Main Menu

Former Washington State Supreme Court judge pleads for reduced fees in Jordan case

As previously reported here, Linda Jordan was assessed costs of nearly $13,000 for a frivolous appeal of her lawsuit against the Washington Secretary of State, alleging Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Losing the original case, Jordan was asked to pay “statutory costs” in the amount of $200. She appealed, and the Washington Attorney General’s office, defending the Secretary of State, warned Jordan that if she pursued the appeal that the AG would ask for actual costs of litigation. Jordan persisted and lost the appeal.

The costs in the case were computed based on the number of hours recorded and the billing rates of the attorneys involved. One attorney charged at $250/hr and the other at $175. Jordan is asking the court to reconsider the judgment and the award.

ObamaReleaseYourRecords has published a letter purported to be by Richard B. Sanders, and former justice on the Washington State Supreme Court, stating:

Photo of Judge SandersFor the first time in 17 years, 15 of those sitting on the Washington Supreme Court, I have agreed to represent a private citizen. And I am pleased to lend Linda Jordan a helping hand.

In good faith Ms. Jordan commenced an action to question President Obama’s name on the ballot. She did the best she could with limited resources and no legal training. The government’s response was immediate and in some respects heavy handed. Having obtained a summary dismissal of her case, and then her appeal, the attorney general went further to demand the Secretary of State be reimbursed, claiming attorney fees amounting to almost $13,000. However what the attorney general did not tell the court is that the Secretary never actually paid this amount, nor was he billed this amount, nor probably anything close to it. The number is made up, pure fiction. The AG did not disclose the actual amount to the court probably because the objective is to get a punitive judgment for as much as he can without regard to actual expenditures which were much less.

My motion to modify and reduce the court clerk’s award of almost $13,000 will attempt to direct the court’s attention to the truth of the matter: that once again the government is hiding the ball to oppress a patriotic private citizen of modest means because she exercised her right to access the courts. This is not compensatory but punitive. It is not justice but oppression. Moreover $13,000 is truly an outlandish sum to obtain dismissal of an appeal the AG claimed was entirely lacking in merit. No wonder people mistrust the government, lawyers and the court system. It’s time to fight.

Richard B. Sanders
Lawyer

I haven’t seen the appeal documents yet, and I don’t know whether Judge Sanders has any evidence to back up the suggestion that the costs were inflated.

Sanders was defeated for re-election to the Court in 2010, and in an attempt to regain his seat in 2012.

Read more:

Print Friendly

, ,

189 Responses to Former Washington State Supreme Court judge pleads for reduced fees in Jordan case

  1. avatar
    Thinker February 5, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    Maybe if Linda Jordan kicks up enough dust and calls enough attention to her case, the feds will decide to charge her with a crime related to her illegally accessing Obama’s records in e-verify, something she has admitted doing. If she were smart–which she most certainly is not–she would be grateful she got out of this without being charged with a federal crime rather than whining about being sanctioned for her inarguably frivolous appeal of an inarguably frivolous case.

  2. avatar
    john February 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

    $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case. I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

  3. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 5, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    john:
    $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case.I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

    Translation: WAAAAAAAAH! Us birthers are getting our comeuppance, and that scares me!

    Don’t fret, John. The sanctions aren’t against little skid-marks like you. Its the ones who waste the time and resources of our judicial system that have to really watch their asses now.

  4. avatar
    Andy February 5, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    john:
    $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case.I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

    No, John, it wasn’t inflated. It was actually less than what a private attorney would have cost. It isn’t about keeping anything secret – it’s about stopping frivolous lawsuits and appeals. You’d think people would know that your average citizen doesn’t have standing in these cases.

  5. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

    john:
    $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case.I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

    Do you base your opinion on your extensive experience in analyzing legal bills?

  6. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    john:
    $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case.I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

    John, it wasn’t a secret. They said if you file an appeal, we will ask for cost. The smart thing (which is asking too much from a birther) to do is not file an appeal. (That had no case or chance in hell to go anywhere anyway)

  7. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    $250 & $175/hr?

    in ny, a paralegal would bill nearly that hourly rate

    Andy: You’d think people would know that your average citizen doesn’t have standing in these cases.

    i would think that an average citizen would consult with an attorney first about standing and civil procedure before filing a lawsuit – if he/she persisted and lost, i would think that an average citizen would pay the $200 and be done with it – i would certainly think that after a loss and warnings, an average citizen who persisted would be insane and deserved the resulting costs

  8. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 10:01 pm #

    “It’s time to fight.”????

    A former judge closes with a wannabe populist call to action?

    Stranger things have happened. A decent effort until that last phrase.

    Here’s the deal on the rectitude of these sanctions. The courts are a public resource, a commons, in place for the service and protection of all of the people. All citizens support the court system by paying taxes. The court system is also a limited resource. When a loon makes a plea, as is their right, and is not happy with the result, as, being a loon, they can be counted on not to be, and then persists in pursuing a resolved matter, they have overreached their right. All civil rights, including the right to petition, end where others begin.

    By pursuing a settled matter, the loon is in effect privatizing a public resource. They are stealing from the public. The elected and appointed representatives of that public have a duty to demand compensation on behalf of their constituents.

    Let’s go over to the loon’s house and swipe their TV. I bet they’ll squeal something about their property rights. ;)

  9. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 5, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

    Translation: “Waa waa waa my friend is fiscally and emotionally butthurt, because, despite being warned that further appeals would be regarded as frivolous, she went ahead and appealed anyway, despite offering no additional valid grounds for an appeal. ”
    One would think that an ex-Judge would know when his friend has behaved like a total plonker and would be advising her to not dig the hole deeper. In this case it seems that partisan ideology has trumped common sense.

  10. avatar
    alg February 5, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    I know Richard Sanders and he’s a jerk. It was a surprise to no one when he lost his seat on the Washington State Supreme Court. Neither was anyone surprised when he failed to win his election bid to return to the court this year. As a Washington State taxpayer, I believe should be fined even more for wasting valuable public resources on the reconsideration.

  11. avatar
    john February 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

    Can Jordan challenge the computed hours on each rate. Each date shows the amount of hours computed for that date but does not specify the exact time frames. could Jordan request discovery and demand that an hour by hour minute by accounting of billable hours. If the lawyer took a 1 hour lunch, is that calculated in. And are breaks calculated in as well. Considering if he getting paid $ 250 per and takes a 15 minute break that is considerable amount of money to be deducted.

  12. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    Sanders is being portrayed as a “retired”

    Retired Wash. Supreme Court justice joins Obama birther fight

  13. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 11:08 pm #

    IMO – if he is not going to try and get the sanctions thrown out completely, he’s got a good shot at getting them reduced.

  14. avatar
    Keith February 5, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: One would think that an ex-Judge would know when his friend has behaved like a total plonker and would be advising her to not dig the hole deeper. In this case it seems that partisan ideology has trumped common sense.

    My reading of it so far indicates that Sanders is only arguing that the penalty is too high, not unjustified. This seems a reasonable line to follow, to try to reduce the fine. Now if he tries to re-litigate, then I would certainly raise the stakes, I think.

  15. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    my reading of sanders is that the “Attorney General’s office, defending the Secretary of State” is a salaried position and as such not like an hourly billing attorney

    would an AG defending a secretary of state bill by the hour of is that part of his/her job?

  16. avatar
    john February 5, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

    I see that other the lawyer didn’t give an accounting of her 7 worked hours. Perhaps they can thrown out. Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday on outside normal business hours, so the legal work shouldn’t be calculated. Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    I once worked in an office building on the same floor as a law firm. I was in the bathroom standing beside one of the lawyers at the urinals, and I asked him “are you billing?”

    After a pause, and with a slightly embarrassed smile, he replied, “yes.”


    john: And are breaks calculated in as well. Considering if he getting paid $ 250 per and takes a 15 minute break that is considerable amount of money to be deducted.

  18. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:41 am #

    john: Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    Ummm …. come again?

    Assuming you have an employer, and particularly if you have ever been salaried, have you gone to them and demanded to be paid only for work done between the hours of 9am and 5pm? Your plan institutes a suicidal revenue cap on professional firms.

    You’d have a better point here if we were talking about day rates.

  19. avatar
    JRC February 6, 2013 at 12:46 am #

    John, of course it’s salaried. The question is….was it a waste of taxpayer money to defend the case? I’m sure you are all over wasting taxpayer money. Don’t be a hypocrite.

  20. avatar
    donna February 6, 2013 at 12:47 am #

    john: Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    seriously? in preparation for trials, attorneys work nights and weekends ….. all billable hours

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 1:16 am #

    A paragraph and references have been added to the end of this article.

  22. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2013 at 2:05 am #

    donna:
    my reading of sanders is that the “Attorney General’s office, defending the Secretary of State” is a salaried position and as such not like an hourly billing attorney

    would an AG defending a secretary of state bill by the hour of is that part of his/her job?

    They are on salary and do not bill the State by the hour, that is correct. The work is part of the job, yes.

    However, for the purposes of assigning specific monetary value to their time for calculating costs for this kind of situation, the Department has a standard schedule of fees. I expect that schedule is way less than the guys are getting if you calculated their annual back to an 8 hour day; they are surely way less than someone in a private practice.

    As the AG says in his explanation of the costs, the rates quotation is a ‘notional’ hourly rate from that departmental Departmental schedule.

  23. avatar
    Bob February 6, 2013 at 4:42 am #

    John,

    Are you concerned that the amount will be reduced merely to avoid Birther riots and not the right reason?

  24. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn February 6, 2013 at 5:05 am #

    “In good faith,” isn’t true. Jordon’s criminal access of records and using them for her “case” shows it was not in good faith. Her misrepresentation of the meaning of her results shows she was not in “good faith.”

  25. avatar
    Yoda February 6, 2013 at 8:21 am #

    john:
    I see that other the lawyer didn’t give an accounting of her 7 worked hours. Perhaps they can thrown out.Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday on outside normal business hours, so the legal work shouldn’t be calculated. Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    Ah Birfer logic at its finest.

  26. avatar
    Dave February 6, 2013 at 8:46 am #

    John’s comment about which hours should be counted is an example of a bad habit of thought that goes far beyond birtherism: confusing what the law is with one’s view of what it should be. Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion about what the law should be, but in the court, the only thing that matters is what the law is, no matter how wrongheaded it seems to you.

    Sure seems to me that this judge, whatever his faults, is a much better lawyer than most birthers get. In this past election, which he lost, the bar association rated him “well qualified” which was a lower rating than his opponents, but still. The guy is no Orly Taitz. I think with his help Jordan will get a fair shake at whatever the law actually does say the costs should be.

  27. avatar
    ASK Esq February 6, 2013 at 9:14 am #

    john: $13,000 is absurd from what the AG considers to be frivolous case. I think the cost number was intentionally inflated to punish and sanction anyone who wants to know the truth about Obama.

    Let me get this straight. Birthers have no problem believing that Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting birther cases, but $13,000 for a case seems high?

  28. avatar
    ASK Esq February 6, 2013 at 9:14 am #

    john: I see that other the lawyer didn’t give an accounting of her 7 worked hours. Perhaps they can thrown out. Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday on outside normal business hours, so the legal work shouldn’t be calculated. Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    John, for attorneys, there is no such thing as normal business hours.

  29. avatar
    donna February 6, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    Keith :

    thanks for the clarification!

    ASK Esq: Let me get this straight. Birthers have no problem believing that Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting birther cases, but $13,000 for a case seems high?

    great one -i believe it was fighting birther cases & “hiding his records” which are otherwise FREE due to privacy laws

    wasn’t the cost of one of the earliest cases under $900?

