One of our visitors, who is also a legal eagle, took it upon themselves to answer that questions for us and sent me a PDF of the pertinent legal paperwork. Below is the "Notice of Removal"
And since I have it, I thought you all might be interested in getting a look at the actual complaint filed by Chip Thoma. These are public documents so they are available to all who are interested. I am just making access a little easier.
Huh? How did Sarah deprive anyone of constitutional rights?
ReplyDeleteWhy are Alaskans freaking nuts? First, they reveal themselves as liars, now they are attention-seeking, morons looking for fast cash.
What a bitch.....
ReplyDeleteGryphen, was the removal granted or denied? Or has it not yet been ruled on?
ReplyDeleteAnon at 6:12 (johnny on the spot):
ReplyDeleteHuh? How did Sarah deprive anyone of constitutional rights?
----------------
That's the purpose of the case and eventual trial. Are you suggesting that anyone who files a lawsuit regarding constitutional rights is "freaking nuts," "liars," "attention-seeking, morons"?
Get a grip.
DELIGHTFUL, DELICIOUS, DELECTABLE SMACKDOWN of Delusional Sarah! This started my morning out just perfectly! I urge you to read it in it's entirety and bask in it's brilliance.
ReplyDeletePalin’s Delusions of Grandeur
...There is something loathsome about this attempt to use a frail 86-year-old stroke victim (who has largely retired from public life) as fodder to enhance your own domestic political agenda. It is vulgar and it is vainglorious and therefore entirely typical of Palin's political style.
But Lady Thatcher is not a boardwalk attraction to be gawped at by tourists from Palookaville. It takes a special kind of self-absorption, even in the competitive political field, to suppose that ill health must be the only thing that could prevent a Thatcher-Palin photo op.
Why should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin? Even if the Iron Lady were not in such rusty health, what would be the point or purpose of any such encounter? What possible interest could she have in meeting a two-bit, half-term governor of Alaska?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-08/sarah-palins-delusions-of-grandeur-margaret-thatcher-declines-meeting-/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL3
>>>now they are attention-seeking, morons looking for fast cash.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, what better example to they have than the grand grifting half term governor quitter, since she's made it her legacy to seek attention and fast cash on the backs of anyone she can stand on.
A new CBS poll finds that a majority of Republicans, and fully 50 percent of Tea Party supporters, don’t want her to run for president. Note to media: The bus tour was a massive con job.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070206-503544.html
anon 6:12, do you know the details? It's one of many examples of Sarah attempting to squash people that dare to question her. The man asked that a traffic situation be looked into. Sarah's brilliant response was to have Piper set up a lemonade stand and spin the story to make Mr. Thoma the mean man trying to shut down a lemonade stand. Media picked up the spin, conservative blogs claimed he was sick, unhinged, and in need of therapy.
ReplyDeletean excerpt from Frank Bailey's book:
"By the time we finished with our politics of destruction, he surely regretted ever mentioning the governor’s name. He learned firsthand why so few people were willing to speak out against Sarah Palin. The costs were enormous. At Sarah’s direction, we had managed to construct a story with almost no basis in fact that painted her and daughter Piper as victims."
Bailey, Frank (2011). Blind Allegiance To Sarah Palin (p. 324). Howard Books. Kindle Edition.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHuh? How did Sarah deprive anyone of constitutional rights?
Why are Alaskans freaking nuts? First, they reveal themselves as liars, now they are attention-seeking, morons looking for fast cash.
6:12 AM
_______________________________________________
Come on out of the closet: you know you're truth-curious, otherwise why keep such a vigilant eye out for posts like these? You can't possibly think you'll persuade such dedicated Palin critics with your juvenile language and crude assertions. Are you paid by the post? Or, as I suspect, you're struggling with the knowledge deep, deep down that you've been had by a fraud. It's OK, there's life after Sarah. Just step out of the circle. Turn and walk away. The feelings of betrayal and self disgust will pass, I promise.
"The acts of the Defendant (Sarah Palin) were outrageous, were undertaken with malice.."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's Granny in action all right. Mr. Thoma deserves every penny he is asking for, for taking on this spiteful woman.
I'm sure he will be receiving lots of hate mail and threats from her flying monkeys, and I hope he saves them and turns them over to the court as further evidence, and the police.
I hope he's successful. It's way past time for the bully to be taken down.
ReplyDeleteAnon@6:12 I wonder how you would feel if the campaign of hatred were against you. Perhaps you should search a bit and see what actually happened and what Bully-girl Palin and her rabid monkeys did to this man because he was rightfully concerned about the parade of tour buses in his neighborhood. I don't know where you are from, but the rest of us live in America where it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about excessive, dangerous traffic in your neighborhood.
