The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on February 06, 2014, 10:51:31 AM
-
laserhaas (1,274 posts)
UPDATE: Laser "Haas v Romney" Racketeer - Emergency - File 2nd Amended Complaint (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024452263)
We are 110 days into my lawsuit against Romney & his RICO gang.
On October 18, 2013, yours truly sued Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs and cohorts (such as Paul Traub) for Racketeering - in Los Angeles Division of Federal District Court. There are several stories out there and a cheap video. Please see (here) - (here) - (here) - and video link (here).
A new case order was issued and then several events happened. We had a victory of one reporter who was punished to the tune of $2 million, for reporting crimes; and failing to handle the issue correctly. Crystal Cox won a reversal (that a Blogger is entitled to "Freedom of the Press" protection). Then, in another case we were working on (brutal - Fullerton Police Beating -) of homeless man Kelly Thomas; the jury ruled that 6 cops, tazing a 150lb guy (NOT on drugs) until the battery ran out and then turning the tazer over and beating him brain dead; was not unnessary use of force.
So, I've been somewhat despondent for a few weeks.
Getting back to Romney the Racketeer, most people misunderstand RICO and think on the Department of Justice can prosecute under the RICO Act of 1970. Actually it's the other way around. The DOJ is not allowed to prosecute Civil RICO under 18 U.S.C. $ 1964(c); only (Wikipedia - here) "Private Attorney Generals" can do so.
That's what I am - a "Private Attorney General".
ROMNEY the RACKETEER - Story - In a Nutshell
(http://www.petters-fraud.com/sitebuilder/images/RomneyConnectionsPics-209x195.jpg)
What happened is Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and their lawyers (Paul Traub & www.MNAT.com) have been engaging in Racketeering for decades. (See the pic above, showing that there's NO 6 degrees of separation; because Romney is directly linked to all of it. Including Marc Dreier fraud, Stanford (through son Tagg Romney) and Tom Petters Ponzi.
These Racketeers have been able to get away with it; because Romney's "retroactive" time span is directly tied to the former Wilmington, DE United States Attorney. In 1999 - thru 2001 - there were organized crimes committed against The Learning Co, Stage Stores, Kay Bee and eToys between 1999 and August 2001. Billions was stolen; but NO prosecution occurred.
That is because Romney possessed his very own U.S. Attorney (Colm Connolly).
Yours truly didn't learn about the federal corruption - until 2007 - and reported it (see my time stamped/clocked copy - here). Inexplicably and intolerably, in March 2008 (when the answer from the DOJ was due); the Public Corruption Task Force was SHUT DOWN; and career federal prosecutors were threatened to keep their mouths shut!
SEE the Los Angeles Times March 2008 story "Shake-up roils federal prosecutors" - here).
When you have federal prosecutors being corrupt - that creates "Prosecutorial GAPS";
which can be filled in by a "Private Attorney General"!
That's Me!
BRAND NEW = EMERGENCY = Filing by yours truly.
I'm asking the court (here) for EMERGENCY permission (as a "pro se" Private Attorney General) - to file a 2nd Amended Complaint.
This judge has been more than fair (even though I'm using terms like federal corruption that NO attorney would usually utilize). It is customary to allow several "Amended Complaints" and "pro se" parties are supposed to be give "some" latitude (as long as you are NOT wasting the courts time).
Will let you know what the court says - by Monday!
Meanwhile, you should read this Emergency Request (here) and look at the 8 exhibits at the end?
All my proof of crimes are federal court records;
and federal archives undeniable!
:lmao: :rotf: :rofl: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Silly links at the DUmp thread...
Private attorney general..... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :panic: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Private attorney general....Obama has his own Private attorney general so why can't the DUmmie have one?
-
I think if this had any merit whatsoever, that it would be big news. At least on MSNBC.
-
I think if this had any merit whatsoever, that it would be big news. At least on MSNBC.
Or CurrentTV Al Jazzera.
-
Even those of us who aren't lawyers know that the law says no such thing and that this will be thrown out if it hasn't been already.
-
Even those of us who aren't lawyers know that the law says no such thing and that this will be thrown out if it hasn't been already.
But DUmmie only needs 5 more dollars......or was it 10?
-
THIS IS TOAST! ROMNEY HAS LEGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :panic:
-
Laser needs reading comprehension.
Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff.[1] The person considered "private attorney general" is entitled to recover attorney's fees if he or she prevails. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.
Many civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises,[2] one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action . . . he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general" provisions that provide for the enforcement of laws prohibiting employment discrimination, police brutality, and water pollution. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, "any citizen" may bring suit against an individual or a company that is a source of water pollution.[citation needed]
Another example of the "private attorney general" provisions is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO allows average citizens (private attorneys general) to sue those organizations that commit mail and wire fraud as part of their criminal enterprise.[citation needed] To date, there are over 60 federal statutes[citation needed] that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general
-
No wonder the court system is jammed with stupid, frivolous lawsuits.
Idiots like this are the reason for it.
-
I think laserhaas is trying to replace stinky as the laughing stock of the internet.
-
I think laserhaas is trying to replace stinky as the laughing stock of the internet.