  30. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 9:44 am #

    Dave: Sure seems to me that this judge, whatever his faults, is a much better lawyer than most birthers get. In this past election, which he lost, the bar association rated him “well qualified” which was a lower rating than his opponents, but still. The guy is no Orly Taitz. I think with his help Jordan will get a fair shake at whatever the law actually does say the costs should be.

    He seems like a… character, at the very least. The Judgepedia entry linked to in the article refers to an incident in 2008 where Sanders, while a sitting state Supreme Court judge, heckled Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey at a speech, shouting, “Tyrant! You are a tyrant!”

    (Just to make things weirder, later in the speech Mukasey collapsed from exhaustion, but well after the heckling incident.)

    The other link Doc has added to the article, “controversial statements,” is worth reading, too.

  31. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 9:56 am #

    ASK Esq: Let me get this straight. Birthers have no problem believing that Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting birther cases, but $13,000 for a case seems high?

    Don’t forget the “Obama legal fees” meme: “Obama has spent $[Current Year – 2007] million to keep his records hidden”. How many legal actions in how many places did Obama’s millions cover?

    Lemme guess …. Kenyan Marxist Moooozlimo-Fascists have no concept of monetary value, so he blew the whole fictional wad on 1 imaginary case?

  32. avatar
    scott e February 6, 2013 at 10:49 am #

    this is good news, i hope everything accumulated so far gets laid out in court. i think there is another one in california being reinstated.
    it says a lot for the tenacity of the birthers, and the fairness of the country, in this age of apparent corruption. but that’s for the courts to decide. it’s a good system.
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/02/california-judge-reinstates-obama-eligibility-lawsuit.html

  33. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 10:56 am #

    john:
    I see that other the lawyer didn’t give an accounting of her 7 worked hours. Perhaps they can thrown out.Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday on outside normal business hours, so the legal work shouldn’t be calculated. Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    If there is a valid argument for compensation I think you’ve got it backwards, John.

  34. avatar
    WARPED ! February 6, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    Obots have a fetish for polarizing issues into monumental distortions of truths. A concerned citizen want so know who is running a nation called America then the STUPID Obots make every attempt to degrade,demean her character and her intent.

    Well the DUMB ass Obots need to begin wondering how much the taxpayer has expended to defend a criminal and forger who is surely guilty of fraud. And the Obots (disgusting trash and un-american twerps) need to removed from America’s legal system.

    Belli would surely hate the Obot idiots.

  35. avatar
    Arthur February 6, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    WARPED !: A concerned citizen want so know who is running a nation called America

    Who’s running this country? Barack Hussein Obama, II. You can call him Mr. President. And all the capitalized words that every birther has ever typed isn’t going to change that one jot.

  36. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 11:53 am #

    WARPED !: Belli would surely hate the Obot idiots

    Melvin? The plot thickens.

  37. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    I think Jordan has a good chance of getting the sanctions reduced or dropped. The court didn’t state why the case was frivolous and before Jordan is going to pay a dime, she needs to know exactly why her case is frivolous. In addition, I think Jordan can show that the lawyer wrote the letter in “bad faith” not to discourage Jordan from filing a frivolous lawsuit and burdening taxpayers with the fees but to silence Jordan on getting to the truth and using the legal system (as Judge Sanders has suggested) to getting to the truth. If you read the lawyer’s letter, he quotes several passages from the judge’s decision that are clearly “PREJUDICIAL IN NATURE” that are not meant to discourage Jordan but an attempt to intiminate Jordan from proceeding forward. For this reason, the lawyer acted in “bad faith” in asking for legal fees.

  38. avatar
    Bob February 6, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    WARPED !: Obots make every attempt to degrade,demean her character and her intent.

    We succeeded. It wasn’t difficult.

  39. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    In the lawyer’s letter, Mr. Even gives no reason why Jordan’s appeal is frivolous other then to state that is frivolous and refuses to tell Jordan why. Mr. Even then refers Jordan to several quotes from the judge’s decision which clearly prejudicial in nature. In addition, Mr. Even refers to a couple of passages from Judge’s decision that are factual distortions. Mr. Even further intiminates Jordan by referring to the $20,000 sanction fee imposed in the Georgia case. This point is found no where in the judge’s decision and $20,000 sanctions was specifically imposed on Orly Taitz from her behavior in that case and for raising additional allegations not related to Jordan’s case. This was simply to intiminate Jordan from proceeding further and she simply wanted to appeal her decision and have her day in court. The actions of Orly Taitz in the Georgia Case were far different that those found in this case. The letter was clearly written in “bad faith” meant to discourage a Washington State taxpayer access to the legal system to resolve a legal issue.

  40. avatar
    sfjeff February 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    WARPED !: Obots have a fetish for polarizing issues into monumental distortions of truths. A concerned citizen want so know who is running a nation called America then the STUPID Obots make every attempt to degrade,demean her character and her intent. Well the DUMB ass Obots need to begin wondering how much the taxpayer has expended to defend a criminal and forger who is surely guilty of fraud. And the Obots (disgusting trash and un-american twerps) need to removed from America’s legal system.Belli would surely hate the Obot idiots.

    Waaah Waaaah Waaah

    Making up a new name each time you come here to spew garbage doesn’t make it more entertaining. Perhaps you should pay someone for new material.

  41. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 6, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    The lodestar calculation provided is absolutely routine. In fact, the attorney went further than is required, by listing separately the different stages of work. This will be very helpful to the judge. I would expect the judge to strike the 1.4 hours spent on the unfiled motion, and it’s possible the ~17 hours on the motion for attorney fees could be reduced or eliminated, but the ~27 hours on the original responses are rock-solid. As for the 7 hours, it is noted that they were previously filed, so there might be a more detailed breakdown already available and incorporated by reference.

  42. avatar
    DaveH February 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    I guess Jordan should have read the judge’s ruling since he clearly wrote why the lawsuit was frivolous. Jordan certainly had a copy of the court’s opinion.

    john:
    In the lawyer’s letter, Mr. Even gives no reason why Jordan’s appeal is frivolous other then to state that is frivolous and refuses to tell Jordan why. Mr. Even then refers Jordan to several quotes from the judge’s decision which clearly prejudicial in nature. In addition, Mr. Even refers to a couple of passages from Judge’s decision that are factual distortions.Mr. Even further intiminates Jordan by referring to the $20,000 sanction fee imposed in the Georgia case. This point is found no where in the judge’s decision and $20,000 sanctions was specifically imposed on Orly Taitz from her behavior in that case and for raising additional allegations not related to Jordan’s case. This was simply to intiminate Jordan from proceeding further and she simply wanted to appeal her decision and have her day in court. The actions of Orly Taitz in the Georgia Case were far different that those found in this case.The letter was clearly written in “bad faith” meant to discourage a Washington State taxpayer access to the legal system to resolve a legal issue.

  43. avatar
    G February 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    BRAVO!!! Best summary of the whole situation yet! I completely and emphatically agree with every point you have so aptly made here!!! :)

    aesthetocyst:
    “It’s time to fight.”????

    A former judge closes with a wannabe populist call to action?

    Stranger things have happened. A decent effort until that last phrase.

    Here’s the deal on the rectitude of these sanctions. The courts are a public resource, a commons, in place for the service and protection of all of the people. All citizens support the court system by paying taxes. The court system is also a limited resource. When a loon makes a plea, as is their right, and is not happy with the result, as, being a loon, they can be counted on not to be, and then persists in pursuing a resolved matter, they have overreached their right. All civil rights, including the right to petition, end where others begin.

    By pursuing a settled matter, the loon is in effect privatizing a public resource. They are stealing from the public. The elected and appointed representatives of that public have a duty to demand compensation on behalf of their constituents.

    Let’s go over to the loon’s house and swipe their TV. I bet they’ll squeal something about their property rights.

  44. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

    “I guess Jordan should have read the judge’s ruling since he clearly wrote why the lawsuit was frivolous. Jordan certainly had a copy of the court’s opinion.”

    The judge decision is so riddled with personal and prejudicial bias to lack any claim that her case if frivolous.

  45. avatar
    Northland10 February 6, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    Definition of Fractal Wrongness:

    See John.

  46. avatar
    Daniel February 6, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    john:
    “I guess Jordan should have read the judge’s ruling since he clearly wrote why the lawsuit was frivolous. Jordan certainly had a copy of the court’s opinion.”

    The judge decision is so riddled with personal and prejudicial bias to lack any claim that her case if frivolous.

    Why are judges only wrong and biased when YOU lose?

  47. avatar
    DaveH February 6, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    You read it as riddled with personal and prejudicial bias. I read it as fact. Judges can not do that which is assigned to Congress and that is what makes Jordon’s and every other birther case frivolous.

    Maybe you should read that opinion along with the opinions of Judge Land and Judge Carter when they dismissed Orly’s cases and read them real slow?

    john:

    The judge decision is so riddled with personal and prejudicial bias to lack any claim that her case if frivolous.

  48. avatar
    DaveH February 6, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

    It might also do John some good to read the opinion of Judge England when he denied the TRO of Orly’s to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes.

    He clearly states in his opinion that the courts can not get involved in something where the Constitution states that only Congress has the power. Even if it were true, everything that birthers say about Obama, he would still have to be impeached to remove him.

    Also, there is no requirement for a person that runs for President to have a SSN or a BC as it is not written in the Constitution. Bringing up those allegations in a lawsuit in itself is frivolous since a court can not make a decision and rule on something that is the job of Congress.

    Birthers always claim to be Constitutionalist and yet they have absolutely no understanding of it.

  49. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

    A truly classic example in the judge’s decision that displays so much bias as to lack any credibility is the judge’s reference to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In his decision her refers to Arpaio as infamous and his investigation into Obama’s BC as musings. Neither of these allegations have any credibility whatsoever. Sheriff Arpaio is the Sheriff of AZ’s largest county and was easily re-elected. The judge makes no reference on how Sheriff is infamous. (I would argue that Judge is showing DISRESPECT to a proper authority with no rationale and should be admonished for it.) The judge also references to all of his evidence and investigation regarding Obama’s BC as musings. The judge offers no rationale for denying such evidence. No official body has ever refuted or discounted Arpaio’s investigative findings (Fogbow and Doc C. are not official bodies and don’t count.) Hawaii has claimed it verified the information contained in Obama’s BC but is directly contradicted by Arpaio’s investigation and any verification WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT is clearly self-serving (especially since the alleged forged document contained Hawaii’s seal and stamp). Again, Hawaii has never refuted any of Arpaio’s claims.

    This is just one instance on why the judge’s decision needs to be tossed out at judicial biased garbage and the sanctions against Linda Jordan need to be dropped, and the lawyer, Mr. Even needs to be cited for lawyer intimination and acting in bad faith.

  50. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    “Also, there is no requirement for a person that runs for President to have a SSN or a BC as it is not written in the Constitution. ”

    This is a dubious claim pushed by Obots and corrupt courts. If a candidate is Natural Born Citizen, then both common and legal sense would show he or she have a valid SSN and BC. The fact that Obama does not have valid SSN or a BC brings to question of whether he even a citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

  51. avatar
    predicto February 6, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    john:
    I think Jordan has a good chance of getting the sanctions reduced or dropped. The court didn’t state why the case was frivolous and before Jordan is going to pay a dime, she needs to know exactly why her case is frivolous.In addition, I think Jordan can show that the lawyer wrote the letter in “bad faith”not to discourage Jordan from filing a frivolous lawsuit and burdening taxpayers with the fees but to silence Jordan on getting to the truth and using the legal system (as Judge Sanders has suggested) to getting to the truth. If you read the lawyer’s letter, he quotes several passages from the judge’s decision that are clearly “PREJUDICIAL IN NATURE”that are not meant to discourage Jordan but an attempt to intiminate Jordan from proceeding forward. For this reason, the lawyer acted in “bad faith” in asking for legal fees.

