you have crashed and burned, I will tell you “I told you so”.

    Well, so far, counselor, I don’t see that you’ve found a single substantive flaw in my MTR. I specifically put out a challenge for “substantive” ones, and you come back with what you call “substantial” ones. The two words may come from the same root, but they have very different meanings, particularly in respect to pleadings and motions. What kind of law did you practice?

  14. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 20, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

    Cripes, you can’t even use “ad hominem” correctly as a term! To commit the fallacy, one must argue “Because something is wrong with the man, something is wrong with the argument.” That is not what we are doing… Quite the opposite, we conclude that because your legal arguments are baseless, ill-conceived nonsense, you are probably a few bricks shy of a hod.

    That’s not an ad hominem fallacy.

    The bankruptcy of your legal theories and your shortcomings as a citizen, moral actor, and legal expert are separate but accurate observations.

    You’re supposed to be a bright guy, but misuse a Philosophy 101 concept? Really?

    I don’t see it.

    How do I infer your moral insufficiency? (Solely as regards your Obama Attack Lawsuits; I cannot speak to any other issues you may have.) Simple: ever hear of the Categorical Imperative? Bet you have. You judge the rightness of your actions by asking if it would be good for anyone else in the same situation to act the same way. An extension of the Golden Rule as it were.

    What you are then saying by your actions is that it would be perfectly OK for future Democrats to harrass a Republican president with frivolous lawsuits, to sow discord and confusion about his or her legitimacy, just for the sake of “Political Theatre.” To broadcast flaky accusations and outright lies to breed doubt and fear about the Republican president in the hearts of Americans for political advantage, to de-legitimize and cripple him or her.

    Great idea, O Learned One. By your cynical misuse of the courts for partisan political purposes you are by extension fostering a future America where Democrats are free to disavow any Republican president and vice-versa. Where Democrat soldiers can disobey orders because the Republican is a “usurper,” where only half the country recognizes a president at any given time.

    And how easy it will be. We can just say that because of some invented technicality the Republican isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. Hound him for every conceivable vital record, and then claim they’re all forgeries. Or claim that he or she was elected by voter fraud. Whatever it takes, because hey: that’s just “Political Theatre.”

    Great vision for America’s future, Jerry. And you helped make it possible.

    You must be so proud.

  15. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    linda:
    I read the case.Tucker, of Broward county, was accused of malpractice with regard to a condominium conversion of a building in Dade county for his client, Fianson.Fianson filed in Dade county, Tucker appealed venue, the Court upheld Dade county as the proper venue.

    What I don’t understand, is why you told the Court“There was not even any property in the entire litigation!”

    Because the litigation wasn’t about property, it was about attorney malpractice. Property was only part of the history between the parties, and had nothing to do with the subject of the litigation, nor the venue holding.

    Of course, the case was held in a courtroom, and that was property, but that wasn’t part of the litigation, either.

    Did you read the venue holding in Tucker? Did it mention property at all? No. Because the case wasn’t about property, at all. It was a tort case, strictly. Property had no bearing whatsoever on the venue. Venue was determined by where the tort injury accrued.

  16. avatar
    JPotter July 20, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    For someone that supposedly comes here for advice, Collette sure has a hard time accepting any graciously! If you’re convinced you’re right, then why bother either asking for advice, or quibbling with detractors? The proof is in the pudding; will you ever find a judge that likes the taste? Does your case have any merit, any practical value, any potential for affecting current events, for effecting change in the world?

    No. RL won’t be the only member in the “I told you so” chorus!

  17. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    RetiredLawyer:
    On the other hand, if you want the State of Florida not to put Obama on the November ballot, you have not named them, nor have you brought suit in the proper court.IIRC Florida, like most states, requires any suit against the state be brought in the state capital.

    Correction: I didn’t comment correctly on this part of your comment. It was somewhat related to venue, but it doesn’t apply to my case, and not at all to my MTR. If I had brought my claim under the election code, I would have had to name some state actors, and I would have had to sue in Tallahassee. However, I didn’t do either. I have brought a tort claim, only against the named defendants, none of whom are state actors.

  18. avatar
    linda July 20, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    The malpractice, the subject of the case, involved the handling of the property, the appellate court mentioned the property, and the venue was the county where the property was located, but sure, other than that, it had nothing to do with property. Right.

  19. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    I didn’t ask for advice. The motion’s already filed, as is.

    I put up a challenge for anybody to find substantive flaws in the MTR. That means flaws that would make a difference on the merits.

    I haven’t seen any substantive flaws in the MTR posted yet. While, certainly, RetiredLawyer did find some flaws that could be considered substantial, and I acknowledge that, that wasn’t the challenge. Nor was the challenge to find flaws in my other pleadings or motions.

    So, let’s see if we can focus and stay on point.

    I repeat: I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my Motion to Reconsider.

    Anybody?

    JPotter:
    For someone that supposedly comes here for advice, Collette sure has a hard time accepting any graciously! If you’re convinced you’re right, then why bother either asking for advice, or quibbling with detractors? The proof is in the pudding; will you ever find a judge that likes the taste? Does your case have any merit, any practical value, any potential for affecting current events, for effecting change in the world?

    No.

  20. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    That’s right. And the holding had nothing to do with property, either. Property is only mentioned in the first sentence, reciting the parties history together.

    Here’s a quote from the holding that clearly shows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with property:

    “Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the [venue] rule [we are stating for tort cases] is not confined to personal injury or property damage cases; it applies equally to those which involve economic or intangible losses alone.”

    P.S. You’ll notice that even RetiredLawyer didn’t challenge my analysis of the Tucker holding. That would have been substantive.

    linda:
    The malpractice, the subject of the case, involved the handling of the property, the appellate court mentioned the property, and the venue was the county where the property was located, but sure, other than that, it had nothing to do with property.Right.

  21. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Linda, here’s another point, directly from the venue statute:

    Florida Statutes 47.011 (2012) states:

    Actions shall be brought only in the county [1] where the defendant resides, [2] where the cause of action accrued, or [3] where the property in litigation is located.

    The property being in the litigation means they would be suing over the property. Boundary disputes, title disputes, inheritance disputes, trespass cases are some examples of where property would be “in litigation.” In an attorney malpractice suit based upon negligence, even where the attorney services had been related to property, there would be no property “in litigation.”

    If the property had been “in litigation,” the plaintiff would raised that as the basis for venue in Dade county, but, under the circumstances, could not have succeeded on that basis.

    linda:
    The malpractice, the subject of the case, involved the handling of the property, the appellate court mentioned the property, and the venue was the county where the property was located, but sure, other than that, it had nothing to do with property.Right.

  22. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 20, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people…

    Cripes, you can’t even use “ad hominem” correctly as a term! To commit the fallacy, one must argue “Because something is wrong with the man, something is wrong with the argument.” That is not what we are doing… Quite the opposite, we conclude that because your legal arguments are baseless, ill-conceived nonsense, you are probably a few bricks shy of a hod.

    That’s not an ad hominem fallacy.

    The bankruptcy of your legal theories and your shortcomings as a citizen, moral actor, and legal expert are separate but accurate observations.

    You’re supposed to be a bright guy, but misuse a Philosophy 101 concept? Really?

    I don’t see it.

    How do I infer your moral insufficiency? (Solely as regards your Obama Attack Lawsuits; I cannot speak to any other issues you may have.) Simple: ever hear of the Categorical Imperative? Bet you have. You judge the rightness of your actions by asking if it would be good for anyone else in the same situation to act the same way. An extension of the Golden Rule as it were.

    What you are then saying by your actions is that it would be perfectly OK for future Democrats to harrass a Republican president with frivolous lawsuits, to sow discord and confusion about his or her legitimacy, just for the sake of “Political Theatre.” To broadcast flaky accusations and outright lies to breed doubt and fear about the Republican president in the hearts of Americans for political advantage, to de-legitimize and cripple him or her.

    Great idea, O Learned One. By your cynical misuse of the courts for partisan political purposes you are by extension fostering a future America where Democrats are free to disavow any Republican president and vice-versa. Where Democrat soldiers can disobey orders because the Republican is a “usurper,” where only half the country recognizes a president at any given time.

