Greenberg v. Brunner: Judge Requires Plaintiff to Cover Court Costs; USJF Reimbursing
Yesterday, Carol Greenberg, Plaintiff pro se in one of the original State-based lawsuits challenging Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in Greenberg v. Brunner, received a court order from Judge Robert C. Pollex in the Court of Common Pleas requiring that “costs shall be assessed against Plaintiff.”
This was apparently a result of the first paragraph of the motion, whereby Ms. Greenberg decided not to further pursue the petition:
This cause came before the Court on Defendant Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff s complaint for injunctive relief. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Upon due consideration, the Court finds the motion well taken and that it should be granted. [emphasis mine]
Since this case was filed in a local jurisdiction, hopefully the costs will not exceed the three figure range. Either way, for those petitioners who are not attorneys (i.e.: “pro se”), be sure that you keep fully informed with what’s going on with your respective case. While I am not an attorney, my opinion is that one party can obviously move to make the opposing party pay all Court costs.
Update: A new blog site has been set up for this issue: ohiososjenniferbrunnersattack.blogspot.com. I’ve also included this on my blogroll on the sidebar.
Update: Per Ms. Greenberg, here’s her brief she used in her OH case.
Update: The United States Justice Foundation is reimbursing Ms. Greeberg for her Court costs:
The United States Justice Foundation, Executive Director Mr. Gary Kreep, has reimbursed Ms. Carol Greenberg for her filing fee in Greenberg v. Brunner et al. Mr. Kreep has further commited to paying any and all additional costs Ms. Greenberg may incur with this filing. “This is a victory for all those who have filed suits such as these. Clearly, Mr. Kreep and the Foundation recognize the merit and nonfrivolous nature of these kinds of suits, or the Foundation would not have approached me with assistance in this matter. This should put to rest the notion by some that this was a “civil” matter.” The Foundation clearly recognizes this as a right to petition government for redress of grievances.”
-Phil
speaking of internet rumors, Reality Check
wasn’t Barry’s posting of his fake BC an “internet rumor” too?
get a clue , clueless one.
Patrick
Just checked ur web, whateveeeer. I Feel that I wasted my time even though I could only stand to read half the page. Why do you spend so much time and effort? U need not reply because I will not come back to see what u have to write.
Hey, Reality Check:
I didn’t take any legal advice from 1Lishell, or ask for it. I merely read his/her 60 point critique. He was just practicing for his next pleading. The only thing I asked for was his business card. He or she (I never assume anything) has yet to supply it. You guys are just sore losers, so get over it. Just like Bush being in the WH for 8 years? This was about principle; just like “Ohio Woman Bills Michigan $16 for Wasted Gas.” You gotta learn from the Master: moi. Phil already knows what kind of business I’ll be starting in the near future.
Reality Check,
Except that by posting comments on this thread, you inherently agree to “waste” your time, so I don’t think that such an unsubstantiated claim would necessarily hold up in Court
-Phil
1Lishell
I think you should send a bill to CG for all the legal advice. I will attest to the fact that she solicited your advice in her comments. If nothing else, you should get credit for the pro bono work.
As a matter of fact I may send a bill myself for time wasted reading this crazy thread!
I want to thank the USJF and Mr. Gary Kreep for recognizing that this suit had merit, and re-imbursing me for my $200 filing fee. He has committed to paying any and all other costs associated with this suit.
Next time you should hire Orly Taitz.
Carol,
Give Sammy a hug for me and some treats. We have two cast off gray tabbies and love them to death.
Thanks to all who gave sentiments regarding my kitty. She is only 5 yrs. old. She was actually the one pictured in the Blade story.
Carol,
That’s all the time I was planning on giving the brief.
Sorry to hear about your cat.
Thanks, but credit abovethelaw.com with the find. The case was part of their ATL Idol contest last year.
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/head_to_head_traffic_jam.php
First to Reality Check:
I am not anyway upset or intimidated about the negative remarks concerning this suit I filed. I welcome anything you have to say for or against it. I just wish this publicity was around when this suit was taking place; but the media chose to ignore it. The other gentlemen who filed suit in Ohio got plenty of publicity; cameras, reporters, news articles. I would have welcomed that publicity, if only to bring attention to the fact that not all people in this country are buying BO’s claimed eligibility. And: how dare you go after Phil re: his “debt clock”. I have visited many sites, and his is probably the best and most knowledgeable one I have seen. He is also impartial. Notice the comments he made about the risks of court costs possibly incurred as a result of my suit. So as he said to someone else, if you don’t like this site, go somewhere else.