This is mearly a way to delay the case.
ReplyDeleteTo Anony at 6:23, a removal is automatic with the filing. (Notice it was a Notice of Removal, not a Motion for Removal). There is nothing to grand or deny. Now, if the removal was improper, the Judge or Plaintiff could make a Motion to Remand to state court. However, here, since Plaintiff apparently did allege federal law issues, it is properly in federal court.
ReplyDeleteReally this is a procedural issue that you cannot read too much into. It is almost gut reaction among defense lawyers (ahem, I know whereof I speak) that when they can remove, they do. Federal Judges are usually seen are more impartial and well-versed in the law. There are NOTICEABLE exceptions to that generalization, but I wouldn't read too much into the removal. As I noted in a prior post, there is a Juneau division of the Alaska federal courts, so it may not even move out of town.
Yellowgirl
"For these reasons the Defendant respectfully requests this Court to assume jurisdiction"
ReplyDeleteIt is a request to the federal court to take the case. The federal court will decide if it will take the case. A period of time will go by in which the case is stopped waiting for the federal court to decide if it will take the case. The clock is stopped on the deadline for the Defendant to answer the complaint. If the federal court takes the case, the Defendant will then wait until a day or so before her response is due and ask for additional time to respond. Then on the day of the new deadline, instead of a response to the complaint, she'll file a Motion to Dismiss. Then she'll try to stop the case from moving to the discovery phase until the judge rules on the Motion to Dismiss. Stall, stall, stall. They're trying to stall long enough and create enough legal work for the plaintiff's attorney that the plaintiff runs out of money and must abandon his complaint. Hopefully the plaintiff's attorney is working on a contingency basis.
I can think of a number of other citizens that have equally--if not even better--cases to make against the sitting governor, starting with Levi Johnston.
ReplyDeleteI just re-read pages 320-324 in Blind Allegiance. I think Mr. Thoma has a pretty solid case.
ReplyDeleteIt is sweet (and ironic) justice that Palin is being sued because she violated (allegedly, at this point) the very document that she so claims to revere. Ah, if she would only get around to actually reading it one day.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Granny LuLu is going to learn that there is more to the constitution than just the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about the emails...I have tried to find the answer online but haven't been able to find the info.
ReplyDeleteAll week I've been hearing "9am Friday" for the email release. Does that mean the state of AK is finally (THREE FREAKING YEARS LATER) sending off the boxes? Or have they already been sent and 9am Friday is when they'll be made available to the public?
IF they are still in possession of the state...I will not be at ALL surprised if there's some type of "mishap"...sprinklers going off in the building, something of that nature...which ultimately keeps these emails out of the public's hands.
It would have been SO incredibly easy for Parnell's office to screen capture the emails, have them copied/pasted into PDF files...anything other than physically copying them.
The utterly ridiculous manner in which the state has drawn out the process combined with the fact they initially said it would cost, what, fifteen MILLION dollars to "copy" the pages...tells me they may not have ever have intended on REALLY releasing them.
I still am just shocked this has been allowed to drag on in such an offensively obvious manner.
Frank Bailey documented the basis for the lawsuit in his book. The story is simple.
ReplyDeleteChip Thoma complains about tour bus noise and clutter in vicinity of governor's mansion- very narrow streets for non- Alaskans.
Sarah Palin organizes an effort to use her office and her staff to discredit Thoma. How?
They create a gimmick whereby Piper starts a lemonade stand (with all profits begrudgingly given to charity).
Thoma is then accused of picking on Palin's child. Sarah Palin then become a victim, hiding behind her little girl.
Hopefully Thoma's lawyer will be smart enough to subpoena everyone who refused a lawful subpoena in Troopergate after Palin ordered her staff not to testify- so witnesses include not only the Palins, but Frank Bailey, Diane Kiesel, Annette Kreitzer, Nicki Neal, Brad Thompson, Michael Nizich, John Bitney, Ivy Frye, Kris Perry, Janice Mason, Randy Ruaro, Murlene Wilkes as well.
Why? So they can show that Palin abused her office and engaged in a pattern of using state government to get perceived "enemies." The bonus will be that the truth of Troopergate will finally be known to all, assuming the above are capable of telling the truth- as we know the Palins aren't.
Gryphen, I'm wondering too if the move to federal court has been granted. I can't see a judge doing it. It belongs in state court where it was filed. Toma has a great case, but Palin's attorneys are going to put him through the absolute wringer, inundating him with intrusive discovery requests, and making up more horrendous claims against him to try to scare him off this. I wish him all the luck in the world cuz its gonna get real ugly real fast and she has the millions to bury him with.