    And how easy it will be. We can just say that because of some invented technicality the Republican isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. Hound him for every conceivable vital record, and then claim they’re all forgeries. Or claim that he or she was elected by voter fraud. Whatever it takes, because hey: that’s just “Political Theatre.”

    Great vision for America’s future, Jerry. And you helped make it possible.

    You must be so proud.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2012 at 1:13 am #

    Thomas Brown: Cripes, you can’t even use “ad hominem” correctly as a term! To commit the fallacy, one must argue “Because something is wrong with the man, something is wrong with the argument.” That is not what we are doing… Quite the opposite, we conclude that because your legal arguments are baseless, ill-conceived nonsense, you are probably a few bricks shy of a hod.

    That’s not an ad hominem fallacy.

    The bankruptcy of your legal theories and your shortcomings as a citizen, moral actor, and legal expert are separate but accurate observations.

    You’re supposed to be a bright guy, but misuse a Philosophy 101 concept? Really?

    I don’t see it.

    How do I infer your moral insufficiency? (Solely as regards your Obama Attack Lawsuits; I cannot speak to any other issues you may have.) Simple: ever hear of the Categorical Imperative? Bet you have. You judge the rightness of your actions by asking if it would be good for anyone else in the same situation to act the same way. An extension of the Golden Rule as it were.

    What you are then saying by your actions is that it would be perfectly OK for future Democrats to harrass a Republican president with frivolous lawsuits, to sow discord and confusion about his or her legitimacy, just for the sake of “Political Theatre.” To broadcast flaky accusations and outright lies to breed doubt and fear about the Republican president in the hearts of Americans for political advantage, to de-legitimize and cripple him or her.

    Great idea, O Learned One. By your cynical misuse of the courts for partisan political purposes you are by extension fostering a future America where Democrats are free to disavow any Republican president and vice-versa. Where Democrat soldiers can disobey orders because the Republican is a “usurper,” where only half the country recognizes a president at any given time.

    And how easy it will be. We can just say that because of some invented technicality the Republican isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. Hound him for every conceivable vital record, and then claim they’re all forgeries. Or claim that he or she was elected by voter fraud. Whatever it takes, because hey: that’s just “Political Theatre.”

    Great vision for America’s future, Jerry. And you helped make it possible.

    You must be so proud.

    Hear, hear.

  24. avatar
    Jane Whitman, Esq. July 20, 2012 at 1:15 am #

    First let’s note a central point upon which we are in agreement, Jerry.

    I happen to agree with you that Mr. Herron’s interpretation of Tucker is too glib and, well, misguided. In that litigation, an attorney in Broward County gave negligent advice about a condo conversion in Dade County. However – and we agree about this — it isn’t, strictly speaking, a property case. That is, the court’s conclusion would have been the same had the attorney rendered negligent advice that caused Tucker to shoot himself in the cajones in Dade County. With or without the involvement of real property, the essential holding is that venue is proper where the injury accrues.

    And now I’m afraid we must part ways. You’re moving for reconsideration of a bench ruling that is not (AFAIK) memorialized by a memorandum documenting the court’s ratio decidendi. On what basis can you assign error to the court’s acceptance of Mr. Herron’s not-so-learned interpretation? [Hint: Ranting about how the court ruled right after Herron soiled himself (if, in fact, that’s what happened) doesn’t do it.]

    Where that’s the situation, a competent legal argument must do more than complain about something said during the hearing (over and over again for a dozen pages, I might add); it must convincingly (“substantively”?) reconstruct all the elements of the proposition at issue. My first assignment of “substantive error” in your motion is your failure to accomplish this.

    You correctly argue that, in ruling on threshold matters of venue and jurisdiction, the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations of fact as true. However, the court is in no way obligated to accept “facts” framed in the form of legal conclusions. Here, the allegation that you ‘suffered injury’ is insufficient because it is conclusory. You merely put forth your legal conclusion that whatever it is you allege constitutes a legally redressable injury under tort law. But more importantly, without elaboration, there is no basis to conclude that “it” occurred in Pasco County.

    And this is my second assignment of “substantive error” in your motion: You do nothing to demonstrate that you have suffered a cognizable injury in Pasco County. (This, I’d note, is in stark contrast with the Tucker case wherein the effects of the negligent advice can be seen to have accrued in Dade County with respect to a particular condo conversion in that county, as distinguished from all other counties in Florida generally.)

    Which leads to my third assignment of “substantive error” in your motion. You do not construct a plausible narrative explaining how a particular tortfeasor committed an act (wherever initiated) which was the proximate cause of actual injury to you, personally, in Pasco County. If we extend your beloved arrow analogy, and apply it to the facts recited in your motion, Obama (et al) apparently shot so many arrows into the air that it was foreseeable that at least one arrow would hit every person in every county of Florida.

    But ultimately, the reason you cannot particularize your injury and place it in Pasco County is that your entire “tort theory” is fatally flawed. [Hint: You’ve all but conceded in your pleadings that your haven’t suffered any real economic damages. Think about it!] And the declaratory judgment laugher ain’t any better. But these are other topics, I suppose.

    Good luck, Jerry, You’ll need it trying to get this turd to float upstream.

    Jane.

  25. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    Dear Jane,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned analysis.

    I’ll comment, point by point, below.

    Jane Whitman, Esq.:
    First let’s note a central point upon which we are in agreement, Jerry.

    I happen to agree with you that Mr. Herron’s interpretation of Tucker is too glib and, well, misguided. In that litigation, an attorney in Broward County gave negligent advice about a condo conversion in Dade County. However – and we agree about this — it isn’t, strictly speaking, a property case. That is, the court’s conclusion would have been the same had the attorney rendered negligent advice that caused Tucker to shoot himself in the cajones in Dade County. With or without the involvement of real property, the essential holding is that venue is proper where the injury accrues.

    I think the judge will agree if he rereads it, too. Even Herron might. Hopefully, the judge will ask him at the hearing. That might be interesting. I think I’ll give Mr. Herron a chance now to stipulate that Tucker had nothing whatsoever to do with property. I wonder what he’ll say.

    And now I’m afraid we must part ways. You’re moving for reconsideration of a bench ruling that is not (AFAIK) memorialized by a memorandum documenting the court’s ratio decidendi.

    I wanted to file right away, but the order hadn’t been signed yet, even though Mr Herron and I concurred on the unsigned version. That’s why I referred to the ruling, not the order, in my MTR. The order has, since, been issued. (Actually, it was issued before I filed my MTR, but it hadn’t shown up yet. The clerk’s office typically runs a couple days behind in posting things to the docket. My MTR probably won’t even post until tomorrow or Monday, even though I filed it Wednesday.) Since the ruling has now been incorporated into the order, my MTR should be fine. If not, it’s just a technicality to amend all references to the ruling to now apply to the order dated July 16, 2012.

    On what basis can you assign error to the court’s acceptance of Mr. Herron’s not-so-learned interpretation? [Hint: Ranting about how the court ruled right after Herron soiled himself (if, in fact, that’s what happened) doesn’t do it.]

    Several points on that. That is how it happened, it is in the transcript, and I’m pretty sure the judge will remember it that way. And, even if the judge did it on his own and the what Herron said had nothing do to with it, it’s still a clear error of law. Pointing the finger at defense counsel gives the judge somebody else to blame.

    Where that’s the situation, a competent legal argument must do more than complain about something said during the hearing (over and over again for a dozen pages, I might add); it must convincingly (“substantively”?) reconstruct all the elements of the proposition at issue. My first assignment of “substantive error” in your motion is your failure to accomplish this.

    You might be right, but I think that was the pivotal one.

    You correctly argue that, in ruling on threshold matters of venue and jurisdiction, the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations of fact as true. However, the court is in no way obligated to accept “facts” framed in the form of legal conclusions. Here, the allegation that you ‘suffered injury’ is insufficient because it is conclusory.

    Again, you might be right, but if my constitutional rights were violated, than it’s assumed I was injured, and am entitled to nominal damages. Also, there was no challenge to this related to venue, and the court never mentioned it.

    You merely put forth your legal conclusion that whatever it is you allege constitutes a legally redressable injury under tort law. But more importantly, without elaboration, there is no basis to conclude that “it” occurred in Pasco County.