    John, what you don’t understand about law could fill a legal library.

    In fact, it does. You are always wrong. It’s remarkable.

  52. avatar
    Horus February 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm #

    john:
    In the lawyer’s letter, Mr. Even gives no reason why Jordan’s appeal is frivolous other then to state that is frivolous and refuses to tell Jordan why. Mr. Even then refers Jordan to several quotes from the judge’s decision which clearly prejudicial in nature. In addition, Mr. Even refers to a couple of passages from Judge’s decision that are factual distortions.Mr. Even further intiminates Jordan by referring to the $20,000 sanction fee imposed in the Georgia case. This point is found no where in the judge’s decision and $20,000 sanctions was specifically imposed on Orly Taitz from her behavior in that case and for raising additional allegations not related to Jordan’s case. This was simply to intiminate Jordan from proceeding further and she simply wanted to appeal her decision and have her day in court. The actions of Orly Taitz in the Georgia Case were far different that those found in this case.The letter was clearly written in “bad faith” meant to discourage a Washington State taxpayer access to the legal system to resolve a legal issue.

    Learn to spell, it’s NOT “intiminate” it is intimidate!

  53. avatar
    Horus February 6, 2013 at 4:02 pm #

    john:
    “Also, there is no requirement for a person that runs for President to have a SSN or a BC as it is not written in the Constitution. ”

    This is a dubious claim pushed by Obots and corrupt courts.If a candidate is Natural Born Citizen, thenboth common and legal sense would show he or she have a valid SSN and BC. The fact that Obama does not have valid SSN or a BC brings to question of whether he even a citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

    It’s just your OPINION that President Obama’s SSN and BC are not valid.
    You have yet to back up your opinion with evidence and proof.
    If you had any actual proof, I see no reason why a member of Congress would have no problem bringing forward an article of Impeachment.
    Because as has been stated to you countless times, ONLY Congress can remove a sitting President! And no matter how much you wish a judge to verify your opinion, no judge will ever have the power to remove Obama from office.
    Get over it!

  54. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    john:
    “Also, there is no requirement for a person that runs for President to have a SSN or a BC as it is not written in the Constitution. ”

    This is a dubious claim pushed by Obots and corrupt courts.If a candidate is Natural Born Citizen, thenboth common and legal sense would show he or she have a valid SSN and BC. The fact that Obama does not have valid SSN or a BC brings to question of whether he even a citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

    John,

    There is no law that requires a citizen to have a Social Security Number. And many people alive today (fewer every day) never had a real birth certificate.

    My guess is that few, if any of our Presidents in the 19th and 18th centuries had government issued birth certificates like we see today and, of course, none of them had Social Security numbers.

  55. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    john: The judge also references to all of his evidence and investigation regarding Obama’s BC as musings. The judge offers no rationale for denying such evidence. No official body has ever refuted or discounted Arpaio’s investigative findings

    No “official body” has ever been presented Arpaio’s “investigative findings”. Hence no refutation.

    The Surprise Tea Party is not an “official body”.

  56. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 6, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

    If the Cold Case Posse had any evidence of malfeasance worth a damn, they should have either passed it to law enforcement or to Congress. To date, they have done neither. The CCP have mostly recycled previously published material that has not been accepted into evidence in any successful lawsuit.
    The judge is correct to describe their findings as “musings”.

  57. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    CarlOrcas: My guess is that few, if any of our Presidents in the 19th and 18th centuries had government issued birth certificates like we see today and, of course, none of them had Social Security numbers.

    Doc would certainly know best, but birth certificates didn’t get rolling in this country until the mid-19th. They weren’t near-universal until WWII. ALL Presidents in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th would have have a church record at best, of birth or baptismal, maybe a record in a family bible, etc.

    SSNs are in now way required. If a family / community was living completely off the grid, home birth, home-schooling, etc., would their children be required to have BCs? IDK. Doc? …. you’ve probably answered this before … !

  58. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    justlw: If a family / community was living completely off the grid, home birth, home-schooling, etc., would their children be required to have BCs? IDK. Doc? …. you’ve probably answered this before … !

    I asked something similar, once:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/new-hampshire-birther-bill-nixed/#comment-155406

  59. avatar
    sfjeff February 6, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

    john: Sheriff Arpaio is the Sheriff of AZ’s largest county and was easily re-elected.

    If that was relevant to credibilty I would feel compelled to point out that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and was easily re-elected also.

    Neither has any relevance to any legal discussion.

  60. avatar
    richCares February 6, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

    “would their children be required to have BCs”
    you need a state issued BC to get a passport!

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    The registration of births goes as var back as the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1639. Some states gathered baptismal records on an annual basis. Of course, individual state statutes differ, and even if required parents didn’t necessarily know about registering a home birth. My father’s birth in 1916 was not registered.

    John Adams may well been able to obtain a birth certificate.

    If you want the details, see:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf

    and in particular look starting at PDF page 51.

    aesthetocyst: Doc would certainly know best, but birth certificates didn’t get rolling in this country until the mid-19th. They weren’t near-universal until WWII. ALL Presidents in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th would have have a church record at best, of birth or baptismal, maybe a record in a family bible, etc.

  62. avatar
    Ridiculous February 6, 2013 at 6:29 pm #

    “CarlOrcas: My guess is that few, if any of our Presidents in the 19th and 18th centuries had government issued birth certificates like we see today and, of course, none of them had Social Security numbers.”

    The comment above surely makes the point that American citizens have the “right” to have an eligible POTUS. How would anyone deem a candidate qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for office or not?

    The facts are … America had common sense people living in America and these people had engrained ‘integrity’ to enforce their rights to have people of their era to obey the laws.

    The ‘implied’ rights to have an eligible POTUS is fully indicated by a comment above, made to support the USURPER, but in reality that comment points out that the American citizens have a legal interest in assuring that a candidate was 35 years of age, on American soil for 14 years, born of citizen parent/S, and born on American soil, and of course in that era one wouldn’t have had to FORGE 3 documents required to be America’s POTUS.

    All the rules, laws, administrations point out that Americans had the legal interest to determine a candidates eligibility…. when SSN and BC were not available… so how could a candidate for office be vetted for qualifications without those document? Furthermore, the establishment of newer systems in a nation would or should’ve enhanced the American citizens capacity to know who is who and what their agendas were when it concerned a candidate for any government office in America.

    This blog shows how ignorant …. the useful idiots with degrees can be.

  63. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    john: This is a dubious claim pushed by Obots and corrupt courts.

    I know how corrupt the courts are. I have refused to pay traffic and parking tickets.

    You should too.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will February 6, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    Ridiculous:
    “CarlOrcas: My guess is that few, if any of our Presidents in the 19th and 18th centuries had government issued birth certificates like we see today and, of course, none of them had Social Security numbers.”

    The comment above surely makes the point that American citizens have the “right” to have an eligible POTUS. How would anyone deem a candidate qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for office or not?

    The facts are … America had common sense people living in America and these people had engrained ‘integrity’ to enforce their rights to have people of their era to obey the laws.

    The ‘implied’ rights to have an eligible POTUS is fully indicated by a comment above, made to support the USURPER, but in reality that comment points out that the American citizens have a legal interest in assuring that a candidate was 35 years of age, on American soil for 14 years, born of citizen parent/S, and born on American soil, and of course in that era one wouldn’t have had to FORGE 3 documents required to be America’s POTUS.

    All the rules, laws, administrations point out that Americans had the legal interest to determine a candidates eligibility…. when SSN and BC were not available… so how could a candidate for office be vetted for qualifications without those document?Furthermore, the establishment of newer systems in a nation would or should’ve enhanced the American citizens capacity to know who is who and what their agendas were when it concerned a candidate for any government office in America.

    This blog shows how ignorant …. the useful idiots with degrees can be.

    Ridiculous? Your trolling is asinine and nonsensical as well. And you obviously haven’t read the Constitution.

  65. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    Ridiculous: The ‘implied’ rights to have an eligible POTUS is fully indicated by a comment above, made to support the USURPER, but in reality that comment points out that the American citizens have a legal interest in assuring that a candidate was 35 years of age, on American soil for 14 years, born of citizen parent/S, and born on American soil, and of course in that era one wouldn’t have had to FORGE 3 documents required to be America’s POTUS.

    He didn’t forge 3 documents. None of those documents are even required to be President and no president before Obama has shown them publicly.

    Ridiculous: This blog shows how ignorant …. the useful idiots with degrees can be.

    Yes and those ignorant useful idiots are called birthers and they often troll here

  66. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    If Sanders had been the judge dealing with the matter, I wonder what he would have sanctioned Jordan for wasting the court’s time.

  67. avatar
    JD Reed February 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    Of course, John, you have no proof –actual proof that stands up to scrutiny — that the President has no valid BC or SSN. As no other president was required to show a BC or SSN bfore election, how can it be possible outside the Alice-in-Wonderland kingdom of birtherdom that Mr. Obama was obliged to submit same?

  68. avatar
    Keith February 6, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The registration of births goes as var back as the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1639. Some states gathered baptismal records on an annual basis. Of course, individual state statutes differ, and even if required parents didn’t necessarily know about registering a home birth. My father’s birth in 1916 was not registered.

    Many of these historical records were lost in the War of 1812 when the British burned various town. My great*6 (IIRC) grandfather was one of them. We know the generations before and after him, we know his birth date, but we don’t know for sure who his parents were. We have made a reasonable guess who his father was but there is no way to be sure.

  69. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    richCares:
    “would their children be required to have BCs”
    you need a state issued BC to get a passport!

    But these theoretical hermits have no interest in going anywhere!

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you want the details, see:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf

    and in particular look starting at PDF page 51.

    Thanks, Doc!

  70. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    aesthetocyst: Doc would certainly know best, but birth certificates didn’t get rolling in this country until the mid-19th. They weren’t near-universal until WWII. ALL Presidents in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th would have have a church record at best, of birth or baptismal, maybe a record in a family bible, etc.

    SSNs are in now way required. If a family / community was living completely off the grid, home birth, home-schooling, etc., would their children be required to have BCs? IDK. Doc? …. you’ve probably answered this before … !

    My grandparents were born in the 1890′s and to the best of recollection when they died my dad had to jump through hoops to get birth confirmations so he could get death certificates.

  71. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

    misha marinsky: I have refused to pay traffic and parking tickets.

    You, sir, are a true patriot!! The founding fathers never paid any damn parking tickets.

  72. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 6, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    Ridiculous: This blog shows how ignorant …. the useful idiots with degrees can be.

    You have a degree?

  73. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    CarlOrcas: You have a degree?

    More than one, I’d say! ;)

  74. avatar
    G February 6, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    BOOM! Well said and well played, sir! :)

    sfjeff: If that was relevant to credibilty I would feel compelled to point out that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and was easily re-elected also.

    Neither has any relevance to any legal discussion.

  75. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The founding fathers never paid any damn parking tickets.

    Parking tickets are communism.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

    Have you ever heard in the history of the country of any candidate for US President ever presenting a birth certificate or a social-security card to any governmental body for the purpose of proving qualifications for office? Ever?

    Before Barack Obama, where was the hue and cry over this startling omission?

    It seems to me that objection to Obama came first and THEN the concern for documentary proof, not the other way around. Therefore it’s about Obama, not vetting the President.