ReplyDeleteRE: Emails. I wonder if Parnell's insistence on not providing electronic copies could be construed as Obstruction of Justice if there is something in there that points to criminal behavior? The remarkable gift the grifter has is her ability to get other people to do her dirty work for her. Clean hands in any court while her subjects get thrown under the bus. Collateral Damage?
ReplyDeleteForgot about Parnell. Is he the governor or just standing in and taking orders from Sara? I would think the people of Alaska might be asking that question a lot
ReplyDeleteanon@6:12 am sez:
ReplyDelete"now they are attention-seeking, morons looking for fast cash."
maybe you should read more about the case before spouting off.
if this guy was looking for cash, he would have sued her for a lot more than 100,000. that peanuts for the quitter. obviously this is about the guy wanting to clear his name.
Well, finally, her vindictive actions are being addressed. It probably is best that this has been removed from State and moved to Federal Court. She won't be able to wink her way through this one.
ReplyDeleteDelusional Peebot@6:12,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to inform you that you are a fucking moron if you think people are going to fall for this crap at Gryphen's blog. Not that we didn't realize it before, but many of us have read Bailey's book and what you are doing is a classic, pathetic Granny Lulu tactic. I am sorry that you spend all your days and nights at IM clicking refresh so you can be the first commenter. How sad. I truly hope you are also an "attention-seeking moron looking for fast cash," because you are really, really stupid if you are doing this for free.
GOP to Palin: "It's Over"
ReplyDeleteWhy a Sarah Palin presidential campaign is hopeless.
Sarah Palin says George Washington is her favorite founder because he was reluctant to serve but answered the call of duty. She likes to think of herself this way, answering the needs of a clamoring electorate. That is part of the cinematic beauty of her bus tour: The crowds that greet her can represent that call to take up their standard and head into presidential battle on their behalf.
There's only one problem: The call isn't coming. That's the clear message in a new CBS News poll of the Republican field. Taken after the Palin bus tour started rolling, it asked Republicans whether Palin should run. By a 20-point margin (54 percent to 34 percent), Republicans said she should not run. Among Tea Party supporters, where Palin has her strongest following, she is also waved off against a run. Half say she should not run; 38 percent say she should. That isn't so much a referendum on her bus tour as it is a sign that the entire months-long Palin flirtation with the presidency is not creating an appetite.
The biggest challenge to a Palin candidacy has always been that her image within her own party has been getting worse. (If she can't improve among her friends, she isn't going to improve in the wider circle of voters). Some 36 percent of Republican voters have an unfavorable view of her, compared with the 37 percent that have a favorable view. Her favorability rating has declined since April.
Why? Some of the reluctance may be that voters don't think Palin is qualified. Almost two of five Republicans say this in a recent Washington Post poll. Interviews suggest some who really like Palin think she'll never get a fair shake from the media, making the presidential race a distracting nightmare. Others cite her poll numbers in the general electorate, where her unfavorable numbers are at toxic heights.
Then there are what we seasoned political reporters like to call "the facts on the ground." I've been in Iowa the last few days, and voters and activists here are in a shuffle-the-cards mode. They cycle through all the candidates, even the ones far back in the polls like Rick Santorum. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has come up several times, even though he's only rumored to be thinking about considering getting in the race. Herman Cain is getting a lot of buzz. People like that he's not a politician, which means both that he didn't hold a Washington job but also that he's not a polished guy who's always trying to pitch you something.
In all my conversations, no one brought up Palin—either as the answer to the presidential puzzle or as a question mark worth waiting for.
http://www.slate.com/id/2296567/
I hope this guy has a better lawyer than the kid that read her emails. Her and Bristol got away with lying on the stand in that case.
ReplyDeleteShe'll just lie and get away with it.
ReplyDeleteCome on, she wouldn't go after someone who made a reasonable request would she:)
ReplyDeleteI see Frank Bailey in court very soon. He wrote about it in his book and I am sure this man (and Frank) has documented everything she did or said.
What comes around, goes around. She has just about bit off every hand that feeds her. I wonder how she will pay her taxes on her two big houses in the next few years when she finds out she is all alone and broke?
Anon @ 6:12 granny quitter is the #1 Alaskan liar now she is the # 1 Arizona liar!
ReplyDeletehear that?... it's the sound of millions of pairs of bat-wings from the palin-bot flying monkeys swarming Gryphens blog to try to intimidate us all!
ReplyDeleteDon't they realize how DUMB that is in that it is the very heart of the matter in this lawsuit!
