Linda Jordan

[JamesVincent]

I have seen her name mentioned in a couple of DK's posts relating to birthers but no thread about her by herself. While she is not Orly Taitz she does seem to have made a name for herself and pissed off Washington State.

This was her original motion to have Barack Obama stricken as a candidate from Washington State's list due to his ineligibility since he only had a forged birth certificate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/119510662/Jor ... ion-filing

Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an Order to Show Cause why Secretary of State Sam Reed,in his official capacