I present as evidence the Hollister judge’s claim that a couple years’ worth of wages and benefits didn’t meet a $500 minimum limit for there to be enough at stake in the lawsuit.Yet you do not quote "the Hollister judge" making any such claim. You cannot.
Was that judge too incompetent to know that thousands of dollars exceeds the $500 minimum threshold? Or was he too crooked to obey the law?Reading of the Court's memorandum, and your claims here about what the Court said, makes clear who is incompetent or dishonest. Contrary to your reporting, butterdezillion, there exists no finding that "thousands of dollars" nor, "a couple years’ worth of wages and benefits", fails to exceed $500. That the fantasied damages did not happen may have been an issue -- though not what the Court primarily cited as dispositive -- but the Court simply never said what you claimed.
This is far from the first time, butterdezillion, that you have falsely reported what a court wrote. Right here on FR you wrote of Judge C. D. Land's order imposing sanctions in Rhodes v McDonald:
Judge Land was saying, 'I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents'We look at Judge Land's order and he cites precedent after precedent. What you claimed was just plain false, and you've excuse for it as an honest mistake. The Court's actual order was easily available to you.
The ruling in Hollister was that there was not enough money at stake to meet the minimum requirement, which specifically includes potential earnings. Hollister was claiming that several years’ salary and benefits were at stake. What I said was true.
Judge Land refused to address the precedents that Orly cited, and he had to waffle around to try to get his decision to fit even the precedents he mentioned. Ultimately he ended up relying on an assumption that Holder could not have been in GA that morning because he had been in LA the afternoon before and surfaced again in LA late that afternoon. The timeframe in Holder’s published schedule would easily have given him time to be in GA at the time it was claimed he was there though - but Land would not allow an investigation into his own integrity and claims.
That whole idea of a judge deciding whether he can be investigated for potential ethics breaches stinks to high heaven. Definitely gives an appearance of a conflict of interest, which is itself an ethics breach.
My original comment paraphrasing Land’s attitude was based on your refusal to tell me how Land responded to Orly’s cited precedents. After reading the decision myself I see why you didn’t cite any response to her precedents: because he never did respond to what she cited. He talked right past her. He didn’t need no stinkin’ precedents that Orly cited. And even he acknowledged that the precedents he mentioned didn’t exactly apply unless he made assumptions about how much Orly might earn from lawyering in a year’s time...
I know I typed up a complete response regarding this but my computer has been giving me troubles and I may have given up on battling the computer, knowing that it’s pointless to talk to you anyway because you won’t see what’s in front of you.
BTW, I’m STILL waiting for you to tell me the name of one person who challenged Obama’s eligibility who had the case heard on the merits. You have insisted that we’ve gotten our legal answer over and over again yet you’re awfully slow to give me the name of a person who got a legal answer other than “none of your business”.
AND I’m still waiting for you to tell me what case by John McCain was heard on its merits during the 2008 election.
You’ve made some factual claims and haven’t backed them up at all. You also claimed that the Ankeny case was not denied standing but Edge pointed out that “failure to state a claim” is the same thing at the state level as “lack of standing” at the federal level, so that factual claim of yours was proven wrong.
I’ve made claims about what judges have ruled, and what I have said is true. Judge Land DID give the raspberry to Orly’s cited precedents, totally ignored them and instead twisted some other ones to try to make them fit. All the while allowing himself to be the judge of himself and deciding that a factual claim regarding Eric Holder was nonsense based on evidence not admitted to the court or subject to judicial evidentiary standards or cross-examination.
I don’t want to die on Orly’s hill. She has been frantically trying to do what she can, and the technical details were probably not all correct. I’m not a lawyer and it would be a waste of my time to major in the minors the way the lilliputian lawyers and judges so often do. But a person doesn’t have to be a lawyer to see problems with a judge who will not respond to the precedents cited (as if not accountable to those precedents), withholds due process rights to somebody receiving fines that meet the minimum to receive those due process rights, decides a matter of fact based on evidence not admitted to the court while denying the opportunity to cross-examine or refute that cited “evidence”, and allows himself to be his own judge when accused of ethics breaches.
You have taken me to be a fool by making legal-sounding claims that just don’t hold water - like your claim that Ankeny wasn’t a denial of standing, or your claim that Orly’s precedents don’t count because only GA precedents would count (when even Land didn’t cite GA cases). It seems to be a pattern that you BS and hope that nobody will check up on your facts. Just like the yellow journalists I so despise. You’re wasting my time on goose-chases, responding to your BS.
It is pointless to talk to you. You are not interested in factual truth, and your M.O. of posting lies and BS and hoping that you either trick, confuse, or scare people away with your stink-bombs ... stinks to high heaven. Facts should not be scary things. We should be able to acknowledge the facts of what these rulings have been, without having to put smokescreens all over the place. The refusal of so many Obama apologists to honestly state the situation we’re in is very, very revealing.