If Sarah were smart (and she isn't), she would settle this one out of court if possible. That's the only way at this point she can even attempt to keep her dirty laundry in the hamper and out of public view. If this case goes to court, it's a winner in my opinion just due to the numerous examples of "patterns of practice"... ie. examples of all other areas in which she has tried to intimidate to get her opponents to shut up and sit down!
She is a MORON! and so are her flying monkeys! hoping that they all fly into a lightpole and die a quick flying-monkey death! :)
I wish him well.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, it wasn't Palin that he was targeting. He had been trying to fix this problem under previous governors, but Sarah taking it personally because everything is all about Sarah, decided to lash out to make this man the bad guy.
It didn't have to be that way. It should have been between the man & the specific State agency that handles these complaints. I don't know, would that have been a zoning issue? Or DOT issue? Who knows, but it certainly had nothing to do with the individuality of the Governor herself, or her children, or trampoline. Trampoline? Children? That woman is an idiot.
Like The Belmont Stakes photos, sarah loses supporters every time this incident is mentioned. Like so many middle school girls before her, a padded bra gave 13-year-old sarah´s self-confidence a tremendous boost. This trickery still works on 47-year-old sarah´s psyche.
ReplyDeleteThis lemonade stand incident reveals that sarah is a shitass. sarah is not only emotionally still 13-years-old, she is an emotionally 13-year-old shitass.
She is losing supporters as I type.
It was not until Bailey's book that I realized the lemonade stand was a ploy.
ReplyDeleteIf Sarah and her lawyer had a brain-cell between them, then they would settle out of court and pay the man off and apologize.
ReplyDeleteSarah and Todd roasted so many people and trashed them all in their quest to play the victim. Many were thrown under the bus and then pulled out again to do another dirty deed for them. Then they were thrown under the bus yet again and then blamed for doing what they did all in the name of Todd and Sarah.
I still can't get over how Frank Bailey let Todd and Sarah use and abuse him for years. They made a mean machine robot out of Frank and he took the blame for all their evil trickery. All in the name of religion and conservative fakery!
Keep spinning, flying monkey bots! It's almost TOO easy to call your Queen out anymore...she just opens her mouth and the world LAUGHS.
ReplyDeleteWhat comes around, goes around. She has just about bit off every hand that feeds her. I wonder how she will pay her taxes on her two big houses in the next few years when she finds out she is all alone and broke?
ReplyDelete8:05 AM
----------------
taxes are for chumps!
I grew up in Juneau just down from the Governor's Mansion. Mr. Thoma is 100% correct in filing his initial complaint against her as the roads around the mansion are only fit for one-way traffic.
ReplyDeleteFrank Bailey's book gives him more credence in going after Palin...she purposesly tried to discredit him. I'd have gone after her for bigger bucks that is for sure. $100,000 hardly seems enough in having to go through all the legal crud against her. She has the bucks - he probably doesn't! Sincerely hope he's going after attorney's fees too...Palin should pay them. (Based on Bailey's book folks - read it! Palin doesn't have a leg to stand on!)
Here are the flying monkeys riding their queen http://hellogiggles.com/baby-monkey-going-backwards-on-a-pig
ReplyDeleteO/T: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-obama-wtf-moment-2011-6
ReplyDeleteAs I said yesterday, It's a "Notice" of Removal, not a Motion. The case is already removed, done deal.
ReplyDeleteCould be sent back if Sarah did it wrong, either because the court catches something or the Plaintiff's atty does and timley seeks remand.
Two quick examples of not doing it correctly (even though you did have the right to remove based on the constitutional claims): Defendant didn't Remove it on time (within 30 days after notice of the suit) or, if there is more than one defendant, all defendants did not agree to removal.
Other than such a flaw, it's in Federal District Court, in Juneau, for the duration. Generally the same jury pool. Not fatal to Thoma, not a great advantage for Sarah.
Anon @ 7:01: You forgot the other reason to stall: The plaintiff is 86 y/o - so Palin wants to stall until he is dead...
ReplyDeletePalin emails will be in a searchable database!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110608006887/en/24000-Sarah-Palin-Emails-Searchable-Crivella-West
OT: GOP to Palin: It's Over
ReplyDeleteWhy a Sarah Palin presidential campaign is hopeless.
http://www.slate.com/id/2296567/
She is going to have to pay the man. Bailey has the emails and/or he was there, it's all in his book. He will have to testify and he can't protect her or he would have to say his book was lies. And they will want the emails for discovery.
ReplyDeleteha!
Re the emails being sent out on paper: It will simply make it harder for the recipients to cross-check any of the data, and it will time for them to put the emails back into digital format and make them available to the public on the Internet. (The guys who released them last time from MSN are doing just that - they will make them available asap. That will take time, though, and this is clearly another delay tactic...)