    Ridiculous: All the rules, laws, administrations point out that Americans had the legal interest to determine a candidates eligibility…. when SSN and BC were not available… so how could a candidate for office be vetted for qualifications without those document?

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 9:46 pm #

    The grounds for dismissal were eminently plain and well-documented.

    john: The judge decision is so riddled with personal and prejudicial bias to lack any claim that her case if frivolous.

  78. avatar
    john February 6, 2013 at 11:37 pm #

    Linda Jordan should contact Mario Apuzzo and Mr. Hemmingway. Both were able to get the sanctions dropped when is became known to the court that discovery was warranted before such sanctions could actually be accessed.

  79. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 2:34 am #

    john: Linda Jordan should contact Mario Apuzzo and Mr. Hemmingway. Both were able to get the sanctions dropped when is became known to the court that discovery was warranted before such sanctions could actually be accessed.

    Linda was warned that she would run the risk of being awarded cost for her foolish pursuits. She then backed out and was granted what was due to her.

    Now she is blaming others for her own follies.

    Sad….

    Let’s hope the court will not let her off easy for her behavior. She incurred many unnecessary cost to the defendants and she should pay for these.

  80. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 2:38 am #

    john: Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday on outside normal business hours, so the legal work shouldn’t be calculated. Only legal fees during normal business hours should be accounted for.

    No, weekend work should be double charged… Or perhaps triple. Those poor lawyers had to work overtime…

  81. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 2:47 am #

    Remember that it was Jordan who filed the following

    11-02-12 Notice of Intent to Withdraw – Filed

    But the damage had already been done..

    She is lucky that they are not looking into her accessing President Obama’s SSN.

  82. avatar
    Keith February 7, 2013 at 3:46 am #

    john: Further, I’ve noticed that much of the legal work was done on Saturday and Sunday.

    It was probably simple enough that they could do it from home, with interruptions from the dog and the kids and the pool cleaner being much less distracting than having to do actual AG work meeting with lawmakers, Governors, department heads, etc, etc, etc.

  83. avatar
    JD Reed February 7, 2013 at 9:35 am #

    ” … 3 documents required to be America’s POTUS….”

    “so how could a candidate for office be vetted for qualifications without those document?

    Ridiculous, you make a valid point that in earlier times birth certificates, draft registratioin documents and Social Security numbers were not available. But to follow your demands converning Obama’s papers. he was far from, the first president to take office when these were in use.
    I suspect that every president starting with Carter, at least, had a BC and an SSN, but none was ever demanded until Obama came along. Why is that?
    ( Some presidents, such as Ford and Johnson, lived at a time that Social Security was in place, but they each spent most of their careers as members of Congress, and until 1984, MCs did not participate in the Social Security system.)

    Your phrase “3 documents required to be America’s POTUS” is just dead wrong. The original constitution sets out the qualifications necessary to become president, and it hasn’t been amended since to add Social Security number, draft registration number and birther certificate.
    So you’ve used false terminology, or to put it in birther lingo, fraudulent terminology.

  84. avatar
    john February 7, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    I think Linda Jordan can show that Mr. Even acted with malicious intent and in “bad faith” when he sent his letter to Ms. Jordan. Jordan should definitely use the letter to her advantage. First Mr. Even offers nothing but threats in the letter. He tells Ms. Jordan her case is frivolous and wholly without merit. He won’t tell her why but refers her to the judge’s decision. Here Mr. Even is trying to mislead Ms. Jordan. No where in the decision does the judge state that Ms. Jordan’s case is frivolous or without merit, only that he was not persuaded by her arguments. Mr. Even then tries further intiminate Jordan by referring to quotes from the judge’s decision that are highly prejudicial in nature. Mr. Even further tries to mislead Ms. Jordan by telling her that a case that was appealed was sanctioned $20,000. Mr. Even is not being honest. The $20,000 was in direct result of Orly Taitz further pursuing the case against her client’s wishes and advancing forward wild accusations towards the judge. I don’t believe Orly was sanctioned simply for bring the case forward. The allegations raised in that case were different from Ms. Jordan’s case. In the end, it was not Mr. Even intent in “good faith” to help Ms. Jordan out but a malicious attempt in “bad faith” to prevent Ms. Jordan from using the legal system to resolve issues. Mr. Even certainly did not want this case to be appealed and based on his legal work spent quite bit of time trying to keep evidence from getting on to the record.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 7, 2013 at 10:13 am #

    The Eisenhower experience is perhaps instructive. When he ran for president, there was some question about his birth circumstances, and Eisenhower didn’t have a birth certificate. He found one living relative who could attest to where he was born and that person provided to the evidence for a “delayed certificate.”

    The difference is that NO ONE asked for a forensic examination of it. See:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=847576

    JD Reed: I suspect that every president starting with Carter, at least, had a BC and an SSN, but none was ever demanded until Obama came along. Why is that?

  86. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 10:25 am #

    JD Reed:

    i read that carter had a birth certificate because his mother, a nurse, was working in the hospital when she went into labor

    and i agree with doc: The difference is that NO ONE asked for a forensic examination of it

    all of this is cloaked under the disguise of racism and bigotry –

    it’s like “conservatives” – if there are so many conservatives, then why are there so few republicans?

    there was the “tea party”, a label which people wore as some sort of heroic badge – and now, rasmussen reports that it’s the most negative political label with 8% membership

    birthers will go down in similar flames

  87. avatar
    LEARN NOW February 7, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    “Keith February 7, 2013 at 3:46 am (Quote) #
    Your phrase “3 documents required to be America’s POTUS” is just dead wrong. The original constitution sets out the qualifications necessary to become president, and it hasn’t been amended since to add Social Security number, draft registration number and birther certificate.
    So you’ve used false terminology, or to put it in birther lingo, fraudulent terminology.”

    Only an imbecile would resort to a play on words in a attempt to make their point of having a “NO ONE” as a POTUS for Americans.

    Anyone with the pedigree that the White House ‘turd’ has would never get a job with any ‘common sense’ organization in America. In fact, and in most cases if anyone lied on an application for a job with any company in America, it was a mandatory firing of that individual in most cases, but especially true if the job applicant applied for a job where a government contract was involved. Some people were fired because they misrepresented being jailed for a one night drunk offense which they just plain forgot about 30 years after the fact.

    The ‘turd’ in the White House should be FIRED immediately and jailed for his voter fraud where he collected almost a billion dollars from the American citizens using FALSE documents to prove who he is.
    He will be jailed for FRAUD… and he probably would’ve been better off not making a deliberate attempt to have FORGED documents to indicate his eligibility. Had he allowed the system to flow as it did in the past where there were no current day documents and requirements he may have survived his criminal FRAUDULENT acts.

    The American citizens are not aware of that bastard’s lies, and they will surely find out, and then the stuff will hit the fan.

    Currently … militias are jailing judges for not obeying their oaths to defend the American constitution. Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???. the judges were taken to the jail house and then they were incarcerated by the sheriffs.

    The mentally retarded obots who deny that Americans have a right to know who is running their country are the people that Putin (of all people) says are the American ‘illiterates’ and let’s not leave out the matter that they are the degreed…’useful idiots’ that brought; Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Morsi, and more dictators into power.

    The former POTUS of America were vetted, there’s no doubt about it and the candidates like Goldwater and others were also vetted. Chester Arthur… is another story all together.

    Keep on being STUPID about American rights and the oaths and pledges taken by military, citizens, and government office holders to defend the American Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and you will get a country like Argentina… now with 30% inflation following their push to socialism.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTY3klgl_KY

    http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20958959/argentina-freezes-prices-to-break-inflation-spiral

    It’s also obvious that the insane obots on this blog haven’t got a clue that Americans rid themselves of the ‘collective’ when the 1st Governor of the colonies learned that a collective couldn’t work to sustain the colonies. Governor Bradford was hesitant to institute capitalism and did so because he believed that the ‘moral’ integrity of the colonist would allow capitalism to work properly. Gov. Bradford’s views were upheld by a dignatary called De Toqueville a French diplomat and intellectual. De Toqueville stated that the new American experiment was functioning properly because of a ‘morally’ focused citizenry, a value that is seriously lacking in the insane, useful idiot obots on this blog.

    The insane Obots; the useful idiots with degrees, haven’t got a clue about how American ideology rose up among its citizens.

    FREEDOM was the focus of the American colonist because they had a serious desire and a stake in pushing off a oppressive king.. and when Americans begin to get the same effect from that “bastard” in the White House then they will become Americans again.

  88. avatar
    john February 7, 2013 at 10:44 am #

    Mr. Even also mentions sanctions involved in the Hollister case. If I am not mistaken, those sanctions were dropped when is was argued that discovery would part of due process in order to actually imposes the sanctions. Ms. Jordan should contact Mr. Hemingway. I think she could get in touch with him if she contacts “Ducky”.

  89. avatar
    G February 7, 2013 at 10:49 am #

    Hmmm … I seem to recall Apuzzo & Hemmingway’s reprieve from sanctions being a lot closer to them having to simper and grovel before the judge…

    It had NOTHING to do with the “discovery” angle BS that you just invented..

    john:
    Linda Jordan should contact Mario Apuzzo and Mr. Hemmingway. Both were able to get the sanctions dropped when is became known to the court that discovery was warranted before such sanctions could actually be accessed.

  90. avatar
    G February 7, 2013 at 10:53 am #

    Awww…some little sore losers still Haz a Sad over the election…

    Hey, keep crying “Any.Day.Now”…that’s really worked out so well for you…

    LEARN NOW: rant…whine…stomp feet…rinse…repeat.

  91. avatar
    john February 7, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

  92. avatar
    Majority Will February 7, 2013 at 11:11 am #

    G:
    Awww…some little sore losers still Haz a Sad over the election…

    Hey, keep crying “Any.Day.Now”…that’s really worked out so well for you…

    Pathetic, little freaks, aren’t they?

    The bigots are desperately clinging to a dying cause and frightened.

  93. avatar
    G February 7, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    Wow…that is crazy nonsense…even for you John.

    Sorry, but your “religious freedoms” do not ever include subjecting others to live according to your religious beliefs…that is the antithesis of “religious freedom”

    *duh*

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

  94. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 7, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

    Spoken like a true Birfer. Utterly preposterous.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 7, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    Uh, no. That only happened in your imagination.

    Hollister was sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) for signing a frivolous complaint.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613272/Hollister-ORDER-Finding-Rule-11-Violation-in-Hollister-v-Soetoro-March-24-2009

    The sanction was in the form of a reprimand. The judge was lenient because, he said, that Hemenway was 82 years old and not likely to repeat the offense.


    john: Mr. Even also mentions sanctions involved in the Hollister case. If I am not mistaken, those sanctions were dropped when is was argued that discovery would part of due process in order to actually imposes the sanctions. Ms. Jordan should contact Mr. Hemingway. I think she could get in touch with him if she contacts “Ducky”.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 7, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    Fortunately for the future of our country, there aren’t too many folks like you with deranged conspiracy theories about false documents.

    Have a blessed day.


    LEARN NOW: The mentally retarded obots who deny that Americans have a right to know who is running their country are the people that Putin (of all people) says are the American ‘illiterates’ and let’s not leave out the matter that they are the degreed…’useful idiots’ that brought; Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Morsi, and more dictators into power.

  97. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 7, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    john: This may be stretch……..

    The understatement of the 21st century!

    Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in a long time.

  98. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 7, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    LEARN NOW: The ‘turd’ in the White House should be FIRED immediately and jailed for his voter fraud where he collected almost a billion dollars from the American citizens using FALSE documents to prove who he is.

