A study ordered under the Clinton Administration, and conducted by the US Depy of Health & Human Services was to demostrate that non-custodial fathers did not care to be involved with their children. The study titled, "Survue of Absentee Parents" was to be a fifty state study. After just five states were done, preliminary results were reported that 60% of non-custodial father filed enforcement actions wuth the courts to see their children within six months of receiving their visitation orders. But, within five years, ended up losing all contact with the children.
As a result of these preliminary results, funding for the remainder of the study was withdrawn. (See the letter at the end of the preliminary results report)
"I salute the commitment to fatherhood evidenced by Jeffery Johnson and the other organizers of the 2009 National Rally for Responsible Fatherhood, and I salute Obama for his involvement. However, there’s an obvious omission both in the rally and the article: many fathers, including African-American dads, are not able to play a meaningful role in their children’s lives because of the children’s mothers’ interference and the indifference and/or hostility of the family law system."
My name is Cheryl Calvin and I share Credit Education tips and insight to communities throughout Chicago, IL. The name of our organization is S and C Financial/Credit Resolutions Group and we are a Housing, Small Business Development and Credit Education/Resolution Counseling. We are an IRS 501 (c) 3 organization and to date we are totally unfunded by any government support. I have shared our literacy program with President-Elect Obama through his what once was Senatorial office with a promise given to help us find funding but that was shut down with the campaign. To date they have not been too eager to get this information to the public (not from our organization anyway) but they do make a way for us to share information with one another and for that I am grateful. I want to ensure everyone I meet has an opportunity to learn something about credit they didn't know. Today I will be sharing the issue of Judgments being filed against consumers falsely in effort of bringing awareness to this issue.
Before I get started, I wanted to take a moment to tell you how to get a free copy of your credit report once every 12 months. Please visit www.annualcreditreport.com. This is the only website the government had the three major credit bureaus (TransUnion, Experian and Equifax) to create for that purpose. Your reports are free but you will have to pay extra for the actual score, however I don't suggest you pay for the score as it is normally significantly different then that of any of the creditors you apply for credit from. Now, let's move on to some realities about Judgments.
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
I have applied to be in charge of the White House Basketball Court where the Dream Team will be meeting for the next four years or more. Join the Dream Team as play begings January 20th 2009.
And when the Dream Team isn't meeting I have applied to be on the board of the Peace Institute, time we make a real peace with the natives, and work our way outward from the heart of reality.
Justices of the United States Supreme Court who witnessed an OBAMANATION of HOPE
This time, "it is the Supreme court stupid" it's not just Roe vs. Wade, it is where on the bus you can sit, what water fountain you get to use, etc. The GOP Jingoistic convention looked just like a page from the 30' in Germany, I am Jewish, I remember what the real enemy looks like. Lets remember that the Constitution was a wonderful document, if you were a white male land owner, thank God for those "activist" Judges. One more reactionary Judge to this Supreme Court that has already elected our last and worst president, and we will be back in the Middle Ages. Even beyond the Supreme Court, we cannot afford more Republican appointees to any Federal bench. Enough!
Check out my (then created) website www.BallotChad.com to find the text below and others including letters I wrote at the time of the "S"election and aftermath... Let's take our country back from these tyrants and vow to never allow it to happen again without strong resistence from WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Thanks for joining my Blog, Tom Wilson, Broward County, FL
The next president will appoint at least 2 justices to the Supreme Court. If you're reading this, you probably already know what's at stake here. There is no more lasting legacy a president can leave behind than his appointments to the Court. The problem is, most people don't ever even think about this. Most people in this country could not tell you the name of even one person on the Court. As a result, no one talks about this.
If John McCain is elected president, the Supreme Court will effectively become the law firm for the Republican party for the next 50 years if you include the current cast of characters. And don't think that Advise and Consent clause in the Constitution will prevent it. The Senate can only turn away so many nominees until they have to consent, lest they be labelled obstructionist, and run out of town on a rail.
Justice Stevens will be 89 years old next April. Justice Stevens is an extraordinarily healthy man - he allegedly plays tennis quite a bit - but he won't live forever, and it is a stretch to believe he'll still be on the Court when he's 93. Justice Ginsberg is getting long in the tooth as well. And Anthony Kennedy - not the most reliable progressive vote, but he has been strong on separation of Church & State and he wrote the Opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which effectively shut down all "sodomy" laws - was appointed by Reagan, so it's getting time for him to consider retirement as well. Clarence Thomas, however, is in great shape. As are both Bush appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Spread the word. It is crucially important that this topic gets brought up, because it's the biggest sleeper issue of this campaign, and yet another reason why a McCain administration would be a total disaster.