ReplyDeleteO/T, Have you read this? One Nation PAC and name is trademarked effictive August 2010.
ReplyDeleteIs Palin's Bus Tour Guilty of Trademark Infringement?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-brantzawadzki/sarah-palins-bus-tour-gui_b_872179.html
If Sara loses this one, please, please, will she expect the State of Alaska to compensate him? Or just take the money from her PAC? I guarantee you the PAC is paying for the lawyers
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/help-analyze-the-palin-emai
ReplyDeletels/2011/06/08/AGZAaHNH_blog.html
Help analyze the Palin emails
Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin
during her tenure as Alaska's governor will be released Friday.
That's a lot of email for us to review so we're looking for some help from
Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those emails right
alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.
We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work
collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information
from the emails.
According to Bailey's own words, the efforts to defame this man were a conspiracy. Perhaps there is a person out there knowledgable in legal matters who can snswer this - are there not specific laws that address conspiracies? How does a conspiracy affect a case?
ReplyDeleteIn any event - it looks like Bailey will end up in the middle of this.
Pat Padrnos
7:20 MSNBC is supposedly going to put the emails online so that 'we' all will have access to them. They are one of the outlets that ordered them all those years ago.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Parnell is STILL protecting Palin if you can believe that.
Lawyers like to nit-pick. I notice that on page 2 of the complaint, line one states:
ReplyDelete“Plaintiff set about to punish”
I believe they meant to refer to the Defendant and it should read:
"Defendant set about to punish".
I know, it seems like small fry but this is the kind of stuff that gets things thrown out of court by a judge not wanting to hear a matter.
Or, am I reading it wrong? I read it 3 times to be sure.
With the publication of Frank Bailey's book and the admission of what went on with Mr. Thoma, I imagine he'll be called as a witness if not outright served with an additional civil suit.
ReplyDeleteThis will be interesting to see how it unfolds and if SP actually gets held accountable for once.
If $carah ends up losing, will she be able to pay the judgment with PAC money?
ReplyDeleteWow, the first comment on this is a Palinbot? Not surprised.
ReplyDeleteYou know what's crazy about the Palin mentality, is that given what her diciples believe and love about her, she could step off the political stage and on to the religious/special needs stage and tour the country all over the place and bilk money from them.
ReplyDeleteI'm SURE she could maintain the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed.
But, I suspect she could'nt use a PAC for that, so she remains firmly on the "political" stage. The PAC makes it really easy for the deranged to just click a button to donate money, and it makes it even easier for Sarah to accss those funds.
It is so sick how it's all about the money with her.
This whole Thoma story was what really caught my attention when I read the leaked manuscript. It had all the elements that embodied Palin and her bots:
ReplyDelete*Abuse of Power - A Governor targeting a private citizen
*Lying - Making stuff Up
*Changing the Narrative
*Media manipulation
*Revenge
*Carrying on despite staff trying to get her to stop
*Vindictiveness
*Using her kids
*Playing the victim
*Dispatching her flying monkeys to attack - Lemonade story was leaked directly to C4P
*shows a pattern of behavior - Wooten, Thoma
I was completely disgusted with the way she used Piper and how she tried top say he was complaining about the kids playing outside.
Even better, most of the pain and suffering probably came at the hands of her bots. They googled him and called him all kinds of disgusting names and accused him of being a drug addict. $P even laughed when she saw the post on C4P.
All I can say is that Karma's a bitch and $P's long overdue for a bit of Karma.
To the bots - What is so Christian about a sitting governor attacking a private citizen. How is that small government? How much government time did she spend on trying to ruin this guy's reputation? Someone should file an ethics complaint before the 2 years is up. She abused her position again.
How perfect that the Constitution is going to come back and bite her in the ass!!
ReplyDeleteShe won't settle. Never. That would be an admission that she did something WRONG!!
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no, no, no!!! She is the one that is always being picked on!! That man is against her!! The media is against her!! Everbody is out to get her!!
@ ibwilliamsi at 9:22 a.m., come on, you're not really a lawyer are you?
ReplyDelete"I know, it seems like small fry but this is the kind of stuff that gets things thrown out of court by a judge not wanting to hear a matter."
It's a typo. I've been trying cases for 30 years and I have never seen a case thrown out of court for a typo. You file something called "Notice of Errata." Typo corrected. It's magic.
Okay, I understand that if you are really a lawyer, you are not a litigator. Stick to drafting wills.
@ 7:01 a.m., more idiocy among the comments (just have to assume it's Palin or her uneducated family).
ReplyDelete"The clock is stopped on the deadline for the Defendant to answer the complaint."