    Might be nice if you learned from your own name.

    Everybody who counts accepts BHO’s perfectly valid documentation. Only really, really stupid or crazy people (or some combination of the two) cling to the idiotic notion that there is anything suspicious about anything in BHO’s past.

    Presidents are among the most examined people in history. After BHO leaves office, having repaired a lot of the damage wrought by the Bush administration, there will be books written about him, articles, research papers, doctoral theses, etc. And you know what? There will never come a time when BHO is shown to have been ineligible, or that his papers were forged. NEVER. Not gonna happen.

    What do you need to learn? Simple. That BHO doesn’t owe you a damn thing. Probably Error #1 in Birfoonery is that the burden of proof is on the accused. It is not. The burden of proof is on the accuser. And Birfoons have proven precisely NOTHING.

    No evidence BHO ever embraced communism. No evidence he ever had a close relationship with Bill Ayers, or ever advocated violence of any kind. No evidence he was born anywhere but in Hawaii. No evidence he ever lost his citizenship. No valid legal argument that he is not a NBC.

    Nothing. Nada. Zip.

    So who is the real turd here? Who needs to “learn?” Who is in denial of the facts? Who is acting against America’s interests?

    Who actually is stupid enough to believe that 19 judges have been removed by militias, a complete and total fabrication? Who looks “insane” by spewing mouth-diarrhea that can be disproven in under a minute?

    Why, that would be you.

  99. avatar
    john February 7, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    “Uh, no. That only happened in your imagination.

    Hollister was sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) for signing a frivolous complaint.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613272/Hollister-ORDER-Finding-Rule-11-Violation-in-Hollister-v-Soetoro-March-24-2009

    The sanction was in the form of a reprimand. The judge was lenient because, he said, that Hemenway was 82 years old and not likely to repeat the offense.”

    Not Necessarily Doc. In responding to the sanction threat, Mr. Hemingway did point out that “Discovery” would be part of his process to fight those sanctions. Although, Judge Robertson does not mention this in his ruling and lets him off for other reasons, I believe Judge Robertson may have keep this quiet. In you recall, Judge Robertson was quite concerned that his case was getting alot of attention and said he wanted to get rid of it quickly. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Judge Robertson, would be quiet on the prospect of allowing “discovery” in Obama’s records as part of due process to fight the sanctions. In fact, Judge Robertson does mention this in his ruling.

  100. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    LEARN NOW:

    the 10 most educated states voted for obama and 9 of the 10 least educated states voted for mitt – obama won by nearly more that 5 million votes and in nearly every demographic – he even beat paul ryan in his own district

    your portrayal of americans/obots belies credulity and is not supported by the evidence –

    why did ALEC’s paul weyrich say in 1980: I don’t want everybody to vote. As matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

    why were there so many voter suppression efforts proposed by republicans?

    evangelical pastor Jesse Lee Peterson lectured his audience: “I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should have never turned that over to women.”

    “It was a big mistake…these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil, who agree with them…Men in the good old days understood the nature of the women, they were not afraid to deal with them. Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.”

    as doc said: Fortunately for the future of our country, there aren’t too many folks like you with deranged conspiracy theories about false documents.

    and fortunately, the vast majority is not

  101. avatar
    Scientist February 7, 2013 at 11:52 am #

    john: This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights

    I suggest you try that if you are ever taken to the hospital over a weekend. Just refuse to pay the bill. Let us know what happens.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 7, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    That is absurd. There is no discovery when the court dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    The judge pointed out that in his response Hemenway tried to argue the merits of the case, but the judge had none of that. The merits of the underlying claim are irrelevant when a case is dismissed.

    john: In responding to the sanction threat, Mr. Hemingway did point out that “Discovery” would be part of his process to fight those sanctions.

  103. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    john: This may be stretch,

    As silly as that was, at least it was creative! Not seeing much of that from de birfers dese days.

  104. avatar
    Jim February 7, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

    Does Ms Jordan go shopping, eat out, buy gas, etc, etc, etc on Sunday? Then she cannot now claim she doesn’t want to pay people working on the Sabbath because it’s against her religion. =))

  105. avatar
    Scientist February 7, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    aesthetocyst: As silly as that was, at least it was creative! Not seeing much of that from de birfers dese days.

    john is possibly the most intellectually honest of the birthers who post here. He admits up front that his ideas are dumb and have no chance of working. If Bob Gard would just say, “Yeah making a 1722 page book based on an imagined conversation from 220 years ago is kind of silly and I never really expected Karl Rove to make it the centerpiece of his campaign,” I would have a bit of respect for him.

  106. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 7, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

    You need taken back around the woodshed and savagely beaten like a piñata. People doing crap like what you just suggested, is EXACTLY why our legal system is the mess it is. Always looking for a loophole, instead accepting their court appointed punishment like adults.

  107. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

    Scientist:

    when trump and others were saying no one knew obama, rove said on greta’s show that one of his deputies helped obama get on harvard’s law review

  108. avatar
    Keith February 7, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    LEARN NOW: “Keith February 7, 2013 at 3:46 am (Quote) #
    Your phrase “3 documents required to be America’s POTUS” is just dead wrong. The original constitution sets out the qualifications necessary to become president, and it hasn’t been amended since to add Social Security number, draft registration number and birther certificate.
    So you’ve used false terminology, or to put it in birther lingo, fraudulent terminology.”

    I did not say that, and I don’t like people putting words in my mouth. I have enough trouble with the words I put there thank you very much.

    Please go back to whatever Troll-hive you belong, your mommy has you milk and cookies waiting for you.

  109. avatar
    sfjeff February 7, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    LEARN NOW: Currently … militias are jailing judges for not obeying their oaths to defend the American constitution. Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???. the judges were taken to the jail house and then they were incarcerated by the sheriffs.

    Anybody who gets all tingly about the concept of ‘citizen’s going around kidnapping judges is a dangerous individual.

    Please get some help before you decide to act like the former policeman who also decided the law wasn’t treating him fairly and is now killing cops- and the family of his lawyer.

  110. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    john: I think Linda Jordan can show that Mr. Even acted with malicious intent and in “bad faith” when he sent his letter to Ms. Jordan. Jordan should definitely use the letter to her advantage

    He properly informed Linda about the fact that he would be pursuing cost if she continued with her frivolous appeal.

    Eventually Linda withdrew her appeal but too late…

    Malicious intent and bad faith? John, you surely have a lively imagination.

    Jordan had failed to add an indispensable party to her lawsuit and there was no duty of the SOS to do what Jordan was asking for.

  111. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

    john: This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even.

    It’s no more a stretch than most of your other ‘arguments’ John.

    Desperate times eh?

  112. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    john: It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Judge Robertson, would be quiet on the prospect of allowing “discovery” in Obama’s records as part of due process to fight the sanctions. In fact, Judge Robertson does mention this in his ruling.

    Such despair John. Has it occurred to you to try to become familiar with legal issues before you make such silly assertions?

  113. avatar
    nbc February 7, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    LEARN NOW: In fact, and in most cases if anyone lied on an application for a job with any company in America, it was a mandatory firing of that individual in most cases, but especially true if the job applicant applied for a job where a government contract was involved

    But the Presidential Elections are a bit different from a job application, now are they not?

    Only Congress has the right to remove an elected president.

    Just familiarize yourself with the Constitution before making such foolish assertions.

  114. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 7, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    LEARN NOW: Currently … militias are jailing judges for not obeying their oaths to defend the American constitution. Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???. the judges were taken to the jail house and then they were incarcerated by the sheriffs.

    You know, I think that would have made a sizable media splash, and would have been very difficult to cover up, as an entire state gov’t would be missing its judges pretty badly.

    The winger war on judges has been going on since at least the ’80s, and it hots up every time a Dem is in the WH (curious, iddn’t it?). Do us all a favor, wingers, and keep it locked up in your fantasies, this time, k?

    Clogging courts with frivolous litigation is one thing. Forcing them to adopt add’l security burdens double-dipping.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

    http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=128

  115. avatar
    gorefan February 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    nbc: He properly informed Linda about the fact that he would be pursuing cost if she continued with her frivolous appeal.

    Wasn’t he required to submit such a warning letter if he wanted to be awared legal fees?

    Welcome back. I hope your time off was relaxing.

  116. avatar
    Norbrook February 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

    LEARN NOW:
    (snipped long ramble and substitute summary)
    Summary: The President is black! OMG! Can’t you people get that through your head! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

    Yes, we know, just like we know he was one of the top graduates of Harvard Law, and was a best-selling author before becoming a Senator or President. Rich, too.

  117. avatar
    Horus February 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

    Yet for some people the Sabath(sic) begins at sundown on Fridays.
    And it’s Sabbath, not Sabath.

  118. avatar
    JD Reed February 7, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    John — stretching? Perish the thought!

  119. avatar
    Yoda February 7, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    John, what you fail to realize is that you should be praising the attorneys who billed for the time they spent on the weekends. That means that they were doing work on what might otherwise be their own time so as to not to take time away from the actually important things that their jobs require them to do in what might be considered office hours.

  120. avatar
    Dave B. February 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

    “Billing the night away…”

    Dr. Conspiracy: I once worked in an office building on the same floor as a law firm. I was in the bathroom standing beside one of the lawyers at the urinals, and I asked him “are you billing?”

    After a pause, and with a slightly embarrassed smile, he replied, “yes.”

  121. avatar
    Horus February 7, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    LEARN NOW:

    Currently … militias are jailing judges for not obeying their oaths to defend the American constitution. Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???.the judges were taken to the jail house and then they were incarcerated by the sheriffs.

    I’d say you’re the one that is mentally retarded if you believe that story.
    Go back on your meds.

  122. avatar
    Dave B. February 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

    As I understand it, the issue of acquiring a birth certificate for Eisenhower mattered more to the city fathers of Denison, Texas, who wanted to pre-empt claims that Eisenhower had been born in Tyler.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Eisenhower experience is perhaps instructive. When he ran for president, there was some question about his birth circumstances, and Eisenhower didn’t have a birth certificate. He found one living relative who could attest to where he was born and that person provided to the evidence for a “delayed certificate.”

  123. avatar
    Dave B. February 7, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    The unidentified “militia” member was Bigfoot. Some reports state so, anyway.

    LEARN NOW: Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???.

  124. avatar
    justlw February 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    LEARN NOW: Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???.

    Did they call themselves the “Sons of the Newt“? I think I found one of their pictures.

  125. avatar
    justlw February 7, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Btw, I found a story on one of the wackjob sites about something like this (only a single judge, though) — from 2004.

    However, the byline of the article, allegedly from the Denver Post, is “Rita Goodstory.”

  126. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm #

    gorefan: Wasn’t he required to submit such a warning letter if he wanted to be awared legal fees?

    Welcome back.I hope your time off was relaxing.

    Public servants do not keep track of how many hours they work on particular cases because there are no billable hours, at least in my experience as a public servant for a limited time. The lead attorney in this case must have made the assumption early on that sanctions were going to be sought and kept some kind of log. I find it simply amazing that an attorney with the number of years of experience he has would need so much time to complete many of the itemized tasks he submitted. Someone at his level gets piles of what is probably more important work, and to spend that many hours on what really SEEMS (I haven’t read through all the documents filed) to be not all that complex makes me wonder why he didn’t just pass the case on to the other attorney who worked I think about 7 hours on it.

