READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For September 22 and 23, 2007"
(11 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 5:45 am PT...
How' the_zapkitty doing? He is hanging with some strange folk over at BBV. I wonder if they know? I posted, respectfully, an expose of the lawsuit BBV was touting on their front page in your last thread. I was hoping they would get the message and stay clear.
In his typical fashion the_zapkitty mooned the world rather than choosing to coherently discuss those legal issues.
So I used my ECF-PACER account and went over to look at the case. The lead plaintiff has filed these cases over the years:
This person is a party in 20 cases. 1:03-cv-01354-DNH-DRH Schulz, et al v. IRS filed 11/06/03, closed 12/11/03
1:03-mc-00050-DNH-DRH Schulz v. Internal Revenue filed 06/19/03
1:03-mc-00071-DNH-DRH Schulz, et al v. United States, et al filed 09/12/03
1:04-cv-01375-LEK-RFT Schulz et al v. Washington County Board of Supervisors et al filed 11/29/04 closed 12/14/04
1:06-mc-00131-DNH-DRH Schulz v. United States et al filed 11/01/06
1:07-cv-00943-LEK-DRH Schulz et al v. State of New York et al filed 09/12/07 [the BBV touted case]
1:94-cv-01201-CGC-RWS Schulz, et al v. Berman, et al filed 09/16/94 closed 02/13/95
1:95-cv-00133-CGC-DH Schulz, et al v. State of New York, et al filed 01/30/95 closed 04/26/96
1:95-cv-00945-CGC-RWS Schulz, et al v. Bd. of Ed./Wappinger, et al filed 07/13/95 closed 09/08/95
1:95-cv-01264-CGC-RWS Schulz, et al v. NYS Dept. of Ed., et al filed 09/05/95 closed 11/02/95
1:96-cv-00373-FJS-RWS Schulz, et al v. NYS Unified Court, et al filed 03/01/96 closed 05/03/96
1:96-cv-01595-TJM-RWS Schulz, et al v. NYS Executive, et al filed 09/30/96 closed 04/15/97
1:98-cv-00150-LEK-DRH Schulz, et al v. Pataki, et al filed 01/29/98 closed 11/30/99
1:98-cv-00167-FJS-RWS Schulz v. Wash.Co.Bd.of Super., et al filed 01/30/98 closed 09/02/98
1:98-cv-00393-LEK-RWS Schulz, et al v. Jennings, et al filed 03/06/98 closed 09/25/98
1:98-cv-00821-TJM-RWS Schulz, et al v. NYS Public Authority, et al filed 05/22/98 closed 05/27/98
1:98-cv-01456-TJM-RWS Schulz, et al v. The New York State, et al filed 09/14/98 closed 01/06/99
1:99-cv-00327-TJM-RWS Futia, et al v. The NYS Legislature, et al filed 03/03/99 closed 06/23/99
1:99-cv-00845-FJS-RWS Schulz, et al v. The United States Ex, et al filed 06/01/99 closed 08/06/99
7:93-cv-00497-TJM-DH Schulz, et al v. State of New York, et al filed 04/19/93 closed 02/28/97
(Only Those With ECF/PACER can log on, so have your lawyer check up for real).
With friends like the_zapkitty and the one the judges in the federal court up there must really love , has BBV gone over the edge like the_zapkitty?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 6:02 am PT...
For BBV's benefit, here is the docket info on the case:
U.S. District Court
Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 3.0.5] (Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-00943-LEK-DRH
Schulz et al v. State of New York et al
Assigned to: Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Homer
Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Date Filed: 09/12/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Robert L. Schulz represented by Robert L. Schulz
[personal info redacted by Dredd]
State of New York
Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, Secretary of State
09/12/2007 1 COMPLAINT against State of New York, State of New Hampshire, State of South Carolina, State of Florida, State of Ohio, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Texas, State of California, State of Oregon ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ALB003779) filed by Gregory Gorey, Susan Marie Weber, Mary D. Farrell, Robert L. Schulz, Doug Bersaw, Amanda Moore, Arthur Groveman, James Condit, Jr, Fred Smart, Pam Wagner, Troy D. Reha. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(wbl, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
09/12/2007 Summons Issued as to State of New York, State of New Hampshire, State of South Carolina, State of Florida, State of Ohio, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Texas, State of California, State of Oregon. (wbl, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
09/12/2007 2 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED:Initial Conference set for 1/22/2008 10:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece.,Civil Case Management Plan due by 1/14/2008. (wbl, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
09/17/2007 PRO SE HANDBOOK and NOTICE issued and mailed to Gregory Gorey, Susan Marie Weber, Mary D. Farrell, Robert L. Schulz, Doug Bersaw, Amanda Moore, Arthur Groveman, James Condit, Jr, Fred Smart, Pam Wagner, Troy D. Reha after the complaint was filed (wbl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
There are no attorney's representing anyone in this case. But since Mr. Schulz is such a prolific litigant (some would say litigious), he should have checked out jurisdictional concepts before dragging everyone into it.
