Sequoia lawsuit: Sequoia overplays hand; motion to remand

[Land Shark]

For those who saw our response to the motion to dismiss, it showed that Sequoia has contractual control of Snohomish County, per paragraph 34 of the contract. (an exhibit to the complaint, all pleadings at www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp )

In our motion for remand filed Thursday, we showed how Sequoia literally files court papers and signs for Snohomish, twice in fact, two days apart from each other.

This concerns a document CRITICAL to federal jurisdiction called a joinder in notice of removal. The Sequoia attorney, whose initials are MSH, signed for a Snohomish prosecutor by writing "Gordon Sivley, by MSH" on the joinder document. It didn't even say "Attorneys for" Snohomish County, just Snohomish county.

THis becomes critical indeed because unless a state governmental entity "clearly and unequivocally" consents to federal court jurisdiction, they have immunity there from damages lawsuits.

This immunity is extraordinary: it means that if they win, it's binding on me as plaintiff. BUt if I win, they can assert the immunity for the first time ON APPEAL and void out the decision.

Pretty powerful "right", don't you think? A guarantee of no loss for the "state" because counties act like states during elections? How much is that worth?

Now, when the argument would have to be made LATER ON that there was never an unequivocal consent to federal court, they need point to no more than (1) no signature by Snohomish (2) no authority or authorization mentioned (3) the fact that, in Snohomish's motion to dismiss they wanted us to join Sec. State Reed or face dismissal, could then be argued to be evidence that they really didn't INTEND to waive the immunity because in fact they wanted the state in all along.....

Oh did I mention the AG's office writing me a letter saying thanks but no thanks we don't need any more pleadings served on us for this case.

That was two days before removal to federal court.

Oh, and the letter also said the AG "would like notice of any notice of appeal or discretionary review". Can you say "Eleventh damn amendment?"

Please vote: is this an assertion of "rights" or is this an evil 11th amendment trap that ought to be sanctionable?

Keep in mind that they filed nearly 48 pages of motions to dismiss that pinned us down while the 30 day clock was ticking on this motion for remand AND Randy had his 3 week jury trial.

It is unknown at this time how the federal court will react to having its jurisdiction invoked in such a manner, whereby potentially everyone could be wasting their time. Except the govt.

The response to the motion to dismiss, and the motion to remand clearly lay out the question of WHO IS IN CHARGE of Snohomish county elections?

It will take a few days to post the removal motion.

[LightningFlash]

1. This is working out just like I expected!

Sequoia is overplaying all its responsibilities, and biting off far more than it can chew......Apparently it feels it is exempt from the law, because it controls Washington. Aren't they essentially saying that because *their* machines control whoever is elected and grant that right, that they therefore control how Washington does its laws?

That they could therefore elect anyone they choose, regardless of public policy and constitutional rulings? Amazing..It appears like Sequoia is advocating they are above the law.

I wonder what happens to a company who's ego becomes so large they believe they are above the law.....Go get 'em Landshark, show them just how big and bad they are. :) :evilgrin:

[Land Shark]

2. Yeah, maybe the federal judge will find a law they are subject to. n/t

[Carolab]

3. Beats me. I don't get it.

Too much "legalese" for my poor head to grasp.

[Carolab]

5. Two questions re: 11th amendment and removal/remand

Did a little reading, and want to know:

1. How can counties act like "states"? Doesn't that violate the requirement for removal in the first place? It appears they want the state brought into it so as to qualify for immunity/dismissal, as a necessary party to the action.

2. According to the "diversity" provision in the 11th amendment, remand may be granted if non-diverse parties are brought into the litigation. How does this apply, if at all?

[Land Shark]

6. A quick primer on federal jurisdiction

Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, unlike state courts. there are two general ways to get into fed court:

1. A federal question is significant in the complaint
2. Diversity (meaning all defendants have different residencies from all plaintiffs)

In our case there's a claim of a federal question regarding HAVA and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, based on two minor references in the complaint, which was actually written in state law to avoid federal court issues. So diversity doesn't apply. They "removed" us (kicked it into federal court) by stating in their notice there were these two "federal questions")

COunties can act like states because they are political subdivisions of the states (in some states) and if the State is deemed the real deal (especially if the state treasury might be impacted or the state is otherwise greatly affected by the decision)

Regarding question two, normally you will not be easily allowed to add parties to defeat diversity jurisdiction under the "fraudulent joinder" rules, generally. HOwever, diversity doesn't apply here and no parties are being presently added to the suit.

[Land Shark]

7. Just think of it this way:

a trap was present in federal court whereby we had a great risk of having the decision voided out in whole or in part if we won. Of course there was no intent, when they chose to remove the action to federal court which is the only place such a trap can exist, of purposely setting this up, because it is inconceivable that litigants would want to give themselves a 'get out of jail free card', right?

[Melissa G]

9. Verrry wicked Litigants! We knew it was a bad idea to remove if they

were the ones who wanted it removed. Bad Litigants! Bad Litigants!:spank:

[Carolab]

10. Okay, I understand but what is the significance of Sequoia signing

on Snohomish county's behalf if not to establish "diversity" once in Federal court by then calling in the county or the state as necessary participants in the case?

[Melissa G]

11. A FREE Get out of Jail card! Free!

LS writes
THis becomes critical indeed because unless a state governmental entity "clearly and unequivocally" consents to federal court jurisdiction, they have immunity there from damages lawsuits.

This immunity is extraordinary: it means that if they win, it's binding on me as plaintiff. BUt if I win, they can assert the immunity for the first time ON APPEAL and void out the decision.

Pretty powerful "right", don't you think?
mg..
This is the significance of them letting Sequoia lawyers sign for them.. This is why they are wicked and deserve a spanking they do not enjoy...
Hi Carolab!

[Carolab]

12. Hi, Melissa G and thanks for the reply

So what happens next?

[Land Shark]

13. If they meant to do it, then the signing for snohomish

provides "deniability": Snohomish can later deny that they "unequivocally" consented to jurisdiction, therefore their 11th amendment immunity is still intact, and not waived.

Meaning: I can lose, but I can't win (if the immunity works)

[Land Shark]

14. what's next is that the federal judge will decide if it gets kicked

back down to state court and whether we get attorney fees and costs for having the federal court detour.

There may be more. But I'm not saying. Yet.

[Carolab]

15. Do you know who the judge is?

Sorry if you've said who before...

and are they "fair-minded"?

By the way, I think what you are doing is brilliant.

[Land Shark]

16. Judge Ricardo Martinez, US District Court, Western Dist. Washington

His appointment was supported and shepherded to some extent by Senator Maria Cantwell.

[Carolab]

17. Just read this about Maria

"Representing many of the world's most influential software and technology firms, she learned the issues and stood up for this vital sector of our economy."

Does that mean she understands the technological issues with these machines? Where does she stand on election reform? Do you know?

[Land Shark]

18. Don't know but she's been playing "center" with an election in '06 n/t

[Wilms]

4. .

[FogerRox]

8. run for your life Alfie Charles its a man eating SHARK

[kster]

19. kick.nt

[Land Shark]

20. it goes deeper than what I've written; the motion & more... n/t

[tommcintyre]

21. kick

[Peace Patriot]

22. Just as a reminder...

Republican former Sec of State of California Bill Jones (whom Barbara Boxer whomped in the '04 US Senate race in CA, by a 20% margin) now works for Sequoia, as does his former chief aid Alfie Charles. (The Sec of State runs elections in CA.)

"Revolving door" employment between public officials and private voting machine companies. Conflicts of interest. Inherent corruption.

Jones authorized purchase of election systems in CA that he is now SELLING to others on behalf of the private company.

Stinks to high heaven.

Not incidentally, the election systems authorized by Jones were in the ones in place in the fraudulent Recall election that put Bush Cartelist Schwarzegger into the governor's office (with help from Time magazine and Larry King).

Then we elected Democrat Kevin Shelley for Sec of State in CA. He announced to county election officials that he was "the new sheriff in town" on clean, verifiable elections, and started off by suing Diebold and decertifying their touchscreen election fraud machines just prior to the '04 election--and got railroaded out of office on trivial, unproven charges for that reason (stepping on Bushite Diebold's toes).

Also stinks to high heaven.

The electronic voting scam beats all, for stinking to high heaven.

-----

Land Shark, thanks so much for your work, and for keeping us posted! The collusion between state and private company is abominable--and so revealing!

(...skunks, rotting corpses...all the way to the top!)

[Land Shark]

23. Well then expect my name to be mud soon, but remember the truth, now...

Hey PP, what's the link for that post of yours that was so great it got another thread from a fan?

[LightningFlash]

24. Landshark, this is important. We must stop them from taking California.

Get your friends to start a lawsuit in California. Or better yet, there has to be a LAWFIRM just waiting in the wings in CA, we need massive demonstrations and complete boycotts in California!! :banghead: :banghead:

[Peace Patriot]

27. Yup. Lawsuits. Massive protests. And boycotts. Diebold has...

...other state contracts, for instance, running the dbs for state univ. campuses. Probably ES&S and Sequioa are in on these kinds of boondoggles, too. And then there are the ATM machines. Students, unite! Wake your sleeping brethren and sistren! You have so much potential power!

[LightningFlash]

28. The battles are won in California, but the war wages on. Kicked for update

[Amaryllis]

25. kick

[kster]

26. KICK.NT