    Additionally, are the people of the State of Washington, those who pay the salaries of the public servants, going to get a check in the mail? I have been looking for cases where the government is treated as a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees. This is the only one I could find, but it is distinguishable.
    http://masscases.com/cases/app/37/37massappct164.html

  127. avatar
    gorefan February 7, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    charo: Public servants do not keep track of how many hours they work on particular cases because there are no billable hours

    I read recently that in fact they do keep track and that there are itemized cost sheets for just such occasions as this. I’ll see if I can find it.

  128. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    gorefan: I read recently that in fact they do keep track and that there are itemized cost sheets for just such occasions as this.

    possible they use software like “timeslips”, etc so they can keep track of what employees are doing and how long it is taking them – these programs spit out “itemized cost sheets”

  129. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    Maybe it depends on the agency. Keeping track of billing is a pain in the arse.

  130. avatar
    Jim February 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm #

    charo: Public servants do not keep track of how many hours they work on particular cases because there are no billable hours, at least in my experience as a public servant for a limited time.

    I don’t think that would be true…as with any department they have to answer to the people that control the purse strings and those folks would want to know how much time was being spent on cases…especially big cases. Wasn’t there an accounting of the hours for the OJ trial?

  131. avatar
    justlw February 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    charo: Additionally, are the people of the State of Washington, those who pay the salaries of the public servants, going to get a check in the mail?

    I don’t know. Do they get a check in the mail when someone gets a parking ticket?

  132. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

    charo: Maybe it depends on the agency. Keeping track of billing is a pain in the arse.

    in ny law offices, it’s common practice and obligatory – time sheets and retainer agreements are attached to pleadings – everything, including the dates/times & contents of phone calls and meetings, are kept in client files

  133. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    All I can tell you JIm is that I worked in the late 90`s as a public servant and there was not a requirement to keep track of hours. It was not in a prosecutor’s office, but I do see a former one regularly and I’ll ask him whether that was the case in the DA’s office.

  134. avatar
    SueDB February 7, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

    You have to have some yard stick to account for a salaried employees hours when dealing with a value of services situation. You shouldn’t just stick the taxpayer with anything over a pittance. AFAIC Ms. Jordan needs to whip out a check book for wasting taxpayer time. I was at the Hearing and received a copy of the judgement from Judge McPhee at the same time she did. She was told why by the Judge. She didn’t like it, but that’s life.

  135. avatar
    gorefan February 7, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    charo: All I can tell you

    I remembered where I read about a cost sheet. It’s in the Declaration of Attorney’s Fees submited by Jeff Evans in his case.

    “The Office of the Attorney General has developed a schedule of litigation recovery rates, to be used when seeking the recovery of attorney’s fees from opposing parties. A true and correct copy of that schedule is attached as Exhibit C.”

    Exhibit C sets the hourly rates.

    .http://www.scribd.com/doc/119376084/DECLARATION-OF-JEFFREY-T-EVEN-DETAILING-REQUEST-FOR-ATTORNEYS-FEES

    They are only billing for the hours involved in the appeal. Since they had sent her a letter saying they were going to seek fees if she filed her appeal, it makes sense that they would have kept track of their hours when she in fact appealed.

  136. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 7, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    Assigning conspiratorial agency to the quantification of gov’t resources?

    Why isn’t charo lauding this effort to combat this waste of gov’t resources?

    Is charo for waste in gov’t?

  137. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    HI Donna, Generally a commonwealth attorney is assigned so much work for such minimal pay that the amount of money per hour is quite low. In today’s economy, however, even those jobs are well sought out. My school loan is higher than my mortgage. I am just about to engage in a set up that pays little but requires an active license, even though I will not be representing anyone. And I’m thankful for it.

  138. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 7, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

    Jim: I don’t think that would be true…as with any department they have to answer to the people that control the purse strings and those folks would want to know how much time was being spent on cases…especially big cases.Wasn’t there an accounting of the hours for the OJ trial?

    I am not a lawyer but it strikes me that a prosecutor’s officer, or other public attorney, needs to be able to assess each attorney’s work and how could they do that without tracking their output?

  139. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    Rule Gorefan, my Android is acting up but I thought the expenses were beyond what was appealed (my kids are hogging the computers). Did you look at the Massachusetts case? Attorney’s fees for the a Commonwealth are controlled by statute. I looked for Washington state cases concerning sanctions with attorney’s fees being awarded to the Commonwealth but could find none. I don’t have electronic legal research so I am limited. Thx

  140. avatar
    gorefan February 7, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    charo: but I thought the expenses were beyond what was appealed

    Not according to the declaration:

    “During the time period of September 7, 2012, through and including October 16, 2012, I devoted a total of 27 hours to the defense of this appeal. The time period begins after this appeal commenced, and ends before I began work on Respondent’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees, and therefore does not include any time devoted to that motion.”

    He adds an additional 17.4 hours for his work on the Motion For Attorney’s Fees and there is an aditional 7 hours for the work of Deputy Solicitor General Allyson Zipp.

    He is seeking fees under this RULE 18.1

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=app&set=rap&ruleid=apprap18.01

  141. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    CarlOrcas, Speaking from my experience the legal secretaries kept track of the case loads, but not hours. I knew what I had to do and did it. If I had a hearing, I had to prepare for it. If I didn’t I would have been in trouble. There was no tracking of the hours of prep time because no client was billed. In my position, I represented the agency. There were two aspects to my job, one of which was employment law. My opponents were employees of the agency who were disgruntled. I don’t know of any case where the Commonwealth requested attorneys fees but I could very well be wrong.

  142. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    HI Charo:

    thanks for that – i actually enjoy keeping the records – it’s not only important for clients, courts & adversaries but also for employees & employers and compensation –

    good luck to you in your new endeavor – remember to pay yourself first – Suze Orman says so

  143. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

    gorefan: Not according to the declaration:

    “During the time period of September 7, 2012, through and including October 16, 2012, I devoted a total of 27 hours to the defense of this appeal. The time period begins after this appeal commenced, and ends before I began work on Respondent’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees, and therefore does not include any time devoted to that motion.”

    He adds an additional 17.4 hours for his work on the Motion For Attorney’s Fees and there is an aditional 7 hours for the work of Deputy Solicitor General Allyson Zipp.

    He is seeking fees under this RULE 18.1

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=app&set=rap&ruleid=apprap18.01

    Now that I am back to the computer, it is easier for me to follow, and I see your point. I still think that is a very hefty claim for the nature of the case. Can you imagine the Commonwealth paying outside counsel this sum for the same issue? In the agency where I worked, cases would occasionally be farmed out because of conflict, whatever. A charge of over $12,000 for the type of work that had to be done here would likely be considered an outrage. It really wasn’t all that complex. If the sanctions were claimed as strictly punitive versus recovery of litigation costs, it would make more sense to me, like Orly getting fined $20,000. I suppose that is the intention of the judge, even though he is terming it attorney’s fees.

  144. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

    donna:
    HI Charo:

    thanks for that – i actually enjoy keeping the records – it’s not only important for clients, courts & adversaries but also for employees & employers and compensation –

    good luck to you in your new endeavor – remember to pay yourself first – Suze Orman says so

    love suze’s show but haven’t seen it in awhile- “Girlfriend!”

  145. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 7, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    charo:
    CarlOrcas,Speaking from my experience the legal secretaries kept track of the case loads, but not hours.I knew what I had to do and did it.If I had a hearing, I had to prepare for it.IfI didn’t I would have been in trouble.There was no tracking of the hours of prep time because no client was billed. In my position, I represented the agency.There were two aspects to my job, one of which was employment law.My opponents were employees of the agency who were disgruntled.I don’t know of any case where the Commonwealth requested attorneys fees but I could very well be wrong.

    How does a prosecutor ask for more personnel if he/she can’t demonstrate what work the current staff is doing? That’s my point.

  146. avatar
    justlw February 7, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    From my [redacted] the state attorney:

    There are various reasons state employees are asked to track hours worked on a project-by-project basis, ranging from the pseudo-efficiency of “trying to run government like a business,” shading into serious efforts to track, for various reasons, how resource-intensive a particular project is. And certainly, the situations where hours are most likely to be tracked carefully are those where some sort of outside funding source needs to know the number of hours worked. This often happens when there’s grant funding, but litigation where the court is likely to award fees is high on the list. And in this case, the fee award was announced in advance, so it’s actually more like a grant award except for the lack of any promise of funding, and there are a lot of grant awards like that these days.

  147. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    to gorefan,

    From your link:

    Generally. If applicable law grants to a party the right to recover
    reasonable attorney fees or expenses on review before either the Court of
    Appeals or Supreme Court, the party must request the fees or expenses as
    provided in this rule, unless a statute specifies that the request is to be
    directed to the trial court.

    ***
    My question is what applicable law allows the government to collect attorney’s fees here? It is not a civil rights case where the statute specifically allows it. That is what the Massachusetts case stated. What statute (not Washington’s Rules of Civil Procedure) allows for the government to collect attorney’s fees? Not claiming a conspiracy here, but just interest- the right of the Attorney General to collect attorney’s fees was challenged in Massachusetts in a particular case because there was no statutory authority-

    The above would also be directed to you, justlw

    CarlOrcas- Maybe some courts have more updated technology to track hours, but it’s the case load I would guess that determine whether additional prosecutors are needed. That is how it is determined whether to budget for more judges. Our county added a judge several years ago, not based on billable hours.

    Thanks all, been interesting.

  148. avatar
    charo February 7, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    One more thing. Above I said that the Mass. case stated fees could be collected by the government in Civil Rights cases. I meant consumer protection:

    We conclude from the statutory language, from examination of the Federal analogs, and from the well understood purpose for the award of legal fees that the right of the Attorney General of Massachusetts to recover amounts on account of legal fees is not to be implied; it must be based on express legislative language. It is not as if the Legislature cannot express itself on this subject when it desires so to do. In the analogous area of consumer protection it has spoken directly. General Laws c. 93A, Section 4, as amended by St. 1985, c. 468, now provides that when the Attorney General brings an action in the name of the Commonwealth, the person chargeable with violation of c. 93A may be subjected to civil penalties to be paid to the Commonwealth, as well as “the reasonable costs of investigation and litigation of such violation,

    Page 170

    including reasonable attorney’s fees.” No similar provision appears in G. L. c. 151B, Sections 5 or 9.

    The portion of the judgment requiring payment of $9,080 on account of attorney’s fees is struck. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

    http://masscases.com/cases/app/37/37massappct164.html

  149. avatar
    justlw February 7, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

    charo: My question is what applicable law allows the government to collect attorney’s fees here? [...] What statute (not Washington’s Rules of Civil Procedure) allows for the government to collect attorney’s fees?

    [...]

    The above would also be directed to you, justlw

    No idea. IA definitely NAL.

  150. avatar
    Keith February 7, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    aesthetocyst: The winger war on judges has been going on since at least the ’80s, and it hots up every time a Dem is in the WH (curious, iddn’t it?).

    I draw your attention to the Impeach Earl Warren “movement” from the 1950′s, when a Republican was in the White House. The “movement” was ‘driven’ by the John Birch Society founded by Robert Welch and funded by Fred Koch father to today’s well known Koch Brothers who are continuing to fund the JBS after rebranding it as the “TEA Party”.

  151. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 7, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

    Keith: I draw your attention to the Impeach Earl Warren “movement” from the 1950′s, when a Republican was in the White House. The “movement” was ‘driven’ by the John Birch Society founded by Robert Welch and funded by Fred Koch father to today’s well known Koch Brothers who are continuing to fund the JBS after rebranding it as the “TEA Party”.

    Yeah, we’ve always had paranoid people and thus we’ve always had right wing nutters, and no, they don’t disappear when the White House goes Red, as the Reds are never red enough. I was speaking specifically on the threatening of judges by sovcits and militia types … as referenced by the drive-by troll above.