Constitutional Fireworks Ignite Monday Plan to Restore Constitutional Order Begins: "No Redress, NO TAXES."Every Member of Congress, the President and U.S. Attorney General to be served a legal "Demand & Notice" for Redress of Constitutional Violations
June 30, 2008 may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.
Next Monday, approximately 1200 American citizens will begin the process of exercising the profound, but little-known, unalienable "Right of Redress." These individuals will serve a legal "Notice and Demand" for Redress upon every Member of Congress at their local district offices. “Most People do not know that this natural Right, first articulated 800 years ago in Section 61 Magna Carta of 1215, is also embodied and protected by the Petition clause of the First Amendment,” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education. “And the Government does not want the People to know about it.”
Recent academic research has established that the Right to Petition for Redress is NOT a redundant statement of the Right of Speech. It is in fact, the individual and peaceful exercise of the cornerstone principle of Popular Sovereignty. In 1774, here is what the Founders unanimously adopted while sitting as the First Congress in Philadelphia:
“If money is wanted by Rulerswho have in any manner oppressed the People,they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despisedpetitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113
Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice includes seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of our Constitution including the war, money, privacy, arms and tax clauses. Illegal immigration and the NAU are also Petition subjects.
If Liberty and Constitutional Order are to survive in peace, it is imperative that the People learn about and exercise the unalienable Right of Redress. For details about the Plan to Restore Constitutional Order, visit: www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution.
Liberty seems to be a word that isn't heard as often as one might expect. Often times we take for granted what we think we have, and have no clue about freedom.When we invaded Iraq, it wasn't for liberty, but for democracy. These are 2 very different things. The Confederacy was a Democracy that did not provide freedom those who were captured into slavery. So why exactly are we trying to spread democracy? Because the United States turned itself into a Democracy in order to take away your freedoms. The new constitution allowed for the senators to be elected by the State Legislatures instead of by the people. The House of Representatives was created seperately to be elected by the people. Why else would there be two houses within Congress? Election to both houses by the people has locked in Aristocratic Principles in Government.If you know a little history, you know that most people within a country are manipulated into believing one thing or another about their Kings, Rulers, or Religious Head. God appointed. People as a whole are easier to manipulate when they do not take part in government legislative activity. Keeping the election for Senators in each states legislative branch provides a checks and balances that cannot be changed by amendment. In order to change the principles of the Constitution (including apportionment of direct taxes) you MUST do so by convention. Amendments to be ratified by the states are only those in which no powers are granted or removed. It is a method of clarification to be added to the Constitution.The Bill of Rights did not change the constitution, it only enumerated those rights that people feared most of losing, and were added as reassurance that their rights could not ever be taken away. And the Federal Government cannot take away any rights or privilidges without calling a convention. And it should be noted that there is no reason to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to make something law in your state. The Federal Government was created in order to act in the best interest of all of the states. Which is why it's powers were restricted to commerce and defending against invasion.The power is otherwise held by the people, and what the people have allowed in the last century is nothing short from disgraceful and in direct contrast to the Constitution. It's up to the Supreme Court of the United States to correct a wrong. And they need to do it now. They are not restricted to cases that they are subjected to, they have a responsibility to the people to ensure the principles of the U.S. Constitution remain intact. Read below about the Judiciary Branch and you may better understand.WE PROCEED to an examination of the judiciary department.
In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out. It is the less necessary to recapitulate the considerations there urged, as the propriety of the institution in the abstract is not disputed; the only questions which have been raised being relative to the manner of constituting it, and to its extent. To these points, therefore, our observations shall be confined.
The manner of constituting it seems to embrace these several objects: 1st. The mode of appointing the judges. 2d. The tenure by which they are to hold their places. 3d. The partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other.
First. As to the mode of appointing the judges; this is the same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general, and has been so fully discussed in the two last numbers, that nothing can be said here which would not be useless repetition.Second. As to the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places; this chiefly concerns their duration in office; the provisions for their support; the precautions for their responsibility.
According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
The simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; (1) that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." It proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such an union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as PERMANENCY IN OFFICE, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and, in a great measure, as the CITADEL of the public justice and the public security.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution.
By a limited constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenour of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superiour to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the grounds on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenour of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be recollected from any particular provisions in the constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular net proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superiour obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; in other words the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute; the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does the conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superiour to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws rather than by those which are not fundamental.
This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation: so far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done: where this is impracticable it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first.
But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a role not enjoined upon the courts by the legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an equal authority, that, which was the last indication of its will, should have the preference.But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivating power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us, that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former.