The clock isn't stopped on filing an answer or other responsive pleading just because a case has been removed.
And if you had checked the Alaska court docket, you would see that Palin's lawyers already filed an answer in state court before removing, which is quite common. Under federal procedure, you have to specifically answer each paragraph in a complaint. Don't know about Alaska law, but under my state's procedure, you don't have to answer each paragraph. One big happy "it's all denied" is sufficient. So in my state, we file our answer/denial in state court and the next day remove to federal court.
In any event, there are no delays.
Hey, it's your court system people. All the documents (except usually in family law cases) are public records and usually are available on the Internet.
Go forth and learn.
Sarah will get out of this one. Just like she has every single time before. She's right the MSM IS the LSM. She was also right when she claimed, "I can do anything I want until the law tells me I can't". She has gotten away with everything before, no one can stop her, and she will do it again. Babygate? She laughs! No one can prove anything and make it stick. She's the teflon tundra twat and a polished turd that keeps on shining and she knows it.
ReplyDeleteUNFORTUNATELY!!!!!
I agree that she will not settle on this one, as that would be an implicit admission of guilt and $arah is never wrong (in her twisted mind).
ReplyDeleteAlso I think Frank Bailey is going to get subpoenaed and will be questioned by Thoma's lawyer about his part in the conspiracy. Perhaps there are more e-mails relating to this subject that Bailey has in his possession that could be used to further Thoma's claim. If I was his lawyer, I'd be requesting those unreleased emails as they may prove to be very pertinent in this case.
8:25: You hit on something that has been bugging me. How DID a transportation/neighborhood nuisance issue become one about kids, trampolines, and lemonade stands?? It defies logic.
ReplyDeleteYellowgirl, thanks for the explanation on removal.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the emails, I don't think it will take that long for Crivella to scan them in. It's roughly 25,000 pieces of paper, which is 50 reams (500 pages per ream). They are pros, and my guess is they (ADN, MSNBC, etc.) has Crivella all set up in a temporary office somewhere, with multiple scanners and technicians ready.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is they will be posted sometime Friday, or Saturday at the latest.
"It's a done deal"
ReplyDeleteCases removed to federal court get returned to state court all the time. But there are benefits to having your case in federal court. Palin's attorneys might think they can level the playing field in federal court. The might think they can disrupt the plaintiff's case plan if they think plaintiff's counsel is inexperienced in federal court. Federal rules require plaintiffs to make some pre-discovery disclosures that could save the Defendant Palin money by letting her find out everything important early on.The federal courts have nationwide subpoena power.The parties could agree to try the matter in front of a magistrate that might lead to a faster resolution. If in the end the plaintiff is awarded less than $50,000, costs might be imposed. There's lots of reasons to remove a case to federal court. There's lots of reasons they get sent back.
"more idiocy among the comments"
Wow. An attorney wishing to share his/knowledge might explain that someone is mistaken or not well-informed, but not an idiot. Watch out for this one, Gryph
Now, if everyone who has been slandered, intimidated, threatened, embarrassed, libeled, etc. by Sarah and company would file a lawsuit against Sarah (not her supporters in crime, such as Frank Bailey and gang)
ReplyDeleteand file the lawsuit in Federal court, she would be taken down politically, at least one would hope so.
@12:02...It is a "done deal." It is already removed ie, it is not (as several suggested) awaiting a ruling on a "motion for removal" from the judge.
ReplyDeleteAs I said there are several ways for it to get sent back - remanded - if there is some flaw in the removal, like timeliness or consent of all defendants, or the absence of a federal question. None are apparent from what IM posted here.
Thoma's claim clearly says "Palin (a citizen of Alaska) violated my US Constitutional rights," and he is bringing a claim under 42 USC Sec. 1983...kinda the most basic "federal question" you can raise...so yes, there is jurisdiction in the US Dist Court.
As for your $50,000 issue - I think you mean $75,000 - the not so new minimum amount in controversy for Diversity Jurisdiction (between parties who are citizens of different states)...which has nothing to do with this case because, as the Notice of Removal clearly states, the basis for the Court's jurisdiction is the presence of a Federal Question. It was Removed under Sec. 1331, not Sec. 1332. No minimum amount in controversy for such cases.
Let's keep an eye on it, see if there is a motion to remand, see if it is granted.
@ 12.02 p.m. is simply misinformed.
ReplyDeleteHe/she says "If in the end the plaintiff is awarded less than $50,000, costs might be imposed."
That is not true. Mr. Thoma, the plaintiff, is at no risk of having costs imposed if he doesn't recover more than $50,000. This is because it wasn't Mr. Thoma who filed the case in federal court. And also, too, this is because this is a case that is in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, not diversity of citizenship (citizens of two different states).