    And this is my second assignment of “substantive error” in your motion: You do nothing to demonstrate that you have suffered a cognizable injury in Pasco County. (This, I’d note, is in stark contrast with the Tucker case wherein the effects of the negligent advice can be seen to have accrued in Dade County with respect to a particular condo conversion in that county, as distinguished from all other counties in Florida generally.)

    Again, while you may very well be right on this, the other side did not dispute any of this. Therefore, it should be deemed true. Alternatively, I should be allowed to amend to correct it.

    Which leads to my third assignment of “substantive error” in your motion. You do not construct a plausible narrative explaining how a particular tortfeasor committed an act (wherever initiated) which was the proximate cause of actual injury to you, personally, in Pasco County. If we extend your beloved arrow analogy, and apply it to the facts recited in your motion, Obama (et al) apparently shot so many arrows into the air that it was foreseeable that at least one arrow would hit every person in every county of Florida.

    But ultimately, the reason you cannot particularize your injury and place it in Pasco County is that your entire “tort theory” is fatally flawed. [Hint: You’ve all but conceded in your pleadings that your haven’t suffered any real economic damages. Think about it!] And the declaratory judgment laugher ain’t any better. But these are other topics, I suppose.

    Correct, these are other topics.

    Good luck, Jerry, You’ll need it trying to get this turd to float upstream.

    Jane.

    That’s for sure, Jane. I recognize it’s a longshot, and even if I win on venue, I might just be going from the frying pan into the fire and lose on the MTD’s that are pending on other grounds.

    Thank you for your grace and dignity. It’s refreshing to interact with somebody like you, even if we do disagree on some things.

    Best,

    Jerry

  26. avatar
    JPotter July 20, 2012 at 2:43 am #

    Jerry Collette: I didn’t ask for advice. The motion’s already filed, as is.

    Silly me, Collette, taking your past statements at face value. I wasn’t aware that they expired at midnight, every night! Good to have confirmed that which is not surprising. And now back to the “Jerry’s Never Wrong, He’s a Brilliant Legal Mind–” show.

    …. including his classic faux and/or misplaced courtesy:

    Jerry Collette: Good luck, Jerry, You’ll need it trying to get this turd to float upstream.

    Jane.

    That’s for sure, Jane.

    😀

  27. avatar
    Bennett July 20, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    Sam Sewell at Steady Drip, who never ceases to tell everyone he’s a life member of Mensa but is incapable of rational argument, has suddenly gone quiet about Arpaio. He pushed “the Cold Case Posse” scam for months. But since the last press conference, after a brief report of it, he’s posted long posts about Collette and other garbage. One post says that with every court defeat the Birthers are closer to winning. Each post has another plea for money. He must know the jig is up.

  28. avatar
    Sam Sewell July 20, 2012 at 3:02 am #

    “He must know the jig is up.”

    It is up and down and round about. Dancing a jig is a typically joyous dance usually preformed at victory celebratons.

  29. avatar
    Jane Whitman, Esq. July 20, 2012 at 3:43 am #

    Jerry wrote:

    “Again, you might be right, but if my constitutional rights were violated, than it’s assumed I was injured, and am entitled to nominal damages.”

    If that is so, then I would maintain that you are obligated to cite to authority for the proposition that anything of the sort is “assumed”. Can you cite a single case sounding in tort in which a violation of a Constitutional right resulted in a presumption of damages?

    The closest analogy that comes to mind is this: Where defamation per se is established, damages in the amount of a dollar can be awarded. But that’s a narrow niche of long standing at common law. And if you expect to convince a trial court to expand that niche (and perhaps a couple of other quasi-similar exceptions) to theoretical Constitutional violations — in a day that disfavors perceived hurts and slights – again I say “good luck”.

    [Hint: To do so, you’ll need far more than naked assertions. This is the kind of heavy lifting that would daunt a pre-eminent legal scholar.]

    Furthermore, the exceptions are based on circumstances that are actionable per se. Oh sure, you’ve alleged negligence per se, but you’ve fallen far short of pleading anything of the sort. (Again, perhaps, that’s another discussion.)

    ****

    Continuing, Jerry wrote:
    “Again, while you may very well be right on this, the other side did not dispute any of this. Therefore, it should be deemed true. Alternatively, I should be allowed to amend to correct it.”

    Disagree.

    There are limited times and circumstances in which an assertion, if not disputed, is conceded as true. But that does not mean that every utterance at a hearing is deemed true unless it is denied or rebutted. Think about it. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if anything said and not rebutted were necessarily concluded as true? Really?

    Judges don’t sit at the bench to sift though and balance every nit and counter-nit in the light of who didn’t rebut what. The judge is there to apply the correct law. The objective of a hearing is not gamesmanship (although I will admit that it sometimes appears so); it’s to arrive at the correct legal interpretation.

    A judge is under no obligation to arrive at a wrong conclusion of law just because a party did not rebut a proffered legal conclusion at a hearing. In fact, a judge may (generally) arrive at an entirely different conclusion — one that neither party advanced.

    And as to the contention that you should be allowed to amend at any point and at any time, that’s equally absurd. You get a chance to take your best shot. It is your responsibility to bring competent arguments in the first place and to defend them. The system is not weighted in favor of either party to “try, try again” ad nauseam.
    Keep in mind that a defendant has rights too. How would you like to be sued by someone who had a perpetual right to say, “OK, I got it wrong, but I want another hearing to try again”? In your view, is there no way to reach finality on an issue?

    – Jane

  30. avatar
    Northland10 July 20, 2012 at 6:38 am #

    Nicely done Jane, and welcome.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2012 at 6:52 am #

    Northland10:
    Nicely done Jane, and welcome.

    Ditto.

    And some heady concepts for the birther bigots to ponder:

    Schooled and doomed.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    Thank you for the correction and the learning experience.

    Jerry Collette:
    Doc, you’ve mentioned jurisdiction several times on this, but that wasn’t even the issue. It was venue, the proper county, upon which the judge ruled. Also, the county name is Pasco, with no “e” on the end.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    As you well know, the proper venue in Florida requires one of these things:

    1. Residence of a defendant
    2. Location of property
    3. Location of cause of action

    Your “John Doe” list of defendants does not establish residence. There is no property in the case, and the cause of action (if it happened at all) happened elsewhere.

    I agree with you (and my opinion should be viewed in the light of the fact that I am not a lawyer) that the Tucker is not about property, nor were you claiming such. If that’s what Mark Herron said (and I didn’t read his argument), then I believe he was mistaken. Tucker is about cause of action.

    That said, the Tucker decision was based on the fact that the defendant provided a service at a location in alleged violation of a contract and that action in the location was part of the cause of action. Whether Herron correctly characterized the Tucker case or not, you had the opportunity in your complaints to do so (and if you failed to do so, shame on you). Further, the Tucker venue was decided based on a provision of contract law, and you have no contract with the Florida Democratic Party.

    Even if the judge should reconsider his ruling based on Herron’s alleged error, he will arrive at the same conclusion because the Tucker case is distinguished from yours.

    I’m starting to get an impression of how your mind works and my tentative hypothesis is that the tenuous connections that you see between legal principles (that others don’t see) indicate the same mode of thought shared by conspiracy theorists. You should really get Michael Shermer’s book, The Believing Brain, because I think you will learn something about yourself that may be to your advantage.

    Jerry Collette: Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

  34. avatar
    Sam the Centipede July 20, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Jane Whitman, Esq.: Judges don’t sit at the bench to sift though and balance every nit and counter-nit in the light of who didn’t rebut what. The judge is there to apply the correct law.

    Jerry’s gifted legal mind does seem to think Orlylaw overrides US law. As you say, he has no understanding of the purpose of courts, which is to resolve disputes. Jerry is using them for political theatre, which is not what they are there for. So he emabarks on a fishing expedition, looking for a fragment of law which his gifted legal mind can misconstrue and abuse in his campaign to harass the president, the president’s party, and anybody else whose work touches on them.

    That it is an evil campaign of harassment is evidenced by the gifted legal mind’s laughable Ballot Challenge Kit, which can only be an attempt to encourage more harassment via the courts.

    Jerry doesn’t like being called names, but how can it be avoided? His basic argument (“waah! don’t like scary bkack man!”) is absurd, and has been thoroughly refuted, many times.