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretence of repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGEMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it proved any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
If then the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution, against the legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit of the judges, which must be essential to the faithful performance of a so arduous a duty.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals, from the effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the mean time, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness; yet it is not to be inferred from that principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing constitution, would on that account, be justified in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution.PUBLIUS.1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ``Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' ``Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.2 Idem, page 181.3 Vide ``Protest of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania,'' Martin's Speech, etc.
Case Summary - BC304174
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp
Please make a note of the Case Number.
Click here to access document images for this case. If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.
Filing Date: 10/14/2003Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)Status: Pending
05/13/2008 at 08:37 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012OSC RE: CONTEMPT
08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012Further Status Conference
Parties
CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent
CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent
D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent
KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn
LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent
MACHTINGER LEONARD A. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
NORMAN JAN B. - Associated Counsel
NORRIS STERLING E. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
PAUL PETER F. - Plaintiff/Petitioner
ROSEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent
SMITH GARY - Defendant/Respondent
TONKEN AARON - Defendant/Respondent
WILLAMS & CONNOLLY - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:06/02/2006 06/22/2005 08/23/2004 04/26/2004 01/15/2004
04/25/2008 Order-Case ManagementFiled by Court
04/25/2008 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/25/2008 Notice of Ruling (on Ex Parte Application for (1) Or der Permitting Affidavits in Suppo rt of Finding of Contempt to be Fi led Under Seal and (2) Clarificati on )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/25/2008 Notice of Filing (of Proof of Service of Summons & 1 st Amended Complaint on Defendant James Levin )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/23/2008 Ex-Parte ApplicationFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/23/2008 OrderFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/23/2008 Report-StatusFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/23/2008 Points and Authorities (re What Constitutes Plaintiff's " Papers & Property" in Support of Finding of Contempt by Gary G. Kre ep as to the Court's February 11,2 008 Order )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/22/2008 Report-Status (Conference )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/28/2008 Notice of Ruling (on Ex Parte Application for Extens ion of Time to Serve Pleading )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
02/28/2008 Summons Filed (ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/21/2008 Order-Case ManagementFiled by Court
02/21/2008 Notice of Ruling (on Ex Parte Motion for Order Short ening Time & on Motion to Discharg e Gary G. Kreep as Counsel of Reco rd )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
02/21/2008 Ex-Parte ApplicationFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/21/2008 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
02/20/2008 Report-Status (Status Conference )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/20/2008 Report-Status (Status Conference Report )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/19/2008 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/11/2008 Ex-Parte Application (FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR MTN. TO DISCHARGE GARY G. KREEP AS ATTY. OF RECORD FILED BY D. COLETTE WILSON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/11/2008 Declaration (OF SERVICE BY FACSIMILE SERVICE FILED BY ATTY. D. COLETTE WILSON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/11/2008 Notice-Change of Address (OF D. COLETTE WILSON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/11/2008 Declaration (OF GARY G. KREEP )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/11/2008 Order (RE MOTION TO DISCHARGE GARY G. KREEP AS COUNSEL OF RECORD )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/25/2008 Remittitur (AFFIRMED REMITTITUR ISSUED ON 1-24-08 S/T D-47 1-29-08 )Filed by Clerk
01/25/2008 Notice of Ruling (ON JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CMC; )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
01/11/2008 Stipulation and Order (JOINT STIP/ORD TO CONTINUE THE CMC OF 1/30/08 TO 2/21/08 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/09/2008 Stipulation and Order (to continue case management conference )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/09/2008 Stipulation and Order (joint stipulation to continue case management conference )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/13/2007 Notice of RulingFiled by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
07/06/2007 Stipulation and OrderFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/03/2007 Notice of Ruling (ON JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
03/26/2007 Stipulation and OrderFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