To 1Lishell:
I am not going to try and analyze or defend your 60 points of critique of my pleadings (plus, I guess there are more to come). I still maintain it was a good document, even with all the “errors” you point out. So I guess this means next time I should hire you, right? Care to send me your business card? I suggest if you have any beefs about the merits or frivolousness of this suit, you take it up with Judge Kelsey. After all, he is the judge who agreed to hear it and he did read the pleadings ahead of time.
Reality Check,
To be fair, this site has only been around since Saturday, October 25, 2008, hardly enough time to have been able to document everything that the 43rd President did, right or wrong. Secondly, even if that were enough time to do so, I’ve given this site a complete face lift back in December, allowing for the concept of widgets and what not that can display interesting interactive info, such as the debt clock.
While I realize you’re bringing up the questions in rhetorical fashion, as a concerned citizen turned political activist (I’m speaking of myself), I am beginning to see different aspects of political theory being played out.
As far as the debt clock is concerned, I’m not sure how long I’ll have that up. It depends on how many other widgets I make time to find that I think are interesting and relevant. Fortunately, the link embedded within that widget takes you to a page explaining the ratio of debt to GDP (GNP?), which is the real key in understanding the “goodness” or “badness” of debt (i.e.: its affordability).
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
@ Carol Greenberg
I am very sorry your cat is ill. We own two cats and had to put down a 17 year old one two years ago. It was very tough. Cats are cool pets.
When you inject yourself into the public sector by filing frivolous claims and lawsuits you must know that you may be ridiculed and accept that. I know you do not think they are frivolous but a vast majority of lawyers and learned people would disagree. You have every right to pursue these actions but there are consequences to those actions.
I wish you and the others who are wasting your money and our tax dollars (I know you may have to end up paying for some of your costs but I doubt it will be for what the real costs will be) would ask yourself if you are acting because of a real concern for the Constitution or is it really from political motivation.
The hypocrisy of the conservatives is shameful. I will give you a couple of examples. Phil has chosen to add a debt clock on this site recently. Where was the debt clock while GW Bush was more than doubling the national debt in 8 years? Where was the outcry when we wasted a trillion dollars in a war that was sold on a complete falsehood? Where was all the concern over the Constitution when the Bush bent it to the point of breaking quite often during his tenure?
Yeah, it was a nice find, wasn’t it. You guys don’t get it. There was a principle involved in this news story, and as a result MDOT changed their policies on how to notify motorists about delays. Win for EVERYONE. Bet you’re sorry you didn’t think about doing something like this first. This story brought a lot of attention to what I call MDOT’s irresponsibility. I am used to work zone delays, but what got my goat was all these LED signs I passed stating nothing about a delay. They could have posted this and allowed a lot of vehicles to exit early. Don’t know where you are from, but this is the major north-south route in the country, with 1,000’s of vehicles. All stuck for about an hour. Five lanes merging into one. No postings about which lane to get into or anything. All those fat cats in Lansing sitting in their air-conditioned offices, and they also have an office close to this delay. Are you telling me NOT ONE of these people couldn’t have put a message on these LED signs? I don’t buy it. I travel that area a lot. There are plenty of places to exit if one knows there is a delay ahead. I don’t put up with tax-payer subsidized agencies that are irresponsible. I don’t care what state they’re in.
Yes, I am the same person who sent a “bill”, not “sued” Michigan DOT for $16 for wasted gas. I passed MULTIPLE LED signs stating “no problems ahead”, and encountered a major delay: 5 lanes merging into one to fill a pothole in the middle of the day in July on I-75. Had they warned motorists, I would have gotten off and saved a lot of pollution from going into the air and also gas when it was $4 a gallon. Multiply that by 1,000’s of vehicles idling for almost 1 hour, and you have major gas waste and pollution in 95 degree weather. This was a principle, not to try and get money out of them.
As far as the pleadings, I feel you are being overly critical; however I will examine things further within the next few days. I am sure you don’t give a rat’s ass, but I do have a heart. I have a cat dying of cancer and am focused on her right how. If you don’t believe me, ask Phil.
Thank you.