    Even if he were correct, the appropriate venue for the argument is the political sphere, not the courts.

    And when the gifted legal mind constructs his mess of a complaint, he demonstrates a complete failing of the concept of a tort (it’s not just “waaah! I don’t like wahat he did!”). It needs a specific wrong and an appropriate remedy. If Jerry isn’t asking for proper damages, he is tacitly admitting there was no tort. It is probably only defamation cases which can appropriately have nominal damages, because in that special case the real remedy is the declaration by the court that defamation occurred, and that declaration helps to restore the plaintiff’s reputation.

    Jerry, your legal actions are evil-minded, nasty and disgusts honest folk. Being polite does not remedy that. You demonstrate that is possible to be stupid and polite simultaneously, well done!

    Personally, I think there should be a way of stopping this harassment, as it’s the legal equivalent of leaving dog excrement on someone’s doorstep, ringing the doorbell at 3 a.m. and running away.

  35. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Jane Whitman, Esq.:
    Jerry wrote:

    “Again, you might be right, but if my constitutional rights were violated, than it’s assumed I was injured, and am entitled to nominal damages.”

    If that is so, then I would maintain that you are obligated to cite to authority for the proposition that anything of the sort is “assumed”. Can you cite a single case sounding in tort in which a violation of a Constitutional right resulted in a presumption of damages?

    The closest analogy that comes to mind is this: Where defamation per se is established, damages in the amount of a dollar can be awarded. But that’s a narrow niche of long standing at common law. And if you expect to convince a trial court to expand that niche (and perhaps a couple of other quasi-similar exceptions) to theoretical Constitutional violations — in a day that disfavors perceived hurts and slights – again I say “good luck”.

    It’s black letter law, and I put it in my supplemental brief.

    As stated in 22 Am.Jur. 2d Damages 15 (2012):
    Nominal damages are recoverable whenever there is a breach of a legal duty or the invasion of a legal right, and no actual damage results or is proved. [footnotes omitted]

    [Hint: To do so, you’ll need far more than naked assertions. This is the kind of heavy lifting that would daunt a pre-eminent legal scholar.]

    Furthermore, the exceptions are based on circumstances that are actionable per se. Oh sure, you’ve alleged negligence per se, butyou’ve fallen far short of pleading anything of the sort. (Again, perhaps, that’s another discussion.)

    Yes, that’s another discussion, and I’m trying to stay on point on this thread.

    ****

    Continuing, Jerry wrote:
    “Again, while you may very well be right on this, the other side did not dispute any of this. Therefore, it should be deemed true. Alternatively, I should be allowed to amend to correct it.”

    Disagree.

    There are limited times and circumstances in which an assertion, if not disputed, is conceded as true. But that does not mean that every utterance at a hearing is deemed true unless it is denied or rebutted. Think about it. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if anything said and not rebutted were necessarily concluded as true? Really?

    Judges don’t sit at the bench to sift though and balance every nit and counter-nit in the light of who didn’t rebut what. The judge is there to apply the correct law. The objective of a hearing is not gamesmanship (although I will admit that it sometimes appears so); it’s to arrive at the correct legal interpretation.

    A judge is under no obligation to arrive at a wrong conclusion of law just because a party did not rebut a proffered legal conclusion at a hearing. In fact, a judge may (generally) arrive at an entirely different conclusion — one that neither party advanced.

    Well, we’ll see. None of those issues were mentioned, either by the other side or from the bench.

    And as to the contention that you should be allowed to amend at any point and at any time, that’s equally absurd. You get a chance to take your best shot. It is your responsibility to bring competent arguments in the first place and to defend them. The system is not weighted in favor of either party to “try, try again” ad nauseam.
    Keep in mind that a defendant has rights too. How would you like to be sued by someone who had a perpetual right to say, “OK, I got it wrong, but I want another hearing to try again”? In your view, is there no way to reach finality on an issue?

    – Jane

    Well, the standard for an MTD is to grant it only if the defendant could not amend the complaint so it would not be subject to dismissal. I can’t see why the same standard wouldn’t apply to a venue change. I’d have to look it up.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis.

  36. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    I think I’ll give Mr. Herron a chance now to stipulate that Tucker had nothing whatsoever to do with property. I wonder what he’ll say.

    He declined to stipulate. This will be interesting.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    I don’t think you paid attention to what Jane said. The Court does not assume that your statement of law or conclusions are true, only the alleged facts.

    Jerry Collette: Again, while you may very well be right on this, the other side did not dispute any of this. Therefore, it should be deemed true

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Huh? Have you never heard of a dismissal “without prejudice?”

    Jerry Collette: Well, the standard for an MTD is to grant it only if the defendant could not amend the complaint so it would not be subject to dismissal.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    It will be moot.

    Jerry Collette: This will be interesting.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    My opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that Jerry does not have a “legal mind” (gifted or otherwise) but rather a “creative mind.” He may come up with strategies and novel theories, but he lacks both a high-functioning BS detector to know when his strategy and novel theory aren’t right, and he lacks the ability to form a legal argument to back up his strategy or legal theory. Jerry just cites a case, mentions a principle and expects the court to just see it. His briefs are remarkably devoid of argument and this is, I think, because he thinks everyone will intuit what he does. It doesn’t work that way.

    This is why Jerry might be a good research assistant to a lawyer, but shouldn’t try to prosecute complex cases on his own.

    Sam the Centipede: Jerry’s gifted legal mind

  41. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Thanks for making this discussion possible, Doc.

    For simplicity in responding, I regrouped some of your comments.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    As you well know, the proper venue in Florida requires one of these things:

    1. Residence of a defendant
    2. Location of property
    3. Location of cause of action

    Your “John Doe” list of defendants does not establish residence.

    I never claimed they did. I did not claim venue based upon residency in this complaint.

    and the cause of action (if it happened at all) happened elsewhere.

    Using the analogy from Tucker, that even a child could understand, the arrow was shot from elsewhere, but the injury that I’m claiming it caused me occurred in Pasco County.

    There is no property in the case,

    I agree with you (and my opinion should be viewed in the light of the fact that I am not a lawyer) that the Tucker is not about property, nor were you claiming such.

    As are most of the learned minds on this blog.

    If that’s what Mark Herron said (and I didn’t read his argument),

    Whether Herron correctly characterized the Tucker case or not, you had the opportunity in your complaints to do so (and if you failed to do so, shame on you).

    It’s what he said in court. (Read Neonzx’s posting on Fogbow.) It wasn’t in his written argument. If it was, I would have been able correct it. It came out of nowhere verbally, and I wasn’t prepared for such a misstatement of the law. I’m not a litigator.

    Tucker is clearly cited in my supplemental brief, and I even quoted the arrow analogy.

    then I believe he was mistaken. Tucker is about cause of action.

    Tucker is about venue being where the cause of action accrued, and if the defendants’ action (such as negligently shooting an arrow into the air) occurs in one county, but the injury to the plaintiff (such as being hit by the arrow) occurs in another county, the cause of action accrues in the county where the injury occurred.

    That said, the Tucker decision was based on the fact that the defendant provided a service at a location in alleged violation of a contract and that action in the location was part of the cause of action.

    Further, the Tucker venue was decided based on a provision of contract law, and you have no contract with the Florida Democratic Party.

    The Tucker case wasn’t a contract cause of action. Malpractice can be brought on two different theories, tort (typically negligence) or breach of contract. The Tucker case was brought as a tort. Read it again, Doc, after you’ve had your coffee.

    Even if the judge should reconsider his ruling based on Herron’s alleged error, he will arrive at the same conclusion because the Tucker case is distinguished from yours.

    How?

    And, even if it is distinguishable, the Tucker court said:

    “Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the rule is not confined to personal injury or property damage cases; it applies equally to those which involve economic or intangible losses alone.”

    I’m starting to get an impression of how your mind works and my tentative hypothesis is …

    … off point.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    OK, I understand now the difference between venue and jurisdiction. Now, you just need to learn the difference between an allegation and a conclusion of law. You call venue an “allegation” in your brief.

    Jerry Collette: Doc, you’ve mentioned jurisdiction several times on this, but that wasn’t even the issue. It was venue, the proper county

  43. avatar
    Reality Check July 20, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    I posted and article on my blog with my comments on Jerry Collette’s motion to reconsider the decision on venue. Why Jerry Collette is Wrong on Venue and Will Lose Again. I sent him a draft and he will provide comments there.