As soon as one of the states is served, they will move to dismiss under Rule 12(b) as I said in this post.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 7:12 am PT...
We all know that bullshit draws flies. So does the EI movement.
The litigation the_zapkitty takes up for, albeit in a strange moon the world fashion, mirrors the lawsuit and background I sought to warn BBV about.
In Robert L. Schulz v State of New York 84 N.Y.2d 231 (1994), the highest NY court pointed out what all the other courts that had looked at the case said:
This challenge to a 1993 statute authorizing a multi-billion dollar bond issue for State and local transportation improvements continues a debate on financing public works projects that has engaged our State throughout its history. The instant litigation attacks the statute both as imprudent fiscal policy and as violative of debt-limiting provisions of the State Constitution. The wisdom of legislation, of course, is not a matter for the courts. As to legality, we conclude --- as did both the trial court and Appellate Division --- that the statute before us does not violate the State Constitution.
(Schulz v NY, emphasis). The lesson is that one must know not only what subject matter to bring, but also where to bring it.
I also wonder about the wisdom of associating an already ineffective movement with the tax protestor movement. While the Boston Tea Party is touted as a good thing in our national history (for good reasons), the current environment is not so romantic. And even the_zapkitty should take notice that when a court says the arguments are without merit, it means, in street language, "not on the same planet".
As a matter of fact it is a bit warlike, and could bring the government down on the EI movement in a way not many could withstand.
And somehow I suspect this is what some who feign being in the EI movement want to do to blog sheeple!
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 8:00 am PT...
We the People Foundation is one of those, um, "out of the mainstream" organizations which has been trying to get people to stop paying taxes to the Federal government, among other things, and which had been marketing "Tax Termination Packages" as part of his "Operation Stop Withholding". The DOJ filed a 6700 suit this year to shut down this operation. The DOJ Complaint, Statement of Material Facts, and District Court's order are attached. Below is the link to the We the People Foundation page which has to include all of the court documents from the 2007 proceedings. http://www.wethepeoplefo...p/6700-Courtdocslist.htm Most of the web site has been shut down pursuant to a court order. Robert Schultz has filed numerous pro se complaints.
Here is the link to the About Us page: http://www.givemeliberty.org/aboutus.htm
And their blog: http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/blog/
Here is the link to a New York Times article, "U.S. Sues Man It Accuses of Selling a Tax Scheme": http://www.nytimes.com/2...Evasion&oref=slogin
"Order on Tax Evasion Site Blocked" (NYT): http://www.nytimes.com/2...ns%20%28Institutional%29 and the earlier article:
"Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close" http://www.nytimes.com/2...ns%20%28Institutional%29
An msnbc article showing Foundation activists dressed up like the protestors in V for Vendetta: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18096539/
Here is the Wikipedia entry on "We the People" (no author noted for article, but there are a number of sources cited): http://en.wikipedia.org/...We_the_People_Foundation
And here is the Wikipedia entry on Robert L. Schultz, who is a Libertarian:
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. Ten things you didn't know about Wikipedia .Jump to: navigation, search
Robert L. Schulz, a political activist living in Queensbury, New York, is the founder of the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a non-profit education and research organization with the declared mission "to protect and defend individual Rights as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States."
An engineer by training, Schulz has filed well over one hundred court actions on a pro se basis, against government actions he asserts are unconstitutional deprivations of individual liberty.
In 1998, Schulz was on the New York State ballot as the Libertarian candidate for Governor.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schulz"
North Country Gazette (New York): Feds Sue We The People For Alleged Tax Fraud Scheme
North Country Gazette: Court Bars We The People, From Promoting Tax Scheme http://www.northcountryg...007/08/10/schulz_barred/
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 10:28 am PT...
I corrected certain of Dredd's misapprehensions concerning House legislative procedures last night and this has apparently set Dredd "off"... again...
Unfortunately I can offer no "kinder, gentler" explanation for Dredd's current reality excursion as Dredd has yet to explain exactly why he's suddenly linked me to the outcome of a court case that was simply reported on by a single article in the "Election Litigation / Lawsuits" section of blackboxvoting.org... an article that has garnered no replies or discussion as of yet... a case where I've offered no opinions whatsoever... anywhere...
(well... I did say hereabouts that I wouldn't take any of Dredd's "legal opinions" even on a bet... but that's pretty much a constant now )
Hmmm... curious, though... by the same (lack of) logic Dredd so copiously illustrates above we could find Bradblog charged by Dredd with wholeheartedly endorsing any random organization's agenda that Brad might happen to refer to... like... for instance... Brad's unflagging support of internet voting!...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 3:57 pm PT...
I noticed that:
U.S. Congressman Dean Heller, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), and U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller (R- Michigan) – all former state Secretaries of State
Sometimes birds of a feather flock together. Cats do too.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 4:09 pm PT...
Please inform BBV about it. I will handle the_zapkitty when the court dismisses the case on 11th amendment grounds under Rule 12(b).