Yeah, Stinky has been laying low, hasn't he? :whistling:
-
I'm usually pretty good at reading DUmpese, but I am totally baffled at this word salad. Did he have Cousin Nads write his post for him. What the hell do Cox or Thomas have to do with Romney.
-
When is he going to file suit against Obama?
-
That's what I am - a "Private Attorney General".
In his day job he's a private dancer.
-
I read the kooks links. This sounds more about money for him than any supposed "justice for the country" nonsense. According to what I read, his company was assigned to liquidate some online toy company and Bain stepped in and bought out the inventory before he could do anything, so he didn't get to make the money. Of course I'm only reading his side of the story, so who's to say what really happened, but it's clear he's mad his company didn't get to do the liquidation.
.
-
I read the kooks links. This sounds more about money for him than any supposed "justice for the country" nonsense. According to what I read, his company was assigned to liquidate some online toy company and Bain stepped in and bought out the inventory before he could do anything, so he didn't get to make the money. Of course I'm only reading his side of the story, so who's to say what really happened, but it's clear he's mad his company didn't get to do the liquidation.
.
That about sums it up,even much of the DUmp thinks he is a lunatic.
I had to look and not a one of them either looked or has any more clue about how badly he misconstrued the private attorney general doctrine as explained in his own Wiki link.
They are truly idiots to the core.
-
Read line 24/25 on page 4...... http://petters-fraud.com/haas_v_romney_feb3_2014_emergency_request_to_serve_2nd_amended_complaint.pdf
:lmao:
-
He's back
laserhaas (1,304 posts)
Romney's RICO Gang Blinks & Panics: Rushes to Shut Down eToys Case Illegally!
As Cedric the Entertainer said in the Clooney movie - I'm about to nail their ass!
--------------- Because ALL the PROOF is inside Public Court Docket Records - UNdeniable!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024512949
laserhaas (1,304 posts)
5. Probably only failed due to my putting up the story late nite Sunday.
Tomorrow I'm really busy on getting all the Proofs of Services in this case ready to file on Tues. - in court.
Should have put this up in the morning;
but I'm WAY behind on the works.
Wait, what? None of this has even been seen by reasonably sane people connected with the legal system? Oh I can't wait to see what he posts after filing.
-
Do a Google search and see what a loon this guy is.
He's been bared from MD court as a vexatious litigant.
JBerryHill has a good summary of where Laser The Liquidator currently stands here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024496004)
jberryhill (32,891 posts)
About that Romney Racketeering Lawsuit - Litigation As Performance Art
For around $350 anyone, anywhere can file a document in a federal court and call it a civil complaint. After doing so, one can certainly post about it on the internet. I can file a federal lawsuit against Mitch McConnell for screwing goats if I want to. No matter that I have no standing or grounds to sue him for that, or that screwing goats is not something that I could actually sue him over, even if he did screw goats, with the minor exception of him screwing my goats. But still, I'd need to plead that I am out at least $75,000 for him screwing the goats, even if they were my goats.
So, when I see "FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST MITCH MCCONNELL FOR SCREWING GOATS!" I'm probably going to be fairly skeptical of that suit going anywhere. It's not a matter of my having any great love for Mitch McConnell. I certainly don't. And, as is obvious, at least one of his parents had a romantic interest in turtles. The point is that a dumb lawsuit filed for the purpose of publicity or feeling important is just that - no matter who it is against or what it claims.
And so we come to what is likely the last curtain call in the "Mitt Romney Sued For Racketeering" saga, involving a growing hairball of scattered and disconnected points without any real answer to the question of "what did he do to you and what do you want a court to do about it", aside from complaining about the fact that most of the lawsuit is a collection of rantings about the same claims already having been thrown out by a court which had actual jurisdiction over the bankruptcy proceeding in which the claim arose.
One hallmark of the litigant as performance artist is failure to actually serve the lawsuit on the defendants. This is not a great and mysterious task. In some circumstances, service can be effected by such complicated means as "mailing them a copy", but the local rules of any court spell out in pretty unambiguous detail what sorts of things will, or will not, be considered effective service of process. The upshot is also pretty simple - if you are suing someone, you have to let them know about it. Not DailyKos, random internet blogs and forums - the actual defendants in the suit.
When we were last updated on this performance, the court had denied the plaintiff's request to have federal marshals serve the complaint on the defendants. It's a pretty bizarre request when you consider, again, that service can often be effected simply through the mail. It's not rocket science. The federal rules give you a generous 120 days to figure it out.
And so we come to the most recent development, oddly not reported by our intrepid reporter of reports from this performance. Instead of serving the suit as the 120 day clock started to run out, our hero filed an "emergency" request to dick around with the growing mountain of paper. While it's not clear what is the "emergency", I believe we are nearing the end of the show....
02/03/2014 10 EMERGENCY REQUEST and seeking for leave to file a second amended complaint with Plaintiff's declaration and memorandum points to serve second amended complaint upon the defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven Laser Haas. Lodged Proposed Order and 2nd Amended Complaint. (pj) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
02/11/2014 11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Denying Plaintiffs Motion Seeking Leave to FileSecond Amended Complaint and Requesting 60 Day Extension of Time to Serve Complaint 10 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, and plaintiffs request for an extension of time to effect service is DENIED.: (pj) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
On October 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a 108-page Complaint citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962, and1964 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)) and naming fourteen defendants. The Complaint contained what it described as “a flood of assertions against an array of extremely well-known and very powerful parties.†(Compl. ¶ 3.) On November 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a 150-page First Amended Complaint (FAC) naming ten defendants. The FAC also “makes an array of contentions against many parties.†(FAC ¶ 4.) The Court denied plaintiff’s request to order the United States Marshal to serve the FAC. (Dkt 9.)
Plaintiff has now lodged a 340-page proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) naming the same ten defendants as the FAC. In this document, among other things, plaintiff “apologizes in advance to the court for the profuse, burdensome and even intrusive upon other venue issues that this case is about to present to His Honor.†(SAC at 173.) The SAC alleges that “this case has issues vast, of national important and significant issues, as pertains to the civil needs of maintaining a good order of society.†(Id.) Plaintiff has failed to serve either his original complaint or the FAC. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading “once as a matter of course†within 21days of serving it (or defendants’ filing of certain motions or responsive pleadings). The Court concludes that the 2009 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) was not intended to permi tan indefinite number of pre-service amendments as a matter of course. See Koplow v. Watson, 751 F.Supp. 2d 317, 322 (D. Mass 2010) (“Plaintiff’s complete failure to serve the Complaint on Defendantsdoes not give Plaintiff free rein to amend the Complaint whenever he wishes.â€); Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1480-1483 (2010). Although leave to amend should generally be freely given “when justice so requires,†Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be denied when it would be futile. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 809 (9th Cir.2004). The proposed SAC, likethe previous versions of the complaint, would be subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled acomplaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.â€).
Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant a sixty day extension for service of his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant . . . but if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.†Good cause requires “a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.†MCITelecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Whether a plaintiff has failed to “diligently pursue service during the allotted period†is a considerationin the good cause determination. Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1007 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s application and the exhibits in support thereof fail to show that he has diligently pursued service since filing his original complaint and the FAC, and fails to provide any reasonable basis for excusing compliance with the 120-day requirement under Rule 4(m).
For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to file theproposed Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, and plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to effect service is DENIED.
-
I read the kooks links. This sounds more about money for him than any supposed "justice for the country" nonsense. According to what I read, his company was assigned to liquidate some online toy company and Bain stepped in and bought out the inventory before he could do anything, so he didn't get to make the money. Of course I'm only reading his side of the story, so who's to say what really happened, but it's clear he's mad his company didn't get to do the liquidation.
.
The only way he could get anywhere with that theory would be to prove that Bain and the company he was liquidating purposely conspired to unlawfully screw him out of the value of his deal with the seller, otherwise Bain is a 'bonafide purchaser' and his only relief for any claimed double-dealing would be against the guys who sold Bain the inventory...if he can even prove there was double-dealing at all, which is going to go back to just exactly how the remaining inventory was dealt with in his contract with the actual seller.
Just the discovery in a major corporate business lawsuit will normally drag out for a year and then some after the actual filing officially starts it, and then it may be years before it actually comes to trial. A megacorp defendant will usually try to drag it out as long as possible to use up the litigation resources of the plaintiff, and there are all kinds of procedural tools for them to use for that. 110 days is nothing.
-
But DUmmie only needs 5 more dollars......or was it 10?
That, and 24 business hours. :lmao:
-
laser needs a good reporter...nadin.
-
laser needs a good reporter...nadin.
Has she been screwing goats?
:???:
-
Has she been screwing goats?
:???:
Is that a prerequisite? :???: :tongue: :whistling:
-
Has she been screwing goats?
:???:
Better put that down as "Goat Herder" on her resume....wouldn't want to cause her any problems in the job market.
-
Read line 24/25 on page 4...... http://petters-fraud.com/haas_v_romney_feb3_2014_emergency_request_to_serve_2nd_amended_complaint.pdf
:lmao:
:rotf: So the High School Dropout is suing Mitt Romney for Racketeering :rotf:
-
Like with "Marshall Law"...this DUmmie is using a word that doesn't mean what they think it does.
Pro Se:
means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer. This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf".
It's normally done in two instances. One when someone can't afford an attorney or two when the person thinks he/she is smarter than they lawyer that had been advising them and want to present a defense or bring an action that no lawyer of sound mind would recommend for a client.
And I'd have to say with this moron it's a little of both.
-
Like with "Marshall Law"...this DUmmie is using a word that doesn't mean what they think it does.
Pro Se:
It's normally done in two instances. One when someone can't afford an attorney or two when the person thinks he/she is smarter than they lawyer that had been advising them and want to present a defense or bring an action that no lawyer of sound mind would recommend for a client.
And I'd have to say with this moron it's a little of both.
Dragoon, I'd weigh the second option heavily in this case.
Somewhere north of 99.99999% . . .
-
Dragoon, I'd weigh the second option heavily in this case.
Somewhere north of 99.99999% . . .
LOL! Yeah you're probably right. :-)