10/05/2006 Notice of Ruling (ON PLNTFS MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER RE DISCOVERY; AND FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE; EXHIBIT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/19/2006 Brief-Reply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS: (1) FOR CLARIFICATION AND (2) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/19/2006 Supplemental Declaration (OF PLNTF PETER F. PAUL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/19/2006 Request for Judicial NoticeFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/19/2006 Declaration of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/19/2006 Supplemental Declaration (OF PLNTF PETER F. PAUL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAITN )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/12/2006 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION BY PLNTF PETER F. PAUL FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER RE: DISCOVERY, AND FOR CONT. OF TRIAL DATE)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/12/2006 Response (OF DEFT SMITH TO PLNTFS MOTION RE DISCOVERY AND TRIAL DATE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/12/2006 Response (OF DEFT SMITH TO PLNTFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/28/2006 Motion (for clarification of order re discovery and continuance of trial date )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/28/2006 Notice of Lodging (documents in connection w/plntfs motion for clarification of order re discovery and continuance of trial date )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/28/2006 Motion for Leave (to file second amended complaint )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/28/2006 Declaration (of Peter Paul in support of motion for leave to file second amended complaint )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/28/2006 Declaration of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/28/2006 Declaration (of D. Colette Wilson in support of motion for leave to file second amended complaint )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/16/2006 Notice (CORRECTED NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL )Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:TOP 06/02/2006 06/22/2005 08/23/2004 04/26/2004 01/15/2004
06/02/2006 Ntc to Prepare Reporters Transcrpt (COUNTER DESIGNATION )Filed by Defendant
05/19/2006 Designation of Record on AppealFiled by Plaintiff
05/11/2006 Ntc to Atty re Notice of AppealFiled by Clerk
05/10/2006 Notice of AppealFiled by Plaintiff
04/19/2006 Notice of Entry of Judgment (AS TO DEFTS HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/10/2006 Notice of Filing (PROOFS OF SERVICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/10/2006 Notice of Ruling (ON MOTIONS (1) FOR STAY (2) FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE DEPO. (3) TO STRIKE (4) FOR DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION WAS TIMELY FILED )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/07/2006 Order-Case ManagementFiled by Court
04/03/2006 Reply to Motion (REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MTN BY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
03/27/2006 Brief-Reply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE HILLARY CLINTON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/27/2006 Notice (OF NONPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO MOTION OF DEFT GARY SMITH FOR A STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS (RE BANKRUPTCY ACT SUTOMATIC STAY) )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/27/2006 Notice of Lodging (DOCUMENTS IN CONNNECTION WITH PLNTFS BRIEFS: (1) IN OPP. TO DEFT ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AND (2) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DEFT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/27/2006 Supplemental Declaration (OF PETER F. PAUL (1) IN OPP. TO DEFTS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION; AND (2) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DEFT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/27/2006 Brief-Supplemental (IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/03/2006 Stipulation and Order (DEFTS: WM J. CLINTON/H.R.CLINTON FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATES )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/17/2006 Supplement (second supplemental memo in support of motion by Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. to strike counts five and fourteen of plntfs first amended complaint and opposition)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/17/2006 Motion (FOR A STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS (RE BANKRUPTCY ACT AUTOMATIC STAY) )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/09/2006 Notice of Ruling (ON MOTION OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. TO STRIKE COUNTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN OF PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
02/09/2006 Motion for Leave (to depose deft Hillary Rodham Clinton re special motion to strike (anti-slapp) and continue defts anti-slapp motion )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/30/2006 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/30/2006 Declaration of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/30/2006 Association of AttorneyFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/27/2006 Brief-Supplemental (IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER DATED 12/16/05 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/27/2006 Report-Status (OF DEFTS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/27/2006 Report-Status (OF DEFT GARY SMITH )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/27/2006 Supplemental Declaration (SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. TO STRIKE COUNTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN OF PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/23/2006 Memo of Costs on Appeal ($1,563.01 COSTS ENTERED 2/14/06 MEMO TO SCAN UNIT 2/14/06 NO COURT FILE )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
01/23/2006 Answer (OF DEFT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/04/2006 Stipulation and Order (CONTINUING FSC 1/20/06 TO 02/03/06 AND EXTENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
12/29/2005 Remittitur (ONE ORDER AFFIRMED, ONE ORDER REVERSED REMITTITUR ISSUED ON 12-21-05 S/T D-47 12-30-05 )Filed by Clerk
12/12/2005 Substitution of AttorneyFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/01/2005 Amended Proof of Service (of notice of ruling on order to show cause re: dismissal; defts request for sanctions; status conf )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/21/2005 Notice of Change of AddressFiled by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
07/21/2005 Notice of Ruling (ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL; DEFTS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; STATUS CONFERENCE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/22/2005 Request (FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PETER F. PAUL )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/17/2005 Request (FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLNTF PETER F. PAUL )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/16/2005 Notice (OF ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/14/2005 Motion (TO WITHDRAW AS PLNTFS ATTORNEY )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/12/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD EXPARTE APP SET FOR HEARING ON 04/13/05 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