  44. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 20, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    All this discussion of Tucker misses the forest for the trees. Venue does not lie if there is an utter failure to state a cognizable claim for tort. No court anywhere — much less a Florida court — recognizes a “tort” sounding in negligence (ordinary or per se) for damages perceived by a plaintiff who is “damaged” by his personal conviction that he is being governed by someone unqualified. Thus it does not matter where the arrow lands because it is not an arrow.

  45. avatar
    ASK Esq July 20, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Jerry Collette: Nominal damages are recoverable whenever there is a breach of a legal duty or the invasion of a legal right, and no actual damage results or is proved.

    OK Jerry. Now, please explain how either of these exist here. Does anyone have a legal duty to you to keep an allegedly ineligible candidate off the ballot? Do you have a legal right to have a ballot free of any allegedly ineligible candidates? I haven’t read your papers, or the Florida statutes, but I can’t imagine how either a duty or a right as such exists here.

  46. avatar
    Lupin July 20, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    I don’t know if this is relevant, but a long time ago, I had an intern fresh out of law school, very bright, very enthusiastic, and he would come up with these convoluted, never head of before legal strategies as if, somehow, he was going to single-handedly revolutionize the legal system.

    I had the devil of a time to get him to understand (I’m not certain he ever did) that this is not how it works in 99.99999% of cases. Yes, there may be that special moment where a lawyer might come up with something extraordinary entirely out of left field, but IMHE that happens mostly on TV.

    At the risk of overgeneralizing I’d say that our judges here hate anything new, and even if one were to unearth some brilliant radical interpretation of the Law, they likely would rather not hear it in their court. The adjective “novel” in the mouth of a judge is a criticism, not praise.

    Anyway, I can’t help feel that Mr Collette is totally delusional.

  47. avatar
    HistorianDude July 20, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    Maybe the ad hominem (personal) attacks are fun for some people, but I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my motion to reconsider.

    Wish granted:

    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/why-jerry-collette-is-wrong-on-venue-and-will-lose-again/

  48. avatar
    realist July 20, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    So Jerry… setting aside the fact there won’t be any discovery, and certainly not with dispositive motions pending, regardless of venue, who the hell did you file a request for a restraining order against and based on what? This should be good.

    Docket updates. All filings by Jerry.

    7/18/2012 PL 1 4 MOTION: TO RECONSIDER AND SET ASIDE TRANSFER OF VENUE RULING
    W/ATTACHED UNSIGNED ORDER
    7/18/2012 PL 1 3 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER
    7/18/2012 PL 1 2 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

  49. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Then the proper motion is to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, not to move venue.

    GeorgetownJD:
    All this discussion of Tucker misses the forest for the trees.Venue does not lie if there is an utter failure to state a cognizable claim for tort.No court anywhere —much less a Florida court — recognizes a “tort” sounding in negligence (ordinary or per se) for damages perceived by a plaintiff who is “damaged” by his personal conviction that he is being governed by someone unqualified.Thus it does not matter where the arrow lands because it is not an arrow.

  50. avatar
    nbc July 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Then the proper motion is to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, not to move venue.

    That will be next when the case is moved to its proper venue. One step at the time, otherwise one may argue that the court lacked proper jurisdiction.

  51. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    I think Jerry is confusing tort with tortellini.

    Jerry, what you have is word salad. Note: IANAL, but I have a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University.

    You do not have a tort. What is the injury, and what have you lost financially?

  52. avatar
    Sam Sewell July 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html

    This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

    Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

  53. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Then the proper motion is to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, not to move venue.

    Because they probably figure the only way to keep you people busy is by kicking your cases around the map so much that you won’t have time to file more frivolous claims.

  54. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    Off topic. More on this later.

    I’ll post them and send Doc the links.

    realist:
    So Jerry… setting aside the fact there won’t be any discovery, and certainly not with dispositive motions pending, regardless of venue, who the hell did you file a request for a restraining order against and based on what?This should be good.

    Docket updates. All filings by Jerry.

    7/18/2012 PL 1 4 MOTION: TO RECONSIDER AND SET ASIDE TRANSFER OF VENUE RULING W/ATTACHED UNSIGNED ORDER 7/18/2012 PL 1 3 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER 7/18/2012 PL 1 2 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

  55. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Sam Sewell: See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    You know Sammy for all the crap you guys throw at Saul Alinsky you sure are making his estate a lot of money by referencing him and using him in your tea party gatherings. Before you guys dug him up as your answer all for when you guys look foolish his books were out of print now they’re selling and continue to make his estate money. So Sammy please keep on crying about it

  56. avatar
    donna July 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    Photo Exclusive: When George Romney Met Saul Alinsky

    In the wake of the devastating Detroit riots of the summer of 1967, Michigan Gov. George Romney — a liberal Republican — met the radical organizer Saul Alinsky to discuss the grievances of the urban black poor.

    “I think you ought to listen to Alinsky,” Romney told his white allies, according to T. George Harris’s 1968 book, “Romney’s Way.”

    “It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,” he said.

    The Library of Congress preserved these photographs of what appears to be a meeting between the two men on September 13, 1967, in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/photo-exclusive-when-george-romney-met-saul-alins

  57. avatar
    realist July 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Off topic. More on this later.

    I’ll post them and send Doc the links.

    Thanks, Jerry. Look forward to reading them.

  58. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Sam Sewell: The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies.

    Europe is no longer a Jewish graveyard. Jewish culture is flourishing in places like Poland and Hungary.

    Know why? Liberalization.

  59. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    donna: Photo Exclusive: When George Romney Met Saul Alinsky

    Thank you. Both of Alinsky’s books were required reading in college.

  60. avatar
    G July 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Based on on behavioral observation to date, I share your opinion on this. Well stated!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that Jerry does not have a “legal mind” (gifted or otherwise) but rather a “creative mind.” He may come up with strategies and novel theories, but helacks both a high-functioning BS detector to know when his strategy and novel theory aren’t right, and he lacks the ability to form a legal argument to back up his strategy or legal theory. Jerry just cites a case, mentions a principle and expects the court to just see it. His briefs are remarkably devoid of argument and this is, I think, because he thinks everyone will intuit what he does. It doesn’t work that way.

    This is why Jerry might be a good research assistant to a lawyer, but shouldn’t try to prosecute complex cases on his own.

  61. avatar
    nbc July 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Sam Sewell:

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies.

    Funny, I have noticed no such thing on the left but on the right, we hear people whine all the time, filing lawsuits that have no foundation in legal or logic, asking for secession or other foolish actions, just because they do not like our President and fear him out of ignorance and deep seated hatred.

    You may want to read more about the ‘conservative mind’ which is easily triggered by fears of the unknown, needs strong ‘leadership’ to avoid having to think for themselves and who limit their uptake of information to sources which match their world views. Once you understand why especially tea party conservatives are extremely vulnerable to be manipulated by their fear and ignorance, can you better understand the birther movement.

  62. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Sam,

    I know you’re trying to help, but you’re being more off topic here than some of the anti birthers. Let’s stay focused, please.

    Thank you.

    Best,

    Jerry

    Sam Sewell:
    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html

    This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

    Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

  63. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Sam Sewell:
    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html

    This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

    Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

    Alinsky has nothing to do with it.

    Here’s MY rule #1: People like you should be ridiculed loudly, mercilessly, and often, because giving you what you actually deserve is against the law.

    I will continue to mock anyone who mistakes glandular mouth breathing for thinking as long as my heart beats. You are what’s wrong with America, my beloved country, and it pains me to see it polluted by your very existence.

    Clear enough?

  64. avatar
    Stanislaw July 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Sam Sewell:
    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    Not true. I’ve been ridiculing birthers for years and you ignorant, delusional, racist, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, tinfoil hat-wearing nutjobs have yet to concede anything.

    Wait…was that a personal attack I just used?

    Yes. Yes it was.

    Know why? Because birthers are ridiculous, and birtherism is ridiculous. If you want people to stop treating you like you’re ridiculous, the first step if for you to stop being ridiculous. If you want us to stop calling you stupid then stop being stupid. It really isn’t that complicated.