Gotta rub the nose in it sometimes so they know their own shit does really stink.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 9/24/2007 @ 5:48 pm PT...
Repulsive tactics indeed...
Hmmm... as far as I can tell BBV has simply posted the news of the suit as part of it's regular reporting... so, given that and given Dredd's disregard of several reminders to that effect, at what point would this "guilt by imagined association" theme of Dredd's become regarded as an active disinformation campaign?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 9/25/2007 @ 12:36 pm PT...
Congressman Dean Heller, today’s “Enemy of Democracy.”
Let me know when you have a deck of "Enemy of Democracy" playing cards for sale. I'd like to buy a deck.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 9/29/2007 @ 8:14 am PT...
That's actually a great idea.
A new deck, "Oath Breakers."
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 10/8/2007 @ 5:18 pm PT...
To whom it may concern:
My name is Gregory Gorey. I am a litigant in the NCEL lawsuit that
has been filed in the 11th district court. Recently, some of the
voting rights activist groups have been putting out a lot of negative
opinions about the suit. I am writing today in response to that
Let me begin by saying a bit about who I am and what I believe. It
has been suggested that the NCEL case has been put together by a bunch
of right-wing extremists. I, however, have been a lifelong democrat.
I am passionate about voting rights in part because I am firmly
convinced that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen
from the democrats. Greg Palast did an excellent job of showing
multiple ways in which the 2000 election was stolen. Dan Rather's
report proved that the hanging chad incident from 2000 was contrived
in order to block democratic votes. I also believe that the hanging
chad incident was intended to create a "problem" with paper (punch
card) ballots. I believe that the solution to this artificially
created problem, the use of voting machines, is just another attempt
to manipulate the voting system. If you are unfamiliar with these
issues, these sites contain a wealth of information:
I believe, as I know many other voting-rights activists do, that the only permanent solution to this rampant fraud is a return to the sole use of hand-counted paper ballots in all elections.
Many activists groups have taken this issue to the legislative branch
of government, and have balked at the idea of taking the battle to the
judiciary. But what has been the result of all of this work we have
done through congress? After years of fighting, on the whole, the laws
that have been passed have only made the situation worse. The HAVA
legislation created the fiasco of touch screen machines. The newest
pig in a prom dress, the Holt (Microsoft) bill, doesn't solve the
problem at all, but serves to postpone a true solution. Sure it's
nice to have a physical record of the votes cast, but they will
continue to be counted by machines that are hack-able. Do we truly
believe that recounts will be run on all of the votes to ensure their
accuracy? How many "discrepancies" will slip through the cracks?
There is no way that there will be verifiable elections in 2008 if we
continue to do battle only in the legislative arena. This process has
been slow at best, and entirely ineffective at worst.
So, if the legislative branch is failing us, what can we do? Where
can we turn, with so little time before another presidential election
is compromised? Working through the judicial branch is the only
chance we have to hold a clean election in 2008. This is why I am in
this fight despite the long odds. Some have questioned the wisdom of
suing what amounts to 50 powerful law firms at once (we are in the
process of expanding the suit to all 50 states with 3 litigants from
each state), but what choice do we have? This country cannot afford
another stolen election! Does it seem foolhardy or ineffective to
you? Show me another strategy that has the potential to make this
dramatic of a change in the limited time that we have. Show me
evidence that other tactics are working, and working fast. And if you
can't think of a better option, than shorten the odds we are battling
here and offer some assistance. It is easy to criticize. It's not so
easy to offer constructive insight and assistance.
There is another issue I'd like to address regarding the NCEL suit. A
lot of criticism of the individuals involved in this case has been
flying around. This type of criticism is truly missing the forest for
the trees. This lawsuit is about the right to have an accurate
election. All of us in the movement want the same thing, fair and
verifiable elections. It is mean-spirited and hurtful to the cause to
base objections to this effort solely on the religious or political
views of a few of the participants. We have been called racists and
right-wingers, but I can speak to the fact that some of us are
democrats and/or Jewish. Once again, if you don't like our methods,
offer some constructive alternatives, or carry on with your own work.
This desire for uniformity in thought paralyzes meaningful action. We
all have a right to our individual beliefs. Let's set aside
differences to unite on this cause that effects us all.
Personally, I see no better options in this fight right now, so I am
going into battle with the willing. If I had a $150,000 I would hire
an attorney to represent me, but I don't. I am going to go into court
to make a simple argument: that I have a constitutional right to vote
and to have that vote counted accurately. It's time for the election
activists to stop this needless infighting and stand together. If you
think that we are making a faulty argument, that it is being presented
in the wrong court, that we are biting off more than we can chew, or
that this is being done by the "wrong people," than do something about
it. File your own suit in whatever venue you see fit. Better yet,
make yourself of service to this effort. We are facing an uphill
battle here, yet mostly what I hear from the sidelines is jeering. To
you I say, stand up and fight with us or get out of the way!