11/22/2004 Notice (OF CHANGE OF SUITE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
11/02/2004 Ntc to Prty re fee Clk's Transcpt (FOR APPEALS FILED 9/10/04 AND 9/16/04 )Filed by Clerk
10/27/2004 Reply/Response (IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 425.16(c) )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
10/25/2004 Opposition Document (TO DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 425.16(c) )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
10/25/2004 Stipulation and Order (RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTY FEES AND COSTS PER CCP 425.16 C )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
10/25/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES CITED IN PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 425.16(c))Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
10/19/2004 Supplemental Declaration (SUPLEMENTAL MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CCP 425.16 (c) )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/24/2004 Notice of Ruling (OF DEFTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/24/2004 Stipulation and Order (RE HEARING ON DEFT'S MO/ATTORNEY FEES SET 10/6/04-CONT TO 11/1/04 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/20/2004 Ntc to Atty re Notice of AppealFiled by Clerk
09/17/2004 Reply to Motion (REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/16/2004 Notice of AppealFiled by Defendant
09/16/2004 Ntc to Prepare Clerk TranscriptFiled by Defendant
09/16/2004 Ntc to Prepare Reporters TranscrptFiled by Defendant
09/15/2004 Ntc to Atty re Notice of AppealFiled by Clerk
09/13/2004 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
09/10/2004 Notice of AppealFiled by Plaintiff
09/10/2004 Motion (for award of attys fees and costs pursuant to C.C.P. 425.16(c) )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
09/03/2004 Reply to Motion (REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY DEFTS TO STRIKE COUNTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN OF PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CA. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/30/2004 Motion (FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY BY PETER F. PAUL )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/30/2004 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT OT CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/26/2004 Proof of Service (FOR EXPARTE APPLICATION )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/23/2004 Ex-Parte Application (TO STAY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNTIL THE PEND- ING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DECIDED )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/23/2004 Order (RE EXPARTE APP OF DEFTS TO STAY DISC. RESPONSES BY DEFTS UNTIL MO/PROTECT ORD IS HEARD 9/23/04 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/23/2004 Motion (FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/12/2004 Proof of Service (AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NTC OF MOTION AND MOTION BY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. TO STRIKE COUNTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
08/02/2004 Notice (OF FILING PETITION FOR REVIEW BY DEFTS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. AND DAVID ROSEN )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/22/2004 Motion to Strike (counts five and fourteen of plntfs first amended complaint pursuant to cal. code of civil procedure 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/21/2004 Request (PLNTFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUC- TION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
07/13/2004 Notice (OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/09/2004 Objection Document (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF PETER F. PAUL IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/09/2004 Ex-parte Request for Order (FOR ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING WRIT OF MANDATE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/09/2004 Order (GRANTING EXPARTE APP OF 7/9/04 FOR ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PTN FOR WRIT OF MANDATE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/07/2004 Reply to Motion (OF DEFT: DAVID ROSEN IN SUPP OF MO/STRIKE PLFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER CCP SEC 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
07/07/2004 Notice (REGARDING RULE 4.10 STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/25/2004 Opposition Points & Authorities (PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/25/2004 Opposition Points & Authorities (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTH. CITED IN PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH. IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16)Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/25/2004 Statement of Points & Authorities (PLAINTIFF'S RULE 4.10 STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/25/2004 Notice of Ruling (NOTICE OF RULING OF AFFIDAVIT OF PETER F. PAUL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFT. DAVID ROSEN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO ...)Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
06/24/2004 Request (FOR CLARIFICATION RE DEMURRERS AND PENDING ANTI-SLAPP MOTION )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/11/2004 Reply to Motion (REPLY MEMO OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFTS TO PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/11/2004 Proof of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/11/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTH. CITED IN REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFTS TO PLNTFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
06/08/2004 Stipulation and Order (BY DEFT: DAVID ROSEN, ETC. RE: DEADLINE FOR FILING REPLY IN SUPP OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
05/28/2004 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS BY DEFT )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/28/2004 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF PLNTFS MEMO OF P'S AND A'S IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS BY DEFTS )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/28/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTH. CITED IN PLNTFS MEMO OF P'S AND A'S IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS BY DEFTS )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/13/2004 Stipulation and Order (RE DEADLINES FOR FILING OPPS/ REPLIES TO DEMS. BY CLINTONS,ETC. AND TO MOTON TO STRIKE BY DEFT, ROSEN )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/07/2004 Answer to First Amended ComplaintFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
05/05/2004 Order (BY DEFTS: NEW YORK STATE SENATE 2000 GRANTING APPL OF MARK E. ELIAS TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HACE VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
05/03/2004 Motion to Strike (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
05/03/2004 Proof of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
05/03/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTH. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER CCP 425.16 )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/30/2004 Application - misc (OF MARC E. ELIAS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/30/2004 Declaration (OF MARC E. ELIAS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/30/2004 Proof of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/30/2004 Declaration (OF STEVEN C. GONZALEZ IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF MARC E. ELIAS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/29/2004 Order (GRANTING PLFF'S EXPARTE APP GRANTING APPL OF PAUL J. ORFANEDES AND MIHCAEL J. JURLEY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/29/2004 Notice (of amended application of David E. Kendall to appear pro hac vice )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/28/2004 Ex-parte Request for Order (PLFF'S UNOPPOSED EXPARTE APPL FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NTC OF APPL OF PAUL J. ORFANEDES AND MICHAEL J. HURLEY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/28/2004 Notice of Hearing (OF EXPARTE APPL OF PLFF FOR APPL OF P.J. ORFANEDES AND MICHAEL J. HURLEY TO APP PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/28/2004 Order (by deft; WM J.CLINTON;H.R.CLINTON; H.R.CLINTON FOR U.S. SENTATE COMM, INC --GRANTING APP OF CAROLYN UTRECHT TO APP AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE; MEMO OF P/A DEC OF C.WEIDEMAN;VERIFIED APP)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/26/2004 Demurrer (TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Association of AttorneyFiled by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Notice of Association of AttorneysFiled by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES CITED IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC.)Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Proof of ServiceFiled by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/26/2004 Points and Authorities (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., NEW YORK SENATE 2000 AND DAVID ROSEN TO)Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/23/2004 Reply/Response (MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS BY DEFENDANT GARY SMITH TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
04/20/2004 Application-Miscellaneous (OF CAROLYN UTRECHT TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/19/2004 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS BY DEFT GARY SMITH )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
04/19/2004 Request (for entry of default as to james levin is rejected: #3 (1st amended), #19 (service on summons and complaint outside california needs to be by return receipt is mailed), #20 (1st amended).)Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
04/15/2004 Notice (of order granting applications of Paul M. Sandler, Joseph E. Sandler and David E. Kendall to appear as counsel Pro Hac Vice )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/13/2004 Order (BY DEFTS: CLINTONS GRANTING EXPARTE APP FILED 4/8/04 GRANTING APPLICATION OF DAVID E KENDALL TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HACE VICE)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/13/2004 Order (BY DEFT: DAVID ROSEN GRANTING APPLICATION OF PAUL M. SANDLER & JOSEPH E.SANDLER TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/12/2004 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/12/2004 Proof of Service (amended )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/08/2004 Ex-Parte Application (FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE OF APPLICATION OF DAVID E. KENDALL TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE (UNOPPOSED) by defts: CLINTONS)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/08/2004 Notice of Hearing (ON APPLICATION OF DAVID E. KENDALL TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/07/2004 Ex-Parte Application (by deft: ROSEN UNOPPOSED APPL. FOR FILING OF APPL OF PAUL M. SANDLER & JOSEPH E. SANDLER T APPEAR PRO HAC VICE; MEMO OF P/A'S & DEC OF ERIC J. LORENZINI)Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/07/2004 Notice of Hearing (BY DEFT: DAVID ROSEN ON APPL OF PAUL M. SANDLER/JOS. SANDLER TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HACE VICE )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
04/01/2004 Notice (OF ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE FOR FILING DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PAGE LIMITS FOR CONSOLIDATED BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF AND OPP TO DEMURRER )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
03/29/2004 Stipulation and Order (re: deadline for filing demurrer to 1st amended complaint and page limits )Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
03/29/2004 Request (default reject for Levin-#7.9.19 )Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
03/29/2004 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/26/2004 Demurrer (TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
03/26/2004 Notice of Hearing (ON DEMURRERS BY DEFT GARY SMITH TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
03/18/2004 Notice-Case Management ConferenceFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
03/10/2004 Stipulation and Order (TO CONT CMC FR 3/12 TO 4/13 )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/01/2004 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
03/01/2004 First Amended ComplaintFiled by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