  65. avatar
    G July 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Oh, the hyperbolic histronic tantrums you come up with!

    What is with you losers and your fascination with some moldy old obscure character like Alinsky? I guess you pathetic RWNJs have some desperate need to manufacture bogeymen and then stick with them for endless decades past their expiration date.

    Seriously. This is 2012 you fools. The only people I’ve EVER heard mention Alinsky all come from the RWNJ side of the aisle and/or are REALLY, REALLY old and can’t grasp that this is no longer the 1960s that we live in…

    So by your own repeated words and actions, the ONLY folks who seem to be Alinsky follwers are out-of-touch NUTS like you…

    QUICK FACT OF REALITY: Ridicule is simply a realistic and natural byproduct of someone acting ridiculous in the first place.

    Therefore, the solution is very simple: Those who don’t want to be ridiculed simpy need to stop acting ridiculous. If you come off crazy or say lazy and ingnorant nonsense, you DESERVE to be called out on the carpet and poked fun at, for it.

    Clearly, folks like you are simply emotionally stunted, with an unfounded spoiled sense of self-entitlement that doesn’t exist. Learn to take some responsibility for your own foolish actions.

    Simply put, you are treated like fools, because that is how YOU chose to act. The onus and responsibility for your own behavior has always been on you…

    Sam Sewell:
    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html

    This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

    Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

  66. avatar
    G July 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    Maybe way back in your days. Certainly not in mine. Sounds like he was merely a passing fad for a narrow window of time of a specific generation and nothing more than that…

    misha: Thank you. Both of Alinsky’s books were required reading in college.

  67. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Sam, I know you’re trying to help, but you’re being more off topic here than some of the anti birthers. Let’s stay focused, please.

    Noooooo…Sam, please keep going. I hang on to every word. Thanks. XOXOXO

  68. avatar
    Stanislaw July 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    Sam,

    I know you’re trying to help, but you’re being more off topic here than some of the anti birthers. Let’s stay focused, please.

    Thank you.

    Best,

    Jerry

    I hate to break it to you but when it comes to birtherism, nothing any birther has said or will ever say has any chance of helping you.

  69. avatar
    nbc July 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Empirical research has also indicated that conservatives are generally higher in authoritarianism, intolerance for ambiguity, dogmatism, and need for closure than liberals. Based on these conservative correlates, it was hypothesized within this study that less introspective thought would be shown by those individuals who hold more conservative ideologies, as opposed to those individuals that hold more liberal ideologies.

    The general tendency to adhere to authoritarianism, the dislike of ambiguity, the unwillingness to explore facts that make one uncomfortable, all help explain many of the birthers’ actions. It’s an ill-founded fear of President Obama and his policies, combined with much ignorance about the extent of his policies, that drive many a birther to embrace a mythology that allows them to reject President Obama.
    It’s a fascinating case study into the republican brain, much like the position on global warming.

  70. avatar
    nbc July 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    misha: Noooooo…Sam, please keep going. I hang on to every word. Thanks. XOXOXO

    Sam is an excellent example of what makes a “birther”. Fascinating case study.

  71. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    G: Sounds like he was merely a passing fad for a narrow window of time of a specific generation and nothing more than that…

    I believe he created the occupation of community organizer. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  72. avatar
    Rickey July 20, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    realist:
    So Jerry… setting aside the fact there won’t be any discovery, and certainly not with dispositive motions pending, regardless of venue, who the hell did you file a request for a restraining order against and based on what?This should be good.

    Docket updates. All filings by Jerry.

    7/18/2012 PL 1 4 MOTION: TO RECONSIDER AND SET ASIDE TRANSFER OF VENUE RULING W/ATTACHED UNSIGNED ORDER 7/18/2012 PL 1 3 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER 7/18/2012 PL 1 2 NOTICE: OF MTN FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

    It’s here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100627967/COLLETTE-v-OBAMA-COLLETTE-Notice-of-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order

    Jerry apparently has realized that neither defendant in the case can be forced to do what he wants, which is to keep Obama off the November ballot. So now he is going to ask for a restraining order to keep the Democratic Party from submitting its list of electors, which the party is required to do (by September 1, I believe) pursuant to Florida election law. Good luck with that gambit, Jerry.

  73. avatar
    G July 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    I find that to be a rather dubious and overinflated assumption as well.

    Whether it was specifically called by that title before him or not, the general principles and reasons for organizing groups of people within a community for a specific purpose are not particularly unique nor even “modern” at all. Such structures will always continue to arise in many places within a society, based on need and cause. There will always be different people who step in to fulfill such roles.

    He may have been an important person at some point in history to capture and disseminate these sentiments for a certain audience at a particular time in history and obviously had some influence and inspiration on a certain generation of people. However, that certainly doesn’t make the principle concepts and motivations behind such anything truly “new” nor even needing to stem from his particular example at all.

    misha: I believe he created the occupation of community organizer. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  74. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Stanislaw: If you want us to stop calling you stupid then stop being stupid.

    Sure, like THAT’s ever gonna happen…

  75. avatar
    RMinIL July 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    Wasn’t Jesus supposed to have been a community organizer?

  76. avatar
    bgansel9 July 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    Sam Sewell: See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    I quoted his website, he can blame himself. But, sure, take the side of the “lawyer without a bar card”.

  77. avatar
    bgansel9 July 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    RMinIL:
    Wasn’t Jesus supposed to have been a community organizer?

    Why, Yes, yes he was.

  78. avatar
    bgansel9 July 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Rickey: So now he is going to ask for a restraining order to keep the Democratic Party from submitting its list of electors, which the party is required to do (by September 1, I believe) pursuant to Florida election law. Good luck with that gambit, Jerry.

    Well, it’s certainly creative. Apparently a gifted legal mind decides that when backed into a corner, it’s okay to obstruct the carrying out of a legal procedure to get what he wants. WOW!

  79. avatar
    Jim July 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    RMinIL:
    Wasn’t Jesus supposed to have been a community organizer?

    bgansel9: Why, Yes, yes he was.

    Not according to the Romans. 😀

  80. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    G: However, that certainly doesn’t make the principle concepts and motivations behind such anything truly “new” nor even needing to stem from his particular example at all.

    In depth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizer

    BTW, I personally met Cesar Chavez. I donated photography services to the UFW.

  81. avatar
    misha July 20, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    G: Sounds like he was merely a passing fad for a narrow window of time of a specific generation and nothing more than that…

    In my sphere, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizer

    1940 to 1960 – Saul Alinsky…is credited with originating the term community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote “Reveille for Radicals”…1946, and “Rules for Radicals”…1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, subsequently led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers.

  82. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 20, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    This thread is getting way off topic.

    A hearing on my Motion to Reconsider then, if it succeeds, defendants Motions to Dismiss, is scheduled for Thurdsay, 7/26 2pm. Motions for TRO and expedited discovery will not be heard at that time.

  83. avatar
    linda July 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    I had not heard of him until his name started being thrown around after the 2008 election. I was even called a devotee of his on another site (Gasp!).

    G: Maybe way back in your days. Certainly not in mine. Sounds like he was merely a passing fad for a narrow window of time of a specific generation and nothing more than that…

  84. avatar
    nbc July 20, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Jerry Collette: A hearing on my Motion to Reconsider then, if it succeeds, defendants Motions to Dismiss, is scheduled for Thurdsay, 7/26 2pm. Motions for TRO and expedited discovery will not be heard at that time.

    In the unlikely case that your motion to reconsider succeeds, the next step would be a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. There is just nothing there that makes legal sense (see GeorgetownJD’s comments).

  85. avatar
    Keith July 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    donna: “It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,” he said.

    There was a time when I respected the head of the Romney family.

  86. avatar
    Keith July 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Alinsky has nothing to do with it.

    Here’s MY rule #1: People like you should be ridiculed loudly, mercilessly, and often, because giving you what you actually deserve is against the law.

    I will continue to mock anyone who mistakes glandular mouth breathing for thinking as long as my heart beats.You are what’s wrong with America, my beloved country, and it pains me to see it polluted by your very existence.

    Clear enough?

    I concur, in general. May I be permitted to steal those lines on selected occasions?