There is a federal statute -- Section 1332(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code that says if the plaintiff "files the case originally in the Federal court" and does not recover at least $75,000 (it's $75,000, not $50,000), "the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff." (Usually, the winning plaintiff gets costs, even if he/she only recovers two cents). This statute applies in two specific situations: (1) the plaintiff originally filed in federal court; and (2) the basis of filing in federal court was diversity of citizenship (which requires the claim to be at least $75,000, in addition to being between citizens of two different states).
The purpose of the statute is to punish a plaintiff who tries to sneak into federal court in a diversity case by over-inflating his or her claim.
I'm not saying that @ 12.02 p.m. is an idiot -- I'm just saying that he/she should learn to read a statute before promulgating erroneous information (and, to add a little snark, if he/she is a lawyer, please call your malpractice carrier and up your coverage).
To sum up, Mr. Thoma is in no danger of being accessed costs unless he loses his case. He didn't file his case in federal court -- it was removed. And even if he had filed his case in federal court, it's a federal question case, not a diversity of citizenship case.
Thanks, Anon @ 10:18 for the notice errata info. It would be just like $nooki to run that error into the ground for 3 years in a ploy to subvert justice.
ReplyDeleteI do hope that the notice has been filed already.
Anon @ 10:18 - there was no reason to get nasty because I asked a valid question that required an educated answer.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer but WTF do you have to be such an arse about it? At least I actually read the documents unlike many of the people posting here. And if it weren't an issue there would be mo reason to file the "notice of errata", would there?
Anon @ 12:02 and other posts here sure makes it clear why people might not want to ask questions. Everyone bend over for your ass whipping for having the gall to ask a legal question.
ReplyDeletePiper's lemonade stand was Sarah's way of bringing her kid in to the story so she could go into her phony Mama Grizzly mode. Piper had to donate the whole $43 to charity because that's what her mother made her put on the sign. But the darling little girl, being raised in the loving Christian family told her mother that next time she was keeping whatever she took in. Sarah thought that was just wonderful - she repeated it at least twice in emails to staff. Sarah doesn't have a "Servant's heart" she has a "Serpant's heart." Everyone should read Frank Bailey's book. Details like this make it worth the time and the money. BTW I hope this former neighbor holds out for a million bucks. If I were on the jury, that's what I'd want to award as punishment.
ReplyDelete10:18, is the cattiness necessary? We're all on the same team, right?
ReplyDeleteQUESTION for any legal eagles:
ReplyDeletePage 4 of Thoma's complaint has been stamped "This case formally assigned to Judge Philip Pallenberg by order of the presiding judge."
According to Judgepedia, Pallenberg "was appointed on August 31, 2007 by Governor Sarah Palin ..."
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Philip_M._Pallenberg
Now that the case has been removed to Federal court, Pallenberg will assumably no longer preside.
But why would a lawsuit filed against Palin be assigned to a judge she appointed ?
Also, since this case is so clearly about Thoma's constitutional rights, why didn't his lawyer just file it in Federal court to begin with ?
No "conspiracy" implied here, just genuinely curious.
Thanks.
@ Fairy Mason
ReplyDeleteRe your first question about ""This case formally assigned to Judge Philip Pallenberg by order of the presiding judge." someone versed in Alaska procedural law will have to explain that one. Where I practice, new cases are randomly assigned, not by order of the presiding judge. Perhaps Alaska is different.
Regarding your second question about why Mr. Thoma's lawyer didn't file in federal court in the first place when he could have done so since the complaint raises a federal question, plaintiffs generally prefer state court for a number of reasons.
In federal court, in a civil case, you only get six jurors and the verdict must be unanimous. That means if you are the plaintiff and you fail to convince one juror, you lose. I believe that in Alaska state court, like in many other states, you get a civil jury of 12 and you need 10 of 12 for a verdict. Therefore, you can lose two jurors and still win your case.
There are other reasons as well that plaintiffs generally prefer state court. I don't what the situation is in Alaska, but in many states, you get to trial quicker in state court than in federal court. One problem in federal court is that the judges hear both civil and criminal cases and criminal cases have priority. Thus, your trial date can keep getting kicked because the judge tries a criminal case instead. Not sure of the situation in Alaska, but in my state, in the state court, there are separate judges for civil and criminal matters. That means that your civil case isn't going to get kicked out of line so the judge can hear a criminal case.
Anon-
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to answer !
Some thoughts:
Re: Q#1
It just struck me as terribly odd that the unnamed "presiding judge" would assign a suit against Palin to a judge she appointed -- as recently as 2007, no less.
