You lost again.
You lost again.
Chrysler has given its workers the day off on Tuesday to vote, according to a tweet from Ralph Gilles, Chrysler’s vice president for product design.
Chrysler gave its entire work force the day off to Vote Today! Let’s go! #America
— Ralph Gilles (@RalphGilles) November 6, 2012
From the Docket:
11/05/2012 – [Memorandum Decision & Order] DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS DENIED. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER SUBMITTED.RFAD/LDH
11/06/2012 – Removed from active docket on 11/06/12.
Black man opens door for white women in Philadelphia.
That’s what Fox worries about.
Meanwhile, from The Nation:
Misinformation Encourages Philadelphians to Cancel Their Own Votes
Misinformation encouraging people in Philadelphia to cancel their own votes has been circulating on Tuesday, and Obama field operatives have begun trying to correct the rumor on the ground. The rumor, which has spread in urban and predominantly African American areas of Philadelphia that tilt towards Barack Obama, wrongly instructed voters to first select an “All Democratic” voting slate — and then cast another vote specifically for Obama. That second vote has the effect of canceling the original vote, according to two Democratic sources in Philadelphia.
“Many voters are being told to vote for the President by BOTH checking the Straight Democrat Box and the Box for the President,” explains an email from an Obama Voter Protection staffer targeting Philadelphia voters. That action cancels the vote, says the staffer, who instructed voters “to do one or the other, but not both.”
The Obama campaign has voter protection staff and attorneys on the ground trying to clarify the situation, and began sending emails as early as 9:16am today. Concerns about the rumor began bubbling up early this morning, including one 7:46am tweet warning against the confusing double-vote option.
Charlie Pierce at Esquire:
It had been a long time since I was around a presidential campaign when I picked this one up in Iowa a little more than a year ago. The first story that hit me was the money. It still seems to me that the money is the only story in this whole campaign. It has deformed the process almost to unrecognizability. It has created a new normal that seems insulated on all sides from the people who are supposed to matter the most. If the president manages to hang on, it will be seen as a triumph of participatory democracy over legalized bribery, and we will all be encouraged to feel very good about ourselves because things turned out that way. But, seriously, were it not for the new political universe created by the Big Bang of the Citizens United decision, and were it not for the swiftly established metric that he who has the most money wins, the candidacy of Willard Romney would be an almost impossible burlesque. Four years after the titans of the financial-services industry nearly ate the entire world, the Republicans nominate a plutocratic maladroit who can barely wrestle a coherent sentence to a draw — “We start a new tomorrow tomorrow,” was yesterday’s gem — and who is entirely a creature of the very industry that had caused the misery in the first place. It is exactly the same as if the Republicans in 1932 had replaced Herbert Hoover at the top of their ticket with Andrew Mellon.
But the election is still within an eyelash, one way or the other, because Romney’s money, and all the other money that lined up behind it, made him credible. Exactly forty years after anonymous corporate cash became the first loose thread that would lead to the unravelling of Richard Nixon’s presidency, anonymous corporate cash is the coin of the realm. It is the measure by which we determine the fitness to lead the nation, to command the armed forces, to who gets their hands on the nuclear codes. It used to be popular to complain that we had turned politics into an advertising design competition, that we sold our candidates “like soap.” Now, we’ve turned the elections into investment opportunities, and we sell our candidates like beachfront condos or cattle futures. I am not at all sure this is an improvement.
But, recently, watching things on the ground here in Florida, I’ve come to think that there is an even bigger story than the money, that the money is merely the only story within the only story. I have watched at close range how very far politicians will go to use their institutional power as elected officials to deaden the instincts of self-government. It is the money that got them into place to do it, but what they’re doing is something far more insidious and dangerous. Actively keeping people from exercising the franchise is bad enough. But to continue, over and over and over again, to make the process harder and harder until a critical mass of people decides that self-government is not worth the bother, I think, is far, far worse.
Update 11/5: Courtesy of Jack Ryan’s Scribd.
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. PARTICIPANTS: O. Taitz, plaintiff; S. Begley, S. Tepper, H. Pizzetta, J. Matheny, and W. Dukes, defense counsel. Telephone Conference held on 11/5/2012. A Motion Hearing was set for November 16 at 1:00 P.M., to hear oral argument on the  Motion of the Judgment on Pleadings, and  Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Onaka and Loretta Fuddy, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief, Insufficient Process and Insufficiency of Service of Process. All parties are expected to be present at the scheduled Motion Hearing. The Court DENIED plaintiff’s oral motion to allow a witness to testify by phone. Plaintiff was directed to provide the court with the addresses of the other pro se plaintiffs. (TRS)
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing on Motion  MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction over Dr. Alvin T. Onaka and Loretta J. Fuddy MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief; Insufficient Process; and Insufficiency of Service of Process,  MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings,  MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings : Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2012 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS)
A Reliable Source reports for The Fogbow:
All parties are on the phone at 10:30, except Taitz.
Court clerk has to call Taitz at 10:35.
After Taitz belatedly joins hearing, Court comes on line. Starts off on JPML matter and pounds Taitz on her defective JPML filing and fact that JPML struck motion. Taitz claims never to have received JPML order of 10-31-12 All other counsel received it and Tepper points out that Taitz is not being candid since (a) she received ECF notice of defendants’ November 2, 2012 filing (Dkt 61) and (b) the JPML also served her as an ECF filer in Central District of California. Taitz then states she may have received something but because she had 10 days to respond she hadn’t opened the e-mail yet. Taitz tries to deflect issue of her lack of candor by talking about forgery of birth certificate and new affidavit (which she has not yet filed), and multiple attacks on Scott Tepper. (Taitz speaks for 5 minutes.)
Court cuts her off and says he was waiting to see what JPML was doing. Now that JPML has rejected the case, Court wants to proceed on the merits and does not intend to take them up by telephone. He notes that he was ready to hear it last Thursday and this morning – and everyone but Taitz was available. (This puts the lie to Taitz’s statement on her website that 3 lawyers weren’t available, unless they are all named Taitz.)
Taitz advises court she is in litigation in California and it is just because she is so busy that the matter could not be heard last week or today. Judge asks Taitz when the motions can be heard. Taitz launches into lengthy statement that she has two weeks to respond (presumably to Hawaii motions to dismiss) and says she will “have an answer” within a week. Taitz also notifies the Court that she plans to file another motion for sanctions, which will include an affidavit from her new Tennessee expert. Because he’s 70, “infirm,” and has to take care of his wife, he doesn’t want to appear, he wants to do it by declaration. Court states it will not take something like that by declaration.
Taitz also goes into rant that she vehemently opposes Tepper participating by telephone because “he sits in his office and has access to Internet and computers” … so it’s not fair. Tepper needs to be in court just like her. (Court did not rule on that issue.) Taitz also vehemently requests to have heard her “more evidence” of fraud and repeats her intention to file a new motion for sanctions. Tepper points out this new motion for sanctions is merely Taitz again multiplying the litigation. Taitz goes off on another rant.
The Court cuts Taitz off and asks for a date certain for hearing on pending motions. All counsel except Taitz agree to November 16, despite some conflicts. Taitz sighs, says she has important family matters [details provided but not reported here], but will “make herself available.” (Heroically.)