  87. avatar
    Thrifty July 20, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    I swear to God, you guys just take the things that liberals say about you, replace the names, and regurgitate them without a thought to the meanings.

    Who the Hell is Saul Alinsky anyway? Like George Soros, I never even heard of the guy before he became one of the standard boogeymen for right wing nut jobs.

    Sam Sewell:
    The making of today’s thought thugs.

    See Saul Alinsky RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

    The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html

    This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

    Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html

  88. avatar
    SluggoJD July 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    I didn’t ask for advice. The motion’s already filed, as is.

    I put up a challenge for anybody to find substantive flaws in the MTR. That means flaws that would make a difference on the merits.

    I haven’t seen any substantive flaws in the MTR posted yet. While, certainly, RetiredLawyer did find some flaws that could be considered substantial, and I acknowledge that, that wasn’t the challenge. Nor was the challenge to find flaws in my other pleadings or motions.

    So, let’s see if we can focus and stay on point.

    I repeat: I challenge anybody on this blog to find any substantive flaws in my Motion to Reconsider.

    Anybody?

    Are you that brain dead?

    Here’s your major flaw – YOU WILL LOSE. You will lose every time in the future, just like you have lost in the past, just like every other racist nutcase loser has lost and will lose again, every damn time, because your lies and false realities only fool your audience of fellow racist nutcase losers.

  89. avatar
    JPotter July 20, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Jim:
    Not according to the Romans.

    One man’s organizer is the next guy’s agitator. Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, it’s all the same story.

  90. avatar
    JPotter July 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Thrifty: regurgitate them without a thought to the meanings.

    Sam is just spamming snippets of his old blog posts hither and yon. Such lack off effort is terribly disrespectful, but he’s still worth a chuckle. He’s one of the ravingest loons around!

    Thrifty: Who the Hell is Saul Alinsky anyway?

    A great guy, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_alinsky

    Read the interview he gave to Playboy in 1972:
    http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

    very prescient. (You have to click through, probably a better version elsewhere)

  91. avatar
    Sam Sewell July 20, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    Look how easily manipulated and distracted they are. I am reminded of the behavior of a classroom of ADD kids when a bird flies by the window.

  92. avatar
    Arthur July 20, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Oh Sam! You have such an attractive beard for being so very old.

  93. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 20, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    So is Steadydrip one of those joke sites?

  94. avatar
    Arthur July 20, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: So is Steadydrip one of those joke sites?

    I thought it was devoted to the consequences of syphilus. Which includes brain-wasting disease and Steve Buscemi eyes.

  95. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    Arthur: I thought it was devoted to the consequences of syphilus. Which includes brain-wasting disease and Steve Buscemi eyes.

    Speaking of Steve Buscemi, do a google search for “Steve Buscemeyes”. Its a bit like reading birther blog sites, you find yourself both amused and disgusted at the same time.

  96. avatar
    G July 21, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    *rolls eyes*

    Um, Sam – you DO realize that we are nothing more than folks with a particular interest and hobby who are free to talk about whatever piques our interest, don’t you?

    Guess what – no matter what we chose to discuss, EVERY day we all wake up, Obama is STILL president… there is NOTHING that any of us need to do or are even doing at all which impacts that.

    …So what is it again that we are somehow “distracted” from, exactly? But hey, keep telling yourself you are “winning”…since your actual goal is the removal of an elected and currently serving president…

    …Gee, seems like he was elected, sworn in and has been serving EVERY day of his term in office for OVER the past 3.5 years…so how’s that working out for you…?

    Sam Sewell:
    Look how easily manipulated and distracted they are.I am reminded of the behavior of a classroom of ADD kids when a bird flies by the window.

  97. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Sam Sewell: Look how easily manipulated and distracted they are.I am reminded of the behavior of a classroom of ADD kids when a bird flies by the window.

    Looks like the lithium is not working. Get help.

  98. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:So is Steadydrip one of those joke sites?

    No, Sam lacks the intellectual curiosity of The Onion.

  99. avatar
    G July 21, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    Hi Misha. As always, I appreciate your information and I do get that you are in some sense, specifically emphasizing his role in coining that specific term, “community organizer” as well as pointing out his influence in laying out certain specific methodologies for doing so.

    Obviously, you are also of the generational time period in which his work and influence were more prominent and had an impact. From you and others, I do “get” that he was even studied in many places by folks from your era.

    However, I’m not sure you got the main gist of the point that I was trying to make – that regardless of coining a specific term for it, the purpose and processes for what actually encompasses what is referred to now as “community organizing” in and of itself is neither new, nor unique. Had that Alinsky character not coined that term or not even existed, other people and forms of activities would still exist and arise that effectively do the sorts of work and use similar “community organizer” style organizational manners to accomplish their goals…

    ….and that even long before Alinsky coined that term, there are many examples of local folks organizing together and forming their own social networks, in order to accomplish goals and protect their interests, outside of the official business or government channels. So that specific terminology may not have existed before him, but those types of activist leaders and activitism organizational structures simply tend to arise within society, whenever a need is not being fulfilled via official channels.

    I’m not trying to take anything away from whatever important role and pioneering activity he did to brand and encourage the spread of such things during the last century. Nor am I trying to attack a historical figure, who obviously was an influence to a certain generation.

    I’m merely pointing out that the impact and influence of that name has effectively faded since then and if it wasn’t for the RWNJ dredging him up as a bogeyman these days, many educated folks from my generation and younger would never have heard of him and certainly didn’t study nor learn about him in our college experiences. Further, as there is nothing truly unique (and certainly not wrong) about the whole concept of what he termed “community organizing”, such activities would still arise and take form, as need be, under someone else’s inspiration, even if he never existed in the first place and even if the exact term for it was something completely different.

    misha: In my sphere, no.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizer

    1940 to 1960 – Saul Alinsky…is credited with originating the term community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote “Reveille for Radicals”…1946, and “Rules for Radicals”…1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, subsequently led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers.

  100. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 21, 2012 at 1:18 am #

    The Onion! Now there is a site that never fails to bust a gut.
    WND really needs to take notes about how they write their fake news articles.

  101. avatar
    G July 21, 2012 at 1:20 am #

    LOL! Yes…those images were both amusing and disgusting at the same time. 😉

    Definitely a creatively disturbing photoshop concept…

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Speaking of Steve Buscemi, do a google search for “Steve Buscemeyes”. Its a bit like reading birther blog sites, you find yourself both amused and disgusted at the same time.

  102. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    G: Obviously, you are also of the generational time period in which his work and influence were more prominent and had an impact. From you and others, I do “get” that he was even studied in many places by folks from your era.

    “folks from your era” Good night – how old do you think I am? You’re going to put me back on Prozac.

  103. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG</a :The Onion…WND really needs to take notes about how they write their fake news articles.

    Greeting Card Poetry Future In Peril
    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s8i10010

  104. avatar
    G July 21, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    😉 LOL! You are a Boomer, correct? …As in part of the “Baby Boom Generation”? That is the era I’m referring to – those “children of the 60’s”.

    I’m not that young anymore myself, but the political environment and life experience influences growing up for us “Generation X” folks seems to be quite different. Many of the big indelible “life shaping” events of your generation, simply took place before we were born. Similarly, the referential and life-shaping influences for the two generations after me are quite different from either of ours: Gen Y & the Millenials.

    But don’t worry, you’re still not “old”. Heck, I still tend to reserve that classification to those generations that PREDATE the Boomers… When you folks start hitting 70, then I’ll start thinking of you as “old”… 😉

    misha: “folks from your era” Good night – how old do you think I am? You’re going to put me back on Prozac.

  105. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 2:32 am #

    G: You are a Boomer, correct?

    Kaboom! (Yes)

  106. avatar
    Lupin July 21, 2012 at 2:35 am #

    Calendar-wise when will Jerry’s next resounding loss in court be announced?

    Can he then play again? (like, appeal, etc) Overall, how long does he have until the process boots him back in the gutter?

  107. avatar
    G July 21, 2012 at 2:52 am #

    😉 LOL!

    misha: Kaboom! (Yes)

  108. avatar
    misha July 21, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:The Onion! WND really needs to take notes about how they write their fake news articles.

