|
Post by denney on Aug 20, 2007 23:25:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by denney on Dec 11, 2007 14:53:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Dec 11, 2007 14:55:39 GMT -5
wow!!!!.. thats it.. for now.. -just WOW!
Tamara
|
|
|
Post by denney on Dec 11, 2007 16:21:30 GMT -5
On Petition For Permission To Appeal Dated December 10, 2007
United States Court of Appeals-Federal Circuit - GRANTED THE APPEAL
As of December 10, 2007, the Wolfchild case is on appeal. This means that the parties will submit briefs to the appellate court: the U.S. is asking that our court's rulings be reversed (no trust/no breach of trust); the rest of us will be stating that our court's rulings are correct. Once all the briefing is complete, the appellate court will schedule our case for hearing. After the hearing we will wait for the appellate decision. At the very least, this process will take months.
Nothing happens in our court of Charles F. Lettow until this process is complete.
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Dec 12, 2007 12:13:38 GMT -5
One thing has always bothered me about the granting of the petition to appeal: Why did Gov wait so long to file? As I understand it, interlocutory appeals are allowed when some crucial legal point has been decided by partial summary judgement, and a decision on the judge's ruling by a higher court will save the litigants a great deal of money and time and money should the appeals court reverse the lower court. In this case, Gov sat on the issue for three years before deciding to ask for an appeal. In the meantime, lotsa bucks have been spent and lotsa time has been lost. There is a legal doctrine called "Laches and Estoppel" that says that if you don't exercise a right in a timely fashion, you lose it. As I have said before, I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that this doctrine should have applied in this case.
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Dec 12, 2007 15:19:22 GMT -5
Re: Interlocutory Appeal
It's all up to the Attorneys now to make a good, valid argument before the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit. I don't think this necessarily means that the government will win this case, but the Appeals Court saw the need to make a decision on those issues before the Court. It would appear that the Plaintiff/Intervenor Attorneys should now focus on zeroing in on the crucial points on why the government is wrong and the Plaintiffs are correct in their reasoning on the Wolfchild case. My opinion is that the issues needed to be dealt with sooner or later, and if the timelines for appeal were not met then there may be a chance to stop the government's appeal before the three Judge panel. We will now see how all the Attorneys will react and answer once the government files its appeal. Personally, I don't see how Judge Lettow would be overturned on appeal since he has been in the ballgame for his Court for awhile. The Attorneys will have to look at all the cases that have similar precedent. From what I gathered the granting of the petition to appeal was handled by Justices Rader, Schall and Prost all appointees by George W. Bush and his father. It will be interesting on how this will all play out by the Attorneys and the Justices.
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Dec 12, 2007 17:40:09 GMT -5
I'll say! tokakte
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Dec 13, 2007 4:17:25 GMT -5
Oyate
do not fret about the recent decision of the federal ciruitcourt of appeals....it apparantly means that we can no longer deal with all of the human issues until we see each other in person, which is the goal of the insurer.
send me the recent ruling and we can try to make sense of it, if sense can b e made. I better send this message before I hit the wrong key again and delete some previous written stuff on the absurdity of the bush crime family...............
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Dec 18, 2007 10:13:41 GMT -5
After reading a discussion on the "other' web site, I see that I didn't read enough of Erik's arguement against the US Gov. He is indeed arguing that the Gov is "estopped" from bringing the question of an enforceable trust back up this late in the game. I can't help but believe that even if their bewildering delay is allowed, their chances of winning are damaged by that delay.
|
|
bellatrix
Full Member
I love babies!
Posts: 31
|
Post by bellatrix on Dec 19, 2007 15:34:35 GMT -5
I would also think the citing of the Cermak case-(which the precedent had already been established by the government) would help.
|
|