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.
Just a point of clarification. Judge Land was not involved in the case in which Hollister was the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the case in which Judge Land was involved were other than Hollister. In Hollister the judges were, at the District Court level, Robertson, and then a panel from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then SCOTUS, where, among other things, a motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves, based on sound precedent, was ignored. Robertson did not rule against standing but, to the contrary, found standing but then dismissed for failure to state a claim. So far as I know, this was the only case in which standing was found. Judge Land sits in another circuit.
The ruling in Hollister was that there was not enough money at stake to meet the minimum requirement, which specifically includes potential earnings.Again you do not quote the Court saying what you claim the Court said. You cannot. The Court's grounds for dismissal were:
Resort to interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or ulterior purposes.” Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).And,
Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even colorable support to the notion that his alleged “duties” can be the “money or property” to which the interpleader statute applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or tangible propertybutterdezillion wrote:
Hollister was claiming that several years’ salary and benefits were at stake. What I said was true.No, butterdezillion, you did not tell the truth. The way you told the Court was wrong on math. You employed the false dichotomy of asking, "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?" butterdezillion wrote:
Judge Land refused to address the precedents that Orly cited,Judge Land had ordered Orly Taitz to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. If she wanted the Court to consider her citations in ruling on sanctions, she should have complied with that order. She did not. Instead, she filed a motion to recuse the Judge.
My original comment paraphrasing Land’s attitude was based on your refusal to tell me how Land responded to Orly’s cited precedents.You've no reason to put your lies on me. What your wrote: "Judge Land was saying, 'I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents'" is not a paraphrase of anything in Judge Land's order, which cites precedent after precedent.