    Chicago Aldermen To Oversee Iraq Voting
    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i9898

  109. avatar
    linda July 21, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    He said there is a hearing on his Motion to Reconsider 7/26 at 2pm. After that, I don’t know.

    Lupin: Calendar-wise when will Jerry’s next resounding loss in court be announced?

  110. avatar
    brygenon July 21, 2012 at 4:56 am #

    Jerry Collette: This thread is getting way off topic.

    A hearing on my Motion to Reconsider then, […]

    Many participants have kindly played by your rules, Jerry, but you’re pushing rather far in designating them “off topic” when they don’t. In my opinion, Dr. C and his community have been a bit too generous.

    The topic of the post to which we’re responding is that Sheriff Arpaio’s show pushed you out of the birther limelight. Dr. C. hadn’t even read your SD article when he wrote it. The larger topic here on OC is the crank nonsense, the conspiracy theories, the lies of the birthers. You know, Jerry, the stuff you put in your complaint:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/97189120/FL-COLLETTE-2012-04-26-Collette-First-Amended-Complaint

    I can understand, Jerry, how you might want the topic to be which county’s courts should hear your case, rather than how you recklessly disregard the truth, spread disgusting birther lies, and abuse the legal process. You might want the discussion limited to Florida precedent on venue, where you think you have a technical point, rather than your actual allegations, where this site utterly debunks and exposes you.

    Jerry, perhaps your action could have gotten past the particular venue issue, had you hired a lawyer. I don’t know on that one, but either way: so what? The legitimacy of the United States government does not depend on whether your frivolous and malicious challenge goes to the county of Leon or to Pasco.

  111. avatar
    brygenon July 21, 2012 at 5:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: My opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that Jerry does not have a “legal mind” (gifted or otherwise) but rather a “creative mind.” He may come up with strategies and novel theories, but he lacks both a high-functioning BS detector to know when his strategy and novel theory aren’t right, and he lacks the ability to form a legal argument to back up his strategy or legal theory. Jerry just cites a case, mentions a principle and expects the court to just see it. His briefs are remarkably devoid of argument and this is, I think, because he thinks everyone will intuit what he does. It doesn’t work that way.

    This is why Jerry might be a good research assistant to a lawyer, but shouldn’t try to prosecute complex cases on his own.

    True as that may be of birther paralegal Jerry Collette, it’s even more true of birther attorney Leo Donofrio.

    Collette is Donofrio-Lite.

  112. avatar
    JPotter July 21, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    brygenon: Many participants have kindly played by your rules, Jerry, but you’re pushing rather far in designating them “off topic” when they don’t.

    Just one of several tactics Collette’s uses to avoid responding to criticism.

  113. avatar
    linda July 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Posted on NBC’s site, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100837820/2012-7-23-FL-COLLETTE-DEFENDANTS-Response-in-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Reconsider-and-Set-Aside-Tranwfer-of-Venue-Ruling

  114. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    I also added two rulings in Florida which show that an order to change venue is a non-final order and cannot be addressed in a motion for rehearing. The proper approach is to file an appeal with the District Court of Appeals under Florida rule 9.130(a)(3)(A)
    The response also contains the transcript of the hearing. Quick and straightforward.

  115. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 23, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    nbc:
    I also added two rulings in Florida which show that an order to change venue is a non-final order and cannot be addressed in a motion for rehearing. The proper approach is to file an appeal with the District Court of Appeals under Florida rule 9.130(a)(3)(A)
    The response also contains the transcript of the hearing. Quick and straightforward.

    I am not asking for a rehearing on the order. If there is any rehearing, it will be on defendants’ motions to transfer venue, but that would only occur after the order is reconsidered and set aside. At that point, the order would not exist, so the rehearing would not be on the order, but on the original motion.

    I’ll be drafting a reply soon. I don’t have a team of attorneys like defendants, do, but I do know the difference between rehearing and reconsideration. I suspect they do, too, and that their latest response was, most likely, yet another attempt to flimflam the court.

  116. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I am not asking for a rehearing on the order. If there is any rehearing, it will be on defendants’ motions to transfer venue, but that would only occur after the order is reconsidered and set aside. At that point, the order would not exist, so the rehearing would not be on the order, but on the original motion.

    As the two cases show, naming it something else does not make it functionally equivalent to a motion to rehear.

    You are asking the court to reconsider its findings on the motion to transfer due to venue. I doubt that you will be successful in convincing the court that your motion is anything but a motion for rehearing.

    The order to move venue is a non-final order, so any attempt to have this heard in the original court would be without much hope.

    But IANAL, just someone who has been reading up on these topics. Just predicting the outcome.

    The order transferring venue was rendered January 19, 1982. Appellant then had 30 days within which to file its notice of appeal to this court. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(b). Instead, appellant filed a Motion to Change Order of Transfer of Venue to Denial of Motion to Transfer Venue or to Make Venue an Issue for Trial, which essentially amounted to a motion for rehearing on the order granting the venue change. This motion was denied by the trial court on February 12, 1982. Thereafter, on March 10, 1982, appellant filed this appeal.

  117. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    From: The Florida Bar Journal
    <a href = "http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/0020ff826ad66c5f852575c50049d2b4?OpenDocument"Reconsideration or Rehearing: Is There a Difference?

    nbc: As the two cases show, naming it something else does not make it functionally equivalent to a motion to rehear.

    You are asking the court to reconsider its findings on the motion to transfer due to venue. I doubt that you will be successful in convincing the court that your motion is anything but a motion for rehearing.

    The order to move venue is a non-final order, so any attempt to have this heard in the original court would be without much hope.

    But IANAL, just someone who has been reading up on these topics. Just predicting the outcome.

  118. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Note that Jerry clearly states

    The Venue Ruling Must Be Reconsidered

    Which is for all practical purposes an attempt for review of a non-final order. Of course, as I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong here but so far the cases I have found do not offer much support for Jerry.

    Jerry and I discovered the same document:

    But I stand corrected, in fact a motion for rehearing is different from a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order. The latter can be filed any time before final judgment and the court may consider whether or not they want to consider the order.

    Since the Judge was quite convinced that Jerry was wrong, this may be quite an uphill battle for Jerry.

  119. avatar
    misha July 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Let’s try that link again:

    It’s called lithium. Look into it.

  120. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    The remaining question: The case was closed, does this make it a final order/judgment?

  121. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 24, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    No. An order transferring venue closes the case for that court, but doesn’t close the case entirely. It’s in the category of what’s called an interlocutory judgment.

    nbc:
    The remaining question: The case was closed, does this make it a final order/judgment?

  122. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    In your order why do you state?

    Defendants’ motions to dismiss or transfer venue based upon improper venue, having been reheard, are hereby DENIED.

  123. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 24, 2012 at 4:23 am #

    nbc:
    In your order why do you state?

    Notice the sequence.

    From my draft reply:

    The rehearing that I have suggested would not be of an order, but would be of defendants’ original motion to transfer venue, however, any such rehearing would only occur if and after the court sets aside the order of July 16, 2012, transferring venue to Leon County. Therefore, at such a point, there would be no order in existence upon which to have a rehearing, but merely a then outstanding motion. Furthermore, I did not request, but merely suggested, a rehearing on this motion. I would willingly forego such a hearing and permit the court to simply deny the motion. My suggestion for a rehearing on it was simply a courtesy to defendants.

  124. avatar
    G July 24, 2012 at 4:55 am #

    Jerry, just wanted to say again that I appreciate that you drop by and help answer questions. 🙂

    Jerry Collette: Notice the sequence.

    From my draft reply:

    The rehearing that I have suggestedwould not be of an order, but would be of defendants’ original motion to transfer venue, however, any such rehearing would only occur if and after the court sets aside the order of July 16, 2012, transferring venue to Leon County. Therefore, at such a point, there would be no order in existence upon which to have a rehearing, but merely a then outstanding motion. Furthermore, I did not request, but merely suggested, a rehearing on this motion. I would willingly forego such a hearing and permit the court to simply deny the motion. My suggestion for a rehearing on it was simply a courtesy to defendants.

  125. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2012 at 7:01 am #

    Jerry Collette: Notice the sequence.

    . . . . . . . > Doomed.

    And hopefully, the end of your idiotic quest and loathsome waste of taxpayers’ resources.

    Birthers are despicable whiners.