@ 1Lishell
Nice find. Here is a link to an article about her demand for reimbursement for $16 in “wasted gasoline” to MDOT.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS11/808040340/-1/NEWS
I can’t figure out whether or not Sammy the Cat is a co-plaintiff in the action. I hope Sammy got some cat treats at least.
@ 1Lishell
Great job. I had the same opinion of the overall quality of the document. She relies almost entirely on internet rumors and innuendo. The filing is completely disjointed and fails to support any of the vague allegations she makes. As a Buckeye fan, I appreciate the references to The Ohio State University, however.
I have one correction: I think you meant to refer to paragraph 1.9 instead of 1.6 in comments 6. and 7.
I await Carol Greenberg’s reply.
1. See my comments about the FEC and citations, or lack thereof, below.
2. In ¶1.1, you claim that Secretary of State Brunner has “constitutional duties” but never explain what those duties consist of, whether you are referring to the U.S. or Ohio constitutions, and where the duties are enumerated in whichever document you mean.
3.In ¶1.3, you refer to yourself as “Plaintive.”
4. In ¶1.4, you claim that Secretary Brunner has “Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations,” but, again, do not cite where such authority may be found.
5. In ¶1.5, you admit that an “explicit statute” related to determining candidate qualifications is “lacking,” and that Secretary Brunner has “the intrinsic authority” to set standards for determining candidate qualification. However, in ¶2.4, you admit that the Ohio Revised Code does lay out ways for candidates to qualify to be on the ballot. This seems self-contradictory.
6. In ¶1.6, “And she is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.” is not a complete sentence. Also, “The chair of these committee’s” is incorrect; it should read “The chair of these committees.’ “Committee’s” is possessive, “committees” is plural. Chair should read Chairs for the same reason.
7. Also in ¶1.6, you claim that the chairs of the committees that Feinstein sits on are “required by law to seek out documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualifications.” Please cite the relevant sections of the U.S. Code.
8. In ¶2.2, you state that “there are other legal challenges before the Federal Court [sic]” but do not name any. Federal court is not capitalized unless referring to a specific court, such as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, or the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, frivolous lawsuits do not demonstrate that “reasonable doubt” exists. I lied-this is the final comment-reasonable doubt is irrelevant here, because it isn’t a criminal matter.
9. There is no “Ohio State office of Secretary of State,” it is the Ohio Secretary of State. It is not “Ohio State election process,” it is the Ohio elections process. Also in ¶2.3, you admit that there is no statutory requirements for Secretary Brunner to confirm a candidate’s eligibility beyond certifying petitions or receiving notice from a political party. Therefore, she discharged her statutory duty. It is irrelevant that people have to show birth certificates to get drivers licenses; the legislature chose not to require that standard for candidates for political office.
10. In ¶2.3, you seek a “seeks a directive to the Ohio State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Ohio State.” This appears to be asking a member of the judiciary to make a law affecting the Secretary of State. Even most third graders know that this would be a violation of the separation of powers: The legislature makes the law. The executive branch enforces the law. The judiciary interprets the law.
11. In ¶2.5, you use the word “prevue;” it should be purview.
12. In ¶2.6, you again claim Secretary Brunner has a “duty” to verify documents, but do not state where this duty comes from, where the duty to request documents comes from, and what the standard of review is.
13. In ¶2.7, you say it was “was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation,” but do not say why.
14. In ¶2.8.1, US should be U.S. It’s “Due to a lack,” not “Do to a lack.”
15. You give no basis for your claim that ODP or the DNC were required to verify Obama’s eligibility.
16. In ¶2.8.3, it’s “Feinstein,” not “Fienstein.” Even if Obama was not an NBC, it would not preclude him from serving in the Senate, and therefore Feinstein is irrelevant to this discussion, as she is only charged with ensuring the qualifications of Senators.
17. In ¶2.9, you claim that Secretary Brunner “is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections,” which contradicts your earlier claims made in ¶2.3.
18. In regards to ¶2.10, see my comments about the FEC’s role.
19. ¶2.12 is entirely hypothetical and does not explain how Obama’s nomination could be voided, or who the “appropriate authorities” are to take such action.
20. In ¶2.13, you again admit that the Ohio Revised Code (There is no such thing as the “Ohio Elections Code”, election law is contained in Title 35 of the O.R.C.) lacks any “mandated verification of candidate credentialing [sic] materials.” Interesting, you blame Obama for this: Mr. Obama dictated…the lack of Ohio Elections Code statutorily mandated verification of candidate credentialing materials.” I’m unclear how Obama could have removed and/or revised the O.R.C. Once again, you mention Obama’s actions in “federal district court,” but do not explain what those actions were, or how they are relevant to your case.