02/26/2004 Statement-Case ManagementFiled by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/29/2004 Notice of Ruling (on demurrer filed by defendant Gary Smith )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/23/2004 Brief-Reply (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS BY DEFT GARY SMITH TO COMPLAINT; )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/20/2004 Demurrer (to complaint )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/16/2004 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRERS BY DEFT GARY SMITH )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/16/2004 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFTS )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/16/2004 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTH. CITED IN MEMO OF P'S AND A'S IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS OF DEFTS )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/15/2004 Notice (OF FILING PROOFS OF SERVICE SEE LIST )Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/15/2004 Demurrer (to complaint )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
01/15/2004 Stipulation and Order (TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
12/31/2003 Notice of Hearing (ON DEMURRERS BY DEFT GARY SMITH TO COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
12/31/2003 Demurrer (BY DEFT GARY SMITH TO COMPLAINT )Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
11/14/2003 Notice-Case Management ConferenceFiled by Clerk
10/14/2003 Complaint
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingFurther Status Conference - Completed
04/23/2008 at 09:16 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingExparte proceeding - Granted
02/21/2008 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingConference-Case Management (**4TH CONTINUANCE**(C/FR 4/7/06, 3/27, 7/10/07, &1/30/08 PER STIP/ORDER OF 1/11/07)) - Completed
02/11/2008 at 09:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingExparte proceeding - Order is signed and filed
01/09/2008 at 02:00 pm in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingCourt Order - Court makes order
07/10/2007 at 09:00 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingConference-Case Management ((CONT/FROM 3/27/07)*C/TO: 1/15/08 PER DEFTS.STIP OF7/6/07**set per m.o.of 9/25/06*) - Advanced to a Previous Date
07/09/2007 at 08:43 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingCourt Order (RE STIP/ORDER) - Order is signed and filed
03/27/2007 at 09:00 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingConference-Case Management (*set per m.o.of 9/25/06*) - Matter continued
09/25/2006 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion (FOR CLARIFICATION AND CONTINUANCEOF TRIAL; AND MOTION FOR LEAVE) - Granted
04/07/2006 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion for Leave (; AND FOR CONT OF ANTI-SLAPPMOTION; HEARING ON ANTI-SLAPP;MOTION FOR STAY; FURTHER STATUSCONFERENCE (RE-SET FR 3/10 & 3/16)) - Completed
03/10/2006 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion for Leave (AND CONTINUANCE** O/C:CONT TO 4/7/06 PER STIP/ORDFILED 3/3/06- CON TO 4/7/06 &MATTERS SET 3/16/06 CONT TO4/7/0**) - Proceeding continued
02/03/2006 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingFurther Status Conference ((PER STIP/ORDER CONT FR 1/20/06)) - Matter is heard, matter continued
01/20/2006 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingFurther Status Conference (**PER STIP/ORD FILED 1/4/06-FSC CONT TO 2/3/06**) - Proceeding continued
12/16/2005 at 01:30 pm in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingNon-Appearance (Case Review) (COURT GRANTS PERMISSION FORBRIEFS TO BE FILED 1/13/05FOR HEARING ON 1/20/06) - Court makes order
07/15/2005 at 08:34 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingOSC RE Dismissal (PLFF FTA 6/13/05) - OSC Discharged
06/13/2005 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingFurther Status Conference - Matter is heard, matter continued
05/13/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion to be Relieved as Counsel (AND FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE:) - Granted
04/13/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingExparte proceeding - Off Calendar
11/01/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMOTION - ATTORNEY FEES (CONT FR 10/06/04 AND FURTHERSTATUS/TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) - Granted
10/06/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMOTION - ATTORNEY FEES (AND COSTSo/c per stip/ord cont to 11/1/04) - Proceeding continued
9/23/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion for Protective Order (AND MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY) - Granted
09/08/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion to Strike - Motion Denied
08/23/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingExparte proceeding - Granted
07/14/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingMotion to Strike - Granted
07/09/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingExparte proceeding - Granted
06/30/2004 at 02:30 pm in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingNunc Pro Tunc Order - Completed
06/30/2004 at 02:00 pm in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingRuling on Submitted Matter (ON DEMURRER TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSIONON 06/23/04) - Court makes order
06/23/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer (ON PLFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT(RE-SET FROM 5/26/04)) - Submitted
06/02/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer (**O/C PER STIP/ORD OF 5/13/04 CONTTO 07/14/04**) - Proceeding continued
05/26/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer (TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT and FURTHER S/C**O/C PER STIP/ORDER OF 5/13/04CON TO 06/23/04**) - Proceeding continued
04/29/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer - Demurrer overruled
04/13/2004 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingConference-Case Management (RE-SET FR 3/12/04: SOME COUNSELMAKE TELEPHONIC APPAND EXPARTE APPLICATION) - Matter is heard, matter continued
03/12/2004 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingConference-Case Management (**O/C PER STIP/ORDER CONT TO04/13/04**) - Proceeding continued
02/10/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer - Off Calendar
01/28/2004 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, PresidingHearing on Demurrer - Demurrer sustained with leave
11/13/2003 at 03:00 pm in Department 42, ELIHU M. BERLE, PresidingNon-Appearance (Case Review) - Completed
Click on any of the below link(s) to see proceedings held on or before the date indicated:TOP 9/23/2004
04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012Further Status Conference
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A battle over Hillary Rodham Clinton's record as first lady broke out on two fronts Thursday, as a federal judge stepped into a dispute over the handling of still-unreleased Clinton phone logs and Barack Obama's campaign challenged her record on trade.