  152. avatar
    donna February 7, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    Motion Filed: Obama Defenders Shakedown Linda Jordan For Challenging Obama Identity Fraud

    Overbilled Nearly $10,000

    Excerpt via the Motion to Modify:

    Ms. Jordan details in her prior affidavit her unsuccessful efforts to obtain legal counsel and that an award of over $12,000 against her “would be an extreme financial hardship for me and it does seem unreasonable.” Jordan Declaration Objection 6. She makes little more than $500 per month caring for a senior citizen. Her husband is a school teacher. Although the court has previously determined her legal arguments were not well taken there is no claim she acted in bad faith or will malicious intent. Any award against her should be compensatory, not punitive.

    according jordan, the number of hours were “unreasonable”

    http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/02/motion-filed-obama-defenders-shakedown-linda-jordan-for-challenging-obama-identity-fraud-2454908.html

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124407022/Jordan-v-Reed-Appellant-Motion-to-Modify-Washington-State-Supreme-Court-Obama-Challenge-Sanction-Appeal-2-5-2013

  153. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 7, 2013 at 11:15 pm #

    charo: My question is what applicable law allows the government to collect attorney’s fees here?

    Why would there be an expectation of a statute specifically including the state? The WA RCP clearly entitles prevailing parties to cover costs, and specifically covers instances of frivolous litigation. It would seem more likely yo expect a statute excluding the state from consideration as a ‘prevailing’ party for the purposes of provision relevant to costs. As stated right in the RCP’s most applicable bit: “The provisions of this section apply unless otherwise specifically provided by statute.” http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.84&full=true#4.84.185

    All that said … what responsible state would open itself to abuse in that manner?

    Oh, and IANAL.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

    Back in the day our company sold Time and Activity recording software to state agencies for just those purposes.

    justlw: From my [redacted] the state attorney:

  155. avatar
    Greenfinches February 8, 2013 at 7:37 am #

    aesthetocyst: charo: My question is what applicable law allows the government to collect attorney’s fees here?

    why, charo, are you objecting to this step being taken? Isn’t it fair to the state taxpayers to receive compensation for the waste of their (staff) resources by Ms Jordan?

    About time that the birthers paid some of their way, I’d say.

  156. avatar
    Rickey February 8, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    john:
    This may be stretch, but can Ms. Jordan allege religious freedom violations on the part of Mr. Even. Mr. Even did legal work on Sunday and is asking Ms. Jordan to pay for that legal work. However, if ms. Jordan is Catholic or Christian, she could allege that violates her religious freedoms because the 3rd Commandant dictates you must honor the Sabath Day, meaning no work on Sunday. Because Mr. Even did work on Sunday, which is Sabath Day, and is making Ms. Jordan pay for it, it violates her religious freedoms and rights.

    Apart from the fact that your argument is absurd, you have not properly stated Catholic doctrine. The rule has always been “no unnecessary servile work” on Sunday. “Servile work” is defined as “that which requires labor of body rather than of mind.” I realize that you only recently converted to Catholicism, so I’ll cut you some slack on that point. I just want to assure you that you are free to use your mind on Sundays.

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000Nov/nov2cat.htm

  157. avatar
    Rickey February 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    charo:

    My question is what applicable law allows the government to collect attorney’s fees here?

    I don’t pretend to know the laws of the State of Washington, but I believe that it is instructive that former judge Sanders is not challenging the State’s entitlement to recover attorney fees. He isn’t even disputing the appropriateness of sanctioning Linda Jordan. He is only challenging the amount of the attorney fees.

  158. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm #

    Dave B.:
    As I understand it, the issue of acquiring a birth certificate for Eisenhower mattered more to the city fathers of Denison, Texas, who wanted to pre-empt claims that Eisenhower had been born in Tyler.

    Almost all biographies claim that the Eisenhowers first lived in Tyler, then moved on to Denison, then finally returned to Kansas. The father worked for the Texas railroad.

    “On September 28, 1891, Father David Eisenhower bought a home in Tyler from R. Bergfield and Caroline Bergfield.”

    Frank X. Tolbert, “Tolbert of Texas: The Man and His Work”, p 75.

    The easiest explanation for buying a house in Tyler more than one year after his son’s birth, would be that when Ike’s mother told Ike’s younger brother that Ike had been born in Denison, she was mistaken – the family was still living in Tyler. At West Point, Ike (still David Eisenhower then) had himself claimed he was born in Tyler.

    To really be sure, you would need to know more about Father David Eisenhower’s CV with the Texas railroads. But the railroad’s pay rolls were destroyed somewhere before 1900.

  159. avatar
    Rickey February 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm #

    Scientist: I suggest you try that if you are ever taken to the hospital over a weekend.Just refuse to pay the bill.Let us know what happens.

    Well played, sir!

    Yesterday evening I received a rush request to track down a missing witness for a personal injury lawsuit. It took me most of the evening (they had the name of the witness backwards, and it turned out that he has since changed his surname), and all the time I had a basketball game airing on the TV in the background (I confess that I occasionally sneaked a peek). Am I billing for my time? You betcha!

    I work whenever my clients need me to work – evenings, weekends, on an airplane, even while I’m on vacation.

    John apparently would prefer that all workers follow these rules:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU3Hs36FIrw

  160. avatar
    gorefan February 8, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Almost all biographies claim that the Eisenhowers first lived in Tyler

    This fellow has a different take:

    http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html

    The first “birther”.

  161. avatar
    JPotter February 8, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Scientist: I suggest you try that if you are ever taken to the hospital over a weekend. Just refuse to pay the bill.

    Per the new Obamacare procedures, they will be required to kill you.

    Which is also an extra charge, natch.

  162. avatar
    misha marinsky February 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    LEARN NOW: Currently … militias are jailing judges for not obeying their oaths to defend the American constitution. Some reports state that 19 Colorado judges were jailed by a four man militia made up of a school teacher, a law enforcement member, a grocer, and ???. the judges were taken to the jail house and then they were incarcerated by the sheriffs.

    You forgot the Belgian UN troops in Montana. Someone told someone I know, who told me.

  163. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 8, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    misha marinsky: You forgot the Belgian UN troops in Montana. Someone told someone I know, who told me.

    My source says they make great waffles

  164. avatar
    Ghost Ship Sailor February 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

    The question in this one is going to rest on how the hourly rate was calculated. In private practice an attorney can make up the hourly rate on their own subject really only to what the market will bear. Law practice is one of the few free market fields we actually have left.

    However the AG (and staff) are not in private practice and thus their costs would be figured out differently. As government employees, they are subject to whatever contracts they work under. In my city the city lawyers actually have a union and thus a set wage and compensation plan. So to figure out the hourly rate, you take the salary, divide by 52 (weeks in a year) then again by 40 (Hours in a week) and there is the hourly rate.Depending on the contract there may be some sort of overtime involved, but that is fairly rare in jobs with higher base salaries.

    As an example if the lawyer is paid 120K, his hourly rate would be about $57. In order for a public sector employee to get the $250 that he might get in the private sector, his annual base salary would have to be $5,520,000. I find that unlikely.

  165. avatar
    Keith February 10, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    CarlOrcas: My source says they make great waffles

    Some great beer too. Unfortunately, they make a lot of bad beer too.

  166. avatar
    gorefan February 10, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    Ghost Ship Sailor: The question in this one is going to rest on how the hourly rate was calculated.

    In Washington, the AGs office worked up an hourly rate chart as part of Litigation Recovery. It was included with the Declaration of Attorney’s Fees.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/119376084/DECLARATION-OF-JEFFREY-T-EVEN-DETAILING-REQUEST-FOR-ATTORNEYS-FEES

  167. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 10, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Ghost Ship Sailor: So to figure out the hourly rate, you take the salary, divide by 52 (weeks in a year) then again by 40 (Hours in a week) and there is the hourly rate.

    I am surprised that the rate calculation does not incorporate other compensatory and non-compensatory expenses above the salary, such as cost of the billed employee’s insurance, workspace, etc.

  168. avatar
    Thinker February 10, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    I think it does. The rate for the lawyer was $250/hour, which would be $520,000 per year if that were just his salary. There’s no way the State of Washington is paying a lawyer that much. Figuring in benefits and overhead (based on the rates that I used when I worked for the federal government), a billing rate of $250/hour comes out to a salary of about $170,000, a much more reasonable figure for a government employee.

    J.D. Sue: —

    I am surprised that the rate calculation does not incorporate other compensatory and non-compensatory expenses above the salary, such as cost of the billed employee’s insurance, workspace, etc.

  169. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 10, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    donna:
    Motion Filed: Obama Defenders Shakedown Linda Jordan For Challenging Obama Identity Fraud

    Ms. Jordan details in her prior affidavit her unsuccessful efforts to obtain legal counsel and that an award of over $12,000 against her “would be an extreme financial hardship for me and it does seem unreasonable.” Jordan Declaration Objection 6. She makes little more than $500 per month caring for a senior citizen. Her husband is a school teacher. Although the court has previously determined her legal arguments were not well taken there is no claim she acted in bad faith or will malicious intent. Any award against her should be compensatory, not punitive.

    A nice sob story. Now, what part of “she was warned that if she filed a frivolous appeal, she would likely be sanctioned” did you not understand?

  170. avatar
    charo February 11, 2013 at 6:27 am #

    Thinker:
    I think it does. The rate for the lawyer was $250/hour, which would be $520,000 per year if that were just his salary. There’s no way the State of Washington is paying a lawyer that much.Figuring in benefits and overhead (based on the rates that I used when I worked for the federal government), a billing rate of $250/hour comes out to a salary of about $170,000, a much more reasonable figure for a government employee.

    Jeffrey Even who claimed around 16 years experience (?)
    2011 salary $109,327 (billed $250/hr according to pay scale)

    Allyson Zipp $55,957 (billed $175 per hour)

    http://fiscal.wa.gov/Salaries.aspx

    I don’t believe when attorney’s fees are awarded that overhead costs are ever taken into account.

    Going back to the Massachusetts case that I cited, the Attorney General believed he was entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. The court said he was wrong because the government is not an aggrieved person entitled to fees. I am sure that office also had some kind scale that it was working from. It was a full blown case. The court found that the fees were reasonable, but the Attorney General in this case was not allowed to collect the fees because there was no statute permitting the award to the Government. I would not suggest to Jordan to make that kind of challenge here! I was just curious about cases where there may have been a challenge to reasonableness of attorney’s fees awarded to the government and could only find the Massachusetts one.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2013 at 7:56 am #

    And what is the basis of this belief?

    charo: I don’t believe when attorney’s fees are awarded that overhead costs are ever taken into account.

  172. avatar
    Judge Mental February 11, 2013 at 9:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And what is the basis of this belief?

    The basis is probably that in cloud cuckoo land casually regurgitated drivel, no matter how patently absurd it may be on its face, will be deemed to be true until proven otherwise by anyone who has a passing acquaintance with reality.

  173. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    charo: Jeffrey Even who claimed around 16 years experience (?)
    2011 salary $109,327 (billed $250/hr according to pay scale)

    Allyson Zipp $55,957(billed $175 per hour)

    http://fiscal.wa.gov/Salaries.aspx

    I don’t believe when attorney’s fees are awarded that overhead costs are ever taken into account.

    Attorneys who bill at $250/hour are not compensated at $250.00/hour. The fees are a law office’s only (or at least primary) source of income, so the fees have to cover all overhead expenses. According to the American Bar Association, in a typical law firm the overhead for an associate actually exceeds the associates’s compensation.