21. In ¶3.1, you say that “Ohio State…creates its own ballot.” This seems to refer to The Ohio State University. If you are referring to Ohio the state, the proper phrasing is the State of Ohio. Article XVII of the Ohio Constitution only deals with the dates of elections and vacancies in state offices. It has no bearing whatsoever on your complaint.
22. I’ve never seen someone list the parties at the end of a complaint or whatever this thing is before.
23. You seem to be suing Brunner strictly in her individual capacity, from the way you word ¶4.2.
23. In ¶5.1, you state that the questions of fact regarding Obama’s citizenship are to “be determined in the venue of the U.S. District Court.” Did you file your suit in the district court? If so, why are you also filing suit in a state court? You also state that your complaint is to “show the need for precertification as to the candidate’s [sic] meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.” Again, this is not within the court’s purview.
24. In ¶5.2, you state that “you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries” and cite Article II, Section 2. This is simply incorrect and blatantly false. The Constitution says nothing of the sort.
25. In ¶5.3, you give a long list of alleged issues about Obama’s citizenship and birthplace, but don’t cite any support for your claims. “Therefore making the name on the ballot illegal” is not a complete sentence. You again make reference to a “Federal District Court,” but provide no details about the “recent opportunity” there.
26. In ¶5.4, you say that Obama’s COLB has not been registered with Hawaii, but again provide no evidence, nor do you acknowledge that it was issued by Hawaii. In claiming that the COLB “has not been registered with State of Hawaii,” you contradict the claim made in ¶5.3, where you say that Obama may have been born “abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii.”
27. In ¶5.5, you say “Researchers have claimed to be unable to find any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak [sic] Obama’s mother.” What relevance does Obama’s mother’s birthplace have to do with anything? You also ignore the fact that Obama’s mother was born in Kansas, so there would be no record of her birth in Hawaii.
28. In ¶5.6, you do not name any of the “seven forensic document experts” who claim Obama’s COLB is a forgery, nor do you offer any evidence in support of their claims, nor do you attach their reports to your complaint. Website is one word.
29. In ¶5.7, you ignore the fact that FOIA requests do not extend to personal documents.
30. In ¶5.8, nothing is particularly relevant to your complaint.
31. In ¶5.9, you offer no support of your claims about Obama’s grandmother or the Kenyan birth certificate. It should be Wayne Madson…contributing writer published,” not “contributing writer and published.” You continue to refer to a federal trial, but ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your claims other than internet rumor. The Kenyan birth certificate, even if you produced it, is inadmissible as evidence unless it meets the standards laid down in the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
32. In ¶5.10, you again lack any support for your claims.
33. In ¶5.11, you appear to claim that Obama’s mother was never born. I didn’t think anyone was going so far as to claim his mother is fictitious.
34. In 5.12, you seem to think that the fact that something is posted on the internet immediately makes it legitimate. Do you respond to emails from Nigerian government officials offering to give you $1 million if you help them launder money?
35. ¶5.13 is irrelevant.
36. Finally some citations in ¶5.14. However, the citations aren’t in the proper format.
37. ¶5.15 is irrelevant.
38. ¶5.16 is incorrect.
39. ¶5.17 is irrelevant, especially the part about Obama’s religion.
40. ¶5.19 and ¶5.20 are irrelevant insofar as Obama’s mother’s citizenship is irrelevant. ¶5.20 misstates the law.
41. Re: ¶5.21 see comment 28. Self-described “Document Forensic Experts” are not credible sources.
42. ¶5.22 is an affirmative misrepresentation of what Article II, Section 1 actually says, makes claims that are unsupported by case law or statute, is irrelevant to your cause of action (in that it has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate) and is generally stupid.
43. ¶6.1 is not actual harm.
44. ¶6.2 does not claim any actual harm.
45. ¶6.3 is incoherent.
46. ¶6.4 shows does not explain what “irreparable harm” you would suffer, nor does it show individualized harm that would give you standing. In fact, it shows the opposite.
47. ¶6.5 is incoherent regarding the duties “incumbent upon the Ohio State, Secretary of State [sic].” It again shows plaintiff lacks an understanding of the FEC’s role.
