Main Menu

Liberty Legal loses

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the decision of a Tennessee district court that attorney Van R. Irion and the Liberty Legal Foundation must pay sanctions to the Tennessee Democratic Party in the amount of $10,563.25. The original lawsuit was almost identical to another suit Irion filed in Arizona District Court. After dismissing the case, US District Court Judge S. Thomas Anderson ruled that the lawsuit was frivolous and ordered sanctions to be paid to the Defense. He wrote:

…Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the claims in this case had no basis in law. Specifically, counsel for Plaintiffs reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims…

The Circuit Court affirmed, saying:

…the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the case…

,

13 Responses to Liberty Legal loses

  1. avatar
    Reality Check October 9, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    Sweet! I hope Taitz is next to have to fork over the cash.

  2. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) October 9, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    Irion’s Liberty Legal Foundation appears to have shut down its extremely unethical cash cow. He told people they could be plaintiffs in one of his class action lawsuits against the government for a $10 donation to his foundation. That’s gone now. One of the documents filed by the Tennessee Democratic Party in this case included a footnote pointing out this scam. I wonder if that had anything to do with its demise. If so, then this lawsuit cost him more than just the $10K sanction.

  3. avatar
    Curious George October 9, 2014 at 11:23 am #

    Wow!!! One colossal failure after another. That all had to do with a phony presidential candidate, didn’t it? Didn’t I read somewhere that Van Irion was cozy with Shurf Joe?

  4. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 9, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    http://www.priceisrightfail.com/
    Birthers spinning this as a victory in 3…2…1…

  5. avatar
    Benji Franklin October 9, 2014 at 2:48 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Birthers spinning this as a victory in 3…2…1

    And until John sees the lifetime voting record of the parents (not plural) of every faculty member of each University attended by all non-recusing SCOTUS justices involved in making this decision, he’s gonna make it clear that the jury is still out on this Appeals Court decision.

  6. avatar
    Joey October 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    I love it when birthers have to pay cash money for their folly! 🙂
    My favorite, of course was the largest:
    “Brooklyn judge slams birther lawsuit as ‘fanciful, delusional and irrational’ and orders theorist to pay $177G.
    Judge Arthur Schack wrote that if the case brought by Christopher Earl Struck claiming President Barack Obama was not truly born in Hawaii were a movie script it would be entitled ‘The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da VInci Code.'”

  7. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) October 9, 2014 at 4:03 pm #

    Chris Strunk is never going to pay any cash money of that sanction. None of the defendants are going to take any action to collect the money because he doesn’t have any assets. And with no assets and living off Social Security, he has nothing to lose even if the defendants took action to collect from him. He can safely ignore them.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 9, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

    There was a motion for sanctions against Klayman in Voeltz II, but I have not seen any order on it and the case is now closed.

  9. avatar
    Crustacean October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    If it were an Obot who had been sanctioned and ordered to pay, the condemned souls at Gerbil Report would be howling for debtors’ prison.

    Thinker (mobile):
    Chris Strunk is never going to pay any cash money of that sanction.None of the defendants are going to take any action to collect the money because he doesn’t have any assets. And with no assets and living off Social Security, he has nothing to lose even if the defendants took action to collect from him. He can safely ignore them.

  10. avatar
    JimmyJam October 9, 2014 at 8:01 pm #

    Thinker (mobile):
    Chris Strunk is never going to pay any cash money of that sanction.None of the defendants are going to take any action to collect the money because he doesn’t have any assets. And with no assets and living off Social Security, he has nothing to lose even if the defendants took action to collect from him. He can safely ignore them.

    You’re most likely right. But if the judge is still exceedingly pissed off:
    28 U.S. Code § 3205 – Garnishment
    (a) In General.— A court may issue a writ of garnishment against property (including nonexempt disposable earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person other than the debtor, in order to satisfy the judgment against the debtor. Co-owned property shall be subject to garnishment to the same extent as co-owned property is subject to garnishment under the law of the State in which such property is located. A court may issue simultaneous separate writs of garnishment to several garnishees. A writ of garnishment issued under this subsection shall be continuing and shall terminate only as provided in subsection (c)(10).

  11. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) October 10, 2014 at 12:21 am #

    Most of Strunk’s sanction was lawyers fees and costs awarded to the Brzezinski defendants ($78K) and Pete Peterson ($83K). The State of New York defendants also asked to be reimbursed for costs ($6.6K). Plus the judge imposed the maximum allowable fine for Strunk’s behavior ($10K). I think the $10K is probably the only amount that the judge could order the government to collect. The rest of the sanction depends on the defendants taking action to collect.

    But reading the judge’s sanction order in Strunk’s case made me realize how much Strunk’s paper terrorism has cost the defendants. The $177K total only includes money awarded to 3 defendants. Most of the defendants didn’t submit requests to be awarded lawyers fees. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2013/2013_50445.htm

    The $10.6K awarded in Irion’s case is only a portion of what it cost the Tenessee Democratic Party to defend against this BS lawsuit. Specifically, the judge said it is the amount it cost the defendant to compose the portion of the motion to dismiss related to standing.

    However, I think Irion’s sanction had an effect that Strunk’s didn’t. Irion got out of the birfing business. Strunk is still wasting other people’s time and money on this nonsense.

  12. avatar
    alg October 10, 2014 at 6:50 am #

    Another one bites the dust:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2014 at 7:28 am #

    It is likely that the sanctions would have been considerably larger, but defendants failed to comply with a technical requirement that would have allowed it. The attorneys in Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party met that technical requirement, making Rule 11 sanctions still a possibility.

    Thinker (mobile): The $10.6K awarded in Irion’s case is only a portion of what it cost the Tennessee Democratic Party to defend against this BS lawsuit. Specifically, the judge said it is the amount it cost the defendant to compose the portion of the motion to dismiss related to standing.