    I doubt very much that the court is going to quibble about the hourly rates. The current rate schedule has been in effect since 2011 and obviously has survived scrutiny in other cases.

  174. avatar
    gorefan February 11, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    Rickey: I doubt very much that the court is going to quibble about the hourly rates. The current rate schedule has been in effect since 2011 and obviously has survived scrutiny in other cases.

    In fact, the same rates have been in effect since 2007.

    “For reference the litigation rates have remained unchanged since the 2007-09 biennium.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/119376084/DECLARATION-OF-JEFFREY-T-EVEN-DETAILING-REQUEST-FOR-ATTORNEYS-FEES

    I don’t believe that Justice Sanders is challenging the hourly rates, only the number of hours.

    charo: Jeffrey Even who claimed around 16 years experience (?)

    Why the “(?)”? He was admitted to the Washington bar in 1991 (20+ years). And the Litigation Recovery Chart’s highest category is “16 plus years of experience $250/hour”.

  175. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    gorefan: In fact, the same rates have been in effect since 2007.

    “For reference the litigation rates have remained unchanged since the 2007-09 biennium.”

    Thanks, I missed that. I was looking at the “last modified” date.

  176. avatar
    JPotter February 11, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    Commie courts and their price controls. They should be setting rates by auctioning time off on eBay.

  177. avatar
    bovril February 11, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

    Charo,

    The point is that there is a set and published schedule of fees that the State of Washington has, based on wholly reasonable assumptions on tenure, experience and expertise, used when performing cost reclamation.

    Said cost reclamation is in general only used in specific and reasonably limited circumstances.

    One of these circumstances is where a plaintiff, having lost a case and where a judge has designated the action as frivolous, appeals the case based on spite, idiocy and bigotted zeal with exactly zero probability of overturning the initial ruling.

    The plaintiff was informed BEFORE she went down the rabbithole that IF she pursued this appeal, she would, when (not if) she lost, be billed for the costs.

    If her case had NOT been labelled (quite correctly and accurately) as frivolous and wholly without merit she would not have been warned and she would probably not been assessed the costs.

    She made the personal and highly foolish decision to ignore sanity and pusue the appeal and as was inevitable lost it.

    The state then went to the judge and provided a full and itemised bill based on the statuatory costs.

    I find it curious that for someone who is pleading semi poverty, Linda has engaged an ex judge who has stated he will be billing her.

    So, the best cicumstance for her will be a partial reduction in costs which in all probability will be swallowed up in the costs she will be billed by this birfoon ex-judge. In other words be on PRECISELY the same financial hook as before.

    I do trust the ex-judge has made her aware that there is equally a chance that the court can UP her woe by assessing fines in addition to the cost recovery for contnuing to, in effect, press her still frivolous and meritless case.

  178. avatar
    justlw February 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    Ghost Ship Sailor: As an example if the lawyer is paid 120K, his hourly rate would be about $57. In order for a public sector employee to get the $250 that he might get in the private sector, his annual base salary would have to be $5,520,000. I find that unlikely.

    There are simple estimates you can do to check your work in math.

    $250 is (roughly) 4 * $57, so if lawyer A is billing $57/hr and lawyer B is billlng $250/hr, lawyer B is making roughly four times what lawyer A is.

    Four times $120K is $480K. $480K is less than $5 million. A lot less.

  179. avatar
    charo February 11, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    gorefan: Why the “(?)”? He was admitted to the Washington bar in 1991 (20+ years). And the Litigation Recovery Chart’s highest category is “16 plus years of experience $250/hour”.

    I didn’t go back and look at the number of years and knew it was at least 16.

    Rickey: The fees are a law office’s only (or at least primary) source of income, so the fees have to cover all overhead expenses.

    The commenter seemed to suggest that more than $250 per hour should be added to take into account medical insurance, those kinds of things, when attorney’s fees are what the hourly rate is, whatever that includes. Maybe we are saying the same thing, I don’t know.

    What is lost in the discussion is that in the Massachusetts case, the court found, even though the attorney’s fees were reasonable (I believe they were around $9,000 for a full blown case, not just defending a motion), the government was not entitled to collect them. It found that the government does not qualify as an aggrieved party unless specified by statute. So I see two separate issues: 1) reasonableness of fee; and 2) is it lawful for the government to collect attorney’s fees. The second is more theoretical in nature. It was challenged in the case I mentioned.

    This case was in the context of sanctions so I don’t know the interplay. I’ll keep looking when time permits.

  180. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    charo:

    The commenter seemed to suggest that more than $250 per hour should be added to take into account medical insurance, those kinds of things, when attorney’s fees are what the hourly rate is, whatever that includes.Maybe we are saying the same thing, I don’t know.

    No, that is not what I am suggesting.

    I am suggesting that there is nothing unusual about a law firm charging $250/hour while paying the attorney who did the work $100/hour. That is the way it works in the real world, because the hourly fee covers not only the attorney’s compensation, but also all of the overhead expenses which permit the attorney to do his or her work.

    You were suggesting that something is askew because attorney Even is paid $109K but is billing Linda Jordan at $250/hour.

    Besides, the documentation submitted by the State makes it clear that the fees being charged are based upon market rates.

  181. avatar
    charo February 12, 2013 at 6:29 am #

    Rickey: No, that is not what I am suggesting.

    I am suggesting that there is nothing unusual about a law firm charging $250/hour while paying the attorney who did the work $100/hour. That is the way it works in the real world, because the hourly fee covers not only the attorney’s compensation, but also all of the overhead expenses which permit the attorney to do his or her work.

    You were suggesting that something is askew because attorney Even is paid $109K but is billing Linda Jordan at $250/hour.

    Besides, the documentation submitted by the State makes it clear that the fees being charged are based upon market rates.

    If you think a charge of over $12,000 for basically work on one motion is reasonable, your clientele must be of the 1%.

  182. avatar
    charo February 12, 2013 at 6:35 am #

    http://masscases.com/cases/app/67/67massappct88.html

    Here, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the authority to set rates for PRIVATE attorneys who handle cases for the Commonwealth. That is the reason for a market based system of payment.

    What I don’t know in the Jordan case is whether the cost is going to be paid to the court as a sanction with the claimed attorney’s fees being the basis of the the amount sanctioned.

  183. avatar
    Arthur February 12, 2013 at 6:54 am #

    Judge Sanders, in an exchange with a caller during a radio interview, was asked, “Is President Obama’s birth certificate been proven real, and his Social Security number–has it been proven, sir?”

    To which Sanders replied, with all the smarmy duplicity of Mitt Romney, “Not to my knowledge.”

    Is he a birther? Naw, but like other Republicans in high places, he likes to throw the dogs a bone to keep ‘em barking.

    Exchange begins at 7:40
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeO_zRebsYE&feature=youtu.be

  184. avatar
    charo February 12, 2013 at 7:13 am #

    I am sorry Rickey for my 6:29 comment. I don’t want to make this personal. You are in the mindset of a private attorney. Private attorneys are in it for profit. A public servant is not. We have a different mindset. I can’t believe the amount of responsibility I was given in my short tenure. I made around $30,000, but I had opportunity to gain tremendous experience. I left because I had an infant who I didn’t want to leave with someone else. One of my assignments was to defend two prison guards in a civil rights claim brought by a prisoner against a penitentiary. Talk about experience (and ulcers)! On the other hand, I was assigned to go before a court to get raked over the coals for something I had nothing to do with. An attorney who was more important than me forgot about a file, leading to a holdup of someone’s rights. So, another employee (who also did nothing wrong) and I drove about 2 hours to face an angry judge. I was 8 months pregnant at the time so when I stood up, I think the judge omitted some of the planned remarks. The father of the attorney who was originally assigned to go died. He was well known in the legal community, and the judge knew him, so he knew that I was a fill in. Nonetheless, I had to stand up and listen to the judge’s mini tirade.

    Okay, I’m done.

  185. avatar
    The Magic M February 12, 2013 at 7:44 am #

    bovril: I do trust the ex-judge has made her aware that there is equally a chance that the court can UP her woe by assessing fines in addition to the cost recovery for contnuing to, in effect, press her still frivolous and meritless case.

    Especially if she should be so stupid as to try and re-litigate her original case in the sanctions case. Kinda hard to imagine she’ll be able to resist the temptation.

    Ghost Ship Sailor: In order for a public sector employee to get the $250 that he might get in the private sector, his annual base salary would have to be $5,520,000. I find that unlikely.

    It’s kinda funny how birthers claim Obama spent “millions” to defend his “sealed” records in court, yet when they actually get to look at the figures incurred in defendants’ costs, they yell “that’s too much, they didn’t really spend that much!”. Or poetic justice.

  186. avatar
    The Magic M February 12, 2013 at 7:51 am #

    (cont.)

    Reminds me of the guy my company once sued; he initially proclaimed his site had “millions of visitors every month”, yet when we sued him for copyright violations, he claimed less than 100 visitors per month.

    Or the guy I once sued for breach of contract. Before I did, he was all like “I drive a Porsche and a Mercedes and live in this big house”, and when he ended up having to pay 20,000+ EUR in damages, he was literally begging “I cannot pay it all at once, only 1,000 per month at most, I’m nearly broke”.

  187. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    charo:
    I am sorry Rickey for my 6:29 comment.I don’t want to make this personal.You are in the mindset of a private attorney.Private attorneys are in it for profit.A public servant is not.We have a different mindset.

    Look, it’s quite clear that the policy of the Washington Attorney General’s office is to bill attorney fees at the market rate when they are attempting to recover fees. This is not something that they dreamed up for Linda Jordan. The policy has been in effect for at least several years.

    You went to the trouble of looking up the salaries of Jeffrey Even and Allyson Zipp and compared them to the hourly fees being requested by the AG’s office. My point is that whether you are in private practice or in public service the compensation which an individual attorney is paid is only one component of the hourly fee. The hourly fee also pays for all of the overhead costs, including rent, utilities, salaries of support staff, etc. The only difference is that the AG’s office is not a for-profit entity. However, that does not appear to be an issue in Washington. In fact, it seems clear that calculating fees at the market rate is standard operating procedure.

    It does not appear that Sanders is challenging the hourly rates. He is challenging the number of hours. That tells me that the hourly rates are the standard in Washington State. If Linda Jordan’s attorney isn’t challenging them, why should anyone else?

    Finally, I am not sure why you seem to think that a Massachusetts case has relevance in Washington. They are two different states with different laws and rules.

  188. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    Rickey: They are two different states with different laws and rules.

    IIRC, the Assistant New York Attorney General Joel Graber filed a declaration to recover fees in the Chris Strunk ballot challenge.

  189. avatar
    JoZeppy February 12, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    charo: If you think a charge of over $12,000 for basically work on one motion is reasonable, your clientele must be of the 1%.

    It wasn’t just one motion. Look at the break down of costs. They had to answer a motion to accelerate, a motion to accept new evidence, and answer the statement of direct review. So they had to answer a frivolous appeal that came with two frivolous motions. One attorney billed at $250/hour the other at $175. Reasonable rates for a smaller market (be thankful it wasn’t a large market, that would be the billable rate of a 1st year associate and an experienced paralegal). The Supreme Court has held that on issues of fee shifting, the market rate previals. And that is what a firm bills a client, which has to cover the full package of an attorney’s overhead, benefits, as well as his compensation. The fact that they are Government attorneys that might be making less than their private sector collegues really doesn’t enter into the equation, since again, we’re talking about market rates.

    Moral of the story is, if you don’t want to pay a bunch of money, don’t compound the cost of filing a frivolous appeal by attaching additional frivolous motions to it.