48. In ¶7.1, it is unclear what type of injunctive relief you seek. As you admit, Secretary Brunner has no statutory duty, so mandamus is not appropriate.
49. In ¶7.2, you still don’t understand what the FEC does.
50. Ditto for ¶7.2.1. The relief requested in ¶7.2.1 is not within a state court’s powers, would violate federal law, is targeted at someone who is not a party to your suit, and generally idiotic.
51. ¶7.3 again appears to be asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus, which is not the appropriate remedy.
52. ¶7.4 requests relief not related to any of your claims.
53. The certification processes described in ¶7.5 are irrelevant to your complaint, as Obama need not be an NBC to be a senator.
54. ¶¶7.6-7.7 do not actually ask the court for any relief.
55. ¶7.8 violates state law, is not a request for relief by the court, and is prima facie insane.
56. THere is no certificate of service for this “brief” or “complaint” or whatever it is supposed to be.
57. I stand by my earlier comments.
58. I can make long lists too.
59. I’ve seen better writing by 1Ls.
60. You’re the same person who tried to sue Michigan for mental anguish caused by road construction, right?
Nevermind, just found the complaint. It has a unique format; I’ll post more on it in the morning.
Here’s one quick thing-the FEC does NOT have jurisdiction over candidate eligibility. The FEC only has jurisdiction over campaign finance matters-receipts and disbursements of campaign money.
Well, it’s been over 24 hrs. since GeorgetownJD asked for my pleadings, and more than one week since 1Lishell asked to see them. So far, no comment from either. This gives an indication from their perspective (and mine as well)they feel the judge:
1. was NOT bored
2. was NOT laughing
3. was NOT really in a hurry to get on with other cases that he felt “had merit” or:
4. ALL OF THE ABOVE!
I suspect, it was NO.4!
GeorgetownJD,
Ms. Greenberg has recently forwarded me what she sent to the court; you should be able to find it as an update at the bottom of the posting, above.
-Phil
Maybe Phil could post the pleadings here. Have you asked?
Hey Reality Check:
I’ve been told by the court they are “still compiling.”
Phil’s been promised first dibs.
Hope you read the pleadings, IN IT’S ENTIRETY! And, if you’re a friend of Lishell, let him/her know. After all, this person passed the bar. And would know a good document when he/she sees one, right? His words, not mine.
And to 1Lishell:
I don’t have to “shut up.”
Stay tuned…..
More to come. Right here.
@ Carol Greenberg
I am reminded of the old Frank Sinatra song “Fools rush in where wise men never go”.
Just how much did your little ego building adventure cost? We would all like to know.
Hi, Reality Check. I’m BAAACKKKK! This is about me, right, so I reserve the right to post one “last comment” as many times as I want. I’d like to know how many of you could go it alone in a courtroom with a high-powered attorney like I did and not throw up? Or freeze up? Some of you many disagree with what I did, but it still took a lot of guts. And I’d do it again.
Reality Check,
I wouldn’t dream of allowing such PayPal-designated commentary… without an agreement signed by you and I stipulating a percentage of all proceeds going to me
-Phil
Great advice Patrick. I am thinking of adding a PayPal button to my comments so that true patriots may donate to the cause of spreading truth, justice, and the American way.
I am posting this so Carol Greenberg can come back and post her last comment ………………………………………… again.
I hadn’t read this one in a while. There are lot’s of good comments here by GerogetownJD, Patrick McKinnion and others. Thanks.
Carol,
Is there an Ohio Rules of Election Issue Procedure? No? Then shut up.
And considering that I’ve actually won most of the cases I’ve taken, I’m gonna say that I can write a much better brief than you can. Although I suppose that may be because I actually went to law school and passed the bar.
PS. Please point out my spelling errors. I’m guessing that most of the alleged errors are legal terms that you are unfamiliar with (although I’d start brushing up on treble damages if I were you…), but I suppose that’s not surprising given your general ignorance of the legal world.
PPS. Let’s see this wonderful “brief” that you wrote. If it’s so great, surely you can post it online somewhere?
1Lishell:
I’ve got news for you. When filing this suit, I checked the box that said “election issue”; not civil or criminal. So the court does recognize other types of cases. And I would love to see you sit down and write a 27 page brief any better than I could. YOU wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell with your poor grammar and misspellings.