Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Lucky

Undue burden under FRCP 45 (c)(1)? Plueeese. That is is the most often used but least meritorious legal arguement. It is the epitome of boiler plate. BTW, I would love to hear Hawaii make the “undue burden” arguement without laughing or smirking.

FRCP 11(c)? Which subsection.

While the LFBC release may have temprarily squelched political questions, it opened the waiver door.


76 posted on 08/15/2011 11:53:26 AM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: STJPII

Thanks for engaging on this topic. I’m learning a lot from your posts: they’re succinct and informative. One thing I never hear the other side say is that it’s illegal to make public a document that’s already public. I guess that’s what they believe, but they never come right out and say it. That’s one reason, among many, that your posts make more sense.


77 posted on 08/15/2011 12:33:07 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: STJPII
Well, let's see.

Orly tries to issue a subpoena as an officer of the court, but she isn't admitted to practice before the court; a subpoena from the DC Circuit is void under Rule 45 (a)(2)(C) anyway and she tries to engage in discovery before the mandatory Rule 26 (d)(1) hearing has been held.

Either she has engaged the court's process for an "improper purpose" or she is too stupid to breath.

78 posted on 08/15/2011 1:01:22 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson