The Democratic National Committee, through its attorney Paul F. Eckstein, has described the Liberty Legal Foundation lawsuit in Arizona “harassment” and has petitioned the Court for sanctions consisting of costs and attorneys’ fees. Arguing that the suit is “frivolous” based on the number of similar cases thrown out by the courts, attorney Eckstein said:
simply put, “advanc(ing) the ends of justice” does not include using the courts to make claims that are flatly untrue in furtherance of a political agenda.
As the number of dismissed lawsuits rises, I would think that harassment claims gain credibility.
Pure Insanity. And I am not going to quote Einstien as you all know it quite well.
Sanctions are good like sanctions should!
I want to say that as the precedents mount up, it’s going to be harder and harder for a case to go anywhere. But how can something impossible from the start become “harder?” The justification for sanctions, however, seems to be increasing, however Berg and Ankeny should have been sufficient.
Eckstein alleges some pretty serious misconduct in Irion’s naming the National Democratic Party of the U. S. A as a defendant. This one should get the Court’s attention.
Don’t forget Rhodes v Mac Donald in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and Judge Land’s $20,000 sanction of Orly Taitz, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now THAT’S a birther precedent for sanctions!
Good for them.
Van Irion’s continual argument of the two-parent theory, and his claim that it is current law, is absolutely wrong, particularly (as the Democratic Party reply brief points out) given that can Irion was one of the losing attorneys in Georgia, where he made an identical argument.
However, that was state court, this federal, eh. Yes it should be sanctionable, but I could see a court going “Eh.”
But his naming of a sham organization as a defamdant, and his refusal to drop them from the suit is grossly unethical.
It sometimes happens where a suit inadvertently names the wrong party, maybe there’s two names in the phone book or the like. I think Van Irion knew exactly what he was doing but a court might give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, once the actual Democratic National Committee came in and said “Hey, that’s a sham organization – a sham organization ran out of the office building of the county Republican Party, by the way – we’re the right people”, Van Irion’s response should have been “Oops, my mistake, sorry. Let me drop them and add you and we will continue with the suit.”
Instead he did not – he doubled down and aske the court for a default judgment and injunction against said sham organization – “The Democratic Party of the USA”, despite knowing they weren’t the actual Democratic Party nominating Barack Obama. When the Democratic Party again opposed this motion, he tripled down, and made the argument that if this sham organization wasn’t actually the Democrats, then a ruling and injunction against said sham party wouldn’t prevent the actual Democrsts from nominating Obama, so they shouldn’t be allowed to oppose it and he should get his default.
It was plain at that moment that all Van Irion wanted was a default judgment against an entity he could fool people into thinking was actually the Democrats. Given he had acknowledged in court that 1) They weren’t, 2) They weren’t nominating Obama and 3) Any judgment against them would be pointless, his continual push for a judgment against them is wholly unethical, and I hope the court slaps him silly.
See footnote 5 on page 9. He knew what he was doing and this is the smoking gun.
I presume you are referring to the quote about insanity meaning to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I wonder, did Einstein ever actually say that or is it one of those famously misattributed quotes?
I agree he knew what he was doing, but I also believe that had he responded to the initial reply brief with a “Oops, I’m so sorry, I had an action going on in Tennessee too so I used that same organization, please excuse this lack of due diligence. I am submitting an amended complaint removing them as a party”, rather than “So what if they’re a sham? I can has default plz?” he would not be in this position now. Even if the court didn’t believe it was a mistake, and even if he internally was seething “Damn it they found out my scheme”, a response that dropped them immediately would have likely spared him sanction on that point.
Well, anyone familiar with classic NES games can answer this question.
1) Try to beat Battletoads.
2) Now try to beat Battletoads on 2-player mode.
I guess I should explain, because I think this is not a crowd that is intimately familiar with classic video games. Battletoads was a Nintendo game from the 80s. You controlled an anthropomorphic bipedal toad. You went around beating up enemies. There were also some obstacle course style levels. It is widely regarded as one of the most difficult video games ever.
On 2-player mode, you team up with another player who fights along side you on the same screen, but his attacks can hurt you. Also, if either player runs out of lives, both players have to restart at the last checkpoint, and the other player (who didn’t run out of lives) does not have any lost lives replenished.
You can see this illustrated in the Angry Video Game Nerd’s review of Battletoads.
Oh, and my link is potentially NSFW due to strong language.
I believe it is impossible to beat the original Battletoads with two players. Due to a bug, the level with the clinger-wingers and the Hypno-Orb is impossible with two players.
Maybe I’m misremembering that though.
Yeah I think I heard that too. I never actually played Battletoads myself, but some of the other kids in school talked about it, and my memory was refreshed as an adult when I saw some reviews.
I should grab an emulator copy and see if I can beat it with save states.
I looked at this with a moderate level of effort and I came away believing that the quote is authentic.
I never got past level three so I have no knowledge of either of those things.
I’ve written this before: Progressives believe in the ballot box. Conservatives believe in legislating away their opponents.
Of course it’s harassment.
It was Einstein.
http://www.quotes.net/quote/37283
No, you’re right. You can’t beat that level in two player mode because the second player won’t be able to stay ahead of the orb.
IMHO, every birther case currently in existence, and every time one is filed (or appealed) in the future, needs to have a defense counsel assigned. That counsel needs to crush the birther lies and nonsense – if necessary let the birthers present their “evidence”, and then slice it to pieces. Don’t just seek a dismissal, expose their “case” for what it is. Nonsene and lies. Paranoid kooks trying as hard as they can to be pests. Then defense counsel must be very very aggressive in pursuing sanctions, and to file complaints to bar associations.
Enough letting them get off scot free fouling the nation with idiotic lies and smears. Strunk them hard, whenever and wherever they try to play their little game. This is settled law, and all legal challenges are pure frivolous harassment. .
Hear, hear.
It would be interesting to have an an idea of what all the birther lawsuit crap has cost. I doubt that Strunk’s cost are representative, and the current farce in MS is probably going to be even more, but the others were most probably considerably less. Some of the defense attorneys, of course, were “just doing their jobs” and there was no incrememtal cost, but I would not be surprised to see a defense cost in excess of $10M for all of these over the years. I don’t see these ending during President Obama’s 2nd term, but there may be more vex lits, white coats with long sleeves, and/or bankruptcies.