Not enough resources, a lawyer representing the National Archives told the judge.
Not a good enough explanation, ruled Robertson, who was appointed to federal court by President Clinton in 1994. Robertson granted a conservative group's request to question at least one National Archives official on why the agency handles some requests more promptly than others.
The archives deals with requests for documents on UFO sightings while letting the former first lady's records languish at the former president's library in Little Rock, Ark., complained Paul Orfanedes, head of the litigation department at Judicial Watch, the organization suing the archives for Clinton documents.
The National Archives wants to delay consideration of the Clinton phone logs for a year, then decide when it will start the six- to eight-month process of reviewing them for possible public disclosure.
It was the second straight day of wrangling over old Clinton documents.
On Wednesday, the National Archives placed on the public record more than 11,000 pages of Clinton's daily schedules from 1993 to 2000.
Obama's presidential campaign and its supporters used the newly released material to build a case that Clinton hasn't been truthful about her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement. She was an early champion of the agreement that she now criticizes as a candidate for president.
Her schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of NAFTA.
"Senator Clinton likes to say on the campaign trail that she's always been a critic of NAFTA," said Obama supporter Roger Tauss, international vice president of the Transport Workers Union. "The only thing I find more disappointing than her supporting NAFTA in the '90s is she can't tell the truth about it to this very day."
This is the "political equivalent of consumer fraud. And she owes an apology to the people of Ohio and an explanation to the people of this country," said Obama senior strategist David Axelrod
Now that parts of her schedules have finally been released to the public, "we know that one thing that she was hiding was the truth," Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer countered that it is Obama who can't be trusted.
"Senator Obama said that he would not engage in personal attacks," said Singer. "Now, after losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is explicitly attacking Senator Clinton's character."
Singer said independent accounts make clear that Clinton did not support NAFTA and that "she is the candidate Americans can trust to fix it." Singer referred to previous statements by former White House adviser David Gergen, who said the first lady "was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly."
___
Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler contributed to this report.
It is incredible to me that there is even debate on this case. But I suppose that shows the kind of power that a huge company like Exxon has. Exxon claims that because they had already dealt with the maritime laws on spills, they should not have to pay punitive damages. In fact, they believe they should not have to pay at all. Ginsberg asked under what laws they could claim such things, and shot down every single one that the lawyers gave. However, as her time ran out, Scalia came to Exxon’s rescue. What a surprise. The fact is, Exxon knew this captain was an alcoholic and had been drinking on the job for three years. They took the risk by employing untrustworthy personnel and must now pay the consequences. They have destroyed the fishing industry in Alaska, killed the land’s natural beauty, and made the groundwater unfit for human use. We can still see the effects of this spill today; there is physical evidence. To claim that no harm has been done is completely and blatantly untrue. If a surgeon drinks on the job and kills a man, he is held up to the full extent of the law. Why should an oil company be any different? Exxon should pay for any and all damages they have caused. It also amazes me that this case is even in the Supreme Court. All of the lower courts ruled in Alaska’s favor and yet somehow they feel that all of these courts must have been wrong. Just as any other company, Exxon should be fined and pay reparations for all the damages they caused by their irresponsibility. They have fired the Captain responsible but the thirty-three others known to have drunk with him are still on the job and recently received bonuses.
other treaties and articles of international law. This war is both criminal and inhumane. These
charters and conventions form the legal basis for charges of war crimes, but they are also a formal
statement of principles of humanity shared by all civilized nations. They are but an expression
of fundamental unalienable rights of all humanity. Conscience demands that those responsible be
brought to justice. The Nuremberg Judgements declare that complacency is not acceptable. We must condemn these crimes and demand that those who gave the orders be punished.
I believe the following charges warrant an indictment:
The invasion of Iraq is a War of Aggression and a Crime against Peace.
The U.S. illegally imprisons, interrogates, abuses and tortures individuals in Iraq,
The most fundamental requirement of International Law is the protection of and care for the injured.
Sign the petition at peoplejudgebush.org.
Bush and his administration have operated as if they are above the law. He believes noone can challenge him. Prove him wrong. Iraqis, Americans, and the rest of humanity are counting on you.