It SEEMS like the presiding judge would therefore be leaving the decision to recuse entirely up to Pallenberg -- which he'd have no choice but to do ... right ?
Now, I don't know how long it takes for a judge to recuse himself and then for the suit to be re-assigned ... but that sure seems like a TOTALLY unnecessary delay !
I mean, why have to go through all that when the presiding judge HAD to have known that Palin appointed Pallenberg ???
And does anything prevent the suit from being re-assigned to ANOTHER Palin appointee, thus causing another round of unnecessary delays ?
Who the heck was the "presiding judge" who rubber-stamped the assignment of a lawsuit against Palin to a judge she appointed ???
(Sorry ... not directing these questions at you, Anon ... just ranting.)
Re: Q# 2
If I'm hearing you right, an attorney might file a suit like Thoma's in State court
for the various advantages you describe and -- what? -- hope (?) the defendant's attorney will not file for removal to Federal court ?
Since this particular suit is entirely based on Palin tromping on Thoma's constitutional rights, wouldn't that be sort of a red flag for Palin's attorney to file for removal to Federal court ?
Miss THAT and he'd be a dope, huh?
What I'm trying to say is: despite the benefits of State court which you describe, hasn't Thoma's attorney actually ADDED to the time it'll take for their suit to be heard by filing in State rather than Federal court ... ?
Sure wish I knew more about law -- so MANY questions !
In my dreams, Thoma's suit WOULD open the floodgates for a torrent of other suits from people who can prove Palin did the same to them !
If it's true that "what goes around, comes around," Saint Sarah should spend every waking moment of the rest of her life and every cent of the money she's bilked out of her psychophants defending herself in court !
Fairy Mason - I am not in Alaska, but the unanimous jury issue (and the lack of "lay down" discovery rules in Fed Court -- there is an obligation to provide information, even if it is not asked for, in Fed Ct) are one reason some folks like state court. In most states, at least in Washington and California, you get to trial faster in Fed Ct. And the judges are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate...little harder than getting elected in your county. Generally speaking, better, more accomplished judges. So Fed Ct is better in some ways for a plaintiff, harder in others. Also worth noting, the appeals court is the notoriously "liberal" 9th Cir rahter than the presumably conservative Alaska court....assuming the loser appeals.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Palin's atty would have dropped the ball if he did not remove the case, assuming he wanted those fed ct "advantages"...I dunno...assigned to a Palin appointee, don't have to go to the 9th Cir if there is an appeal...maybe I would have let it stay in state court. It's really specualtive at this point, but it is clear it's in Fed Ct. now.
As for the state court judge assigned...maybe Thoma's atty could have forced him to recuse himself (take himself off the case due to Palin's appointment of him)...but that is no longer an issue. Fed judge was appointed by Bush I think, but don't assume that means he is biased, not on a case like this.
Speaking of Legal Eagle, whatever happened to the witty barrister whose advise graced the pages of Mudflats ?
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, that's right, she got busted for shoplifting shoes from Fred Meyer !
Oops, silly me.
Just to be fair, I've met Chip Thoma, he's what you'd call a Gadfly.
A wanna-be, crank, loudmouth, whatever, he's been making noise in Juneau for years, yet for some reason nobody seems to ever pay any attention to him.
I wonder why ?
Kind of the same MO as Celtic Diva, Phil Munger and the rest of the cranks who have been marginalized and dismissed over the years.
Yep, he's in good company all right.
I don't know about Alaska courts, but in South Florida, a defendant is likely to remove a case which cites a federal issue (civil rights violation) because the federal judges are far more likely to grant a summary judgment and less likely to let the case go to a jury. Same with employment discrimination cases. Federal court is far more time-consuming for the attorneys as well since the attorneys must respond to every motion in writing, within 10 days, and cite to authority, whereas is state courts (at least in Florida) you do not have to prepare a written response or memorandum to every two-bit motion. Could be an advantage to wear down the Plaintiff's attorney by filing motions, etc. Another advantage to Defendant may be lack of cameras in federal court (don't know if Alaska state courts permit the cameras). Need to hear from an Alaska trial attorney on all of these issues.
ReplyDelete"Speaking of Legal Eagle, whatever happened to the witty barrister whose advise graced the pages of Mudflats ?
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, that's right, she got busted for shoplifting shoes from Fred Meyer !"
Are you trying to claim that there's someplace in the United States that uses the term "barrister?" Because that makes you look pretty stupid.
I have a legal question.
ReplyDeleteIs this going to be the kind of conspiracy trial that allows the Plaintiff to introduce juicy hearsay evidence?