AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – Motion to Strike

Motion to strike Amicus Brief

Another funny one.

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA -13-70744 – Docket Mandamus

Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-70744 Docketed: 02/28/2013 Termed: 04/01/2013 James Grinols, et al v. USDC-SAC Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:      1) original proceeding      2) mandamus/prohibition      3) 2255 habeas corpus

Originating Court Information:      District: 0972-2 : 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD      Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O’Halloran      Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge      Date Rec’d COA:      02/27/2013

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th CCOA (13-15627) – Docket Appeal Default

Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-15627 Docketed: 04/03/2013 Nature of Suit: 2441 Civil Rights Voting James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:      1) civil      2) united states      3) null

Originating Court Information:      District: 0972-2 : 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD      Trial Judge: Morrison C. England, Junior, Chief District Judge      Date Filed: 12/12/2012      Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:      03/26/2013      03/26/2013      04/01/2013      04/01/2013

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – Docket

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD

Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd Case in other court:  USCA, 13-15627

CA – Grinols v Electoral College – 9th Circuit – Lacking jurisdiction

Poor Orly, she cannot even pursue the court’s rejection of her motion for default. Saves the 9th Circuit some time as it has really no choice but to follow the lower court’s well reasoned opinion.

Case Name: James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al
Case Number: 13-15627

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SLJ): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because an order denying a motion for default judgment is not a final appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1989) (order). Moreover, a review of the district court docket shows that a final order granting appellees’ motions to dismiss has not yet been filed. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [8629706] (WL)

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Affidavit Zullo

As I had predicted, the affidavit was not signed by Sheriff Arpaia but rather by the volunteer Mariscopa County Cold Case Posse which has no investigative powers. In fact, as such it does not differ much from a knitting club.

So far the affidavit appears to raise no relevant issues, and will be rejected per the rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SC AL – Appellants’ reply brief

SCOAL 2013-05-14 – McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Appellants’ Reply Brief

Please tell me that this is not how Klayman’s briefs read like… Have we been punked. This reads more like something a 15 year old would write, full of circular logic.

Wow… I thought that the Alabama case was going to settle it once and for all. Of course, the issue raised was quite limited and the Court rules do not allow for new information to be introduced, which would exclude any affidavit by the Cold Case Posse knitting club.

Sigh… I was hoping for some real fireworks in Alabama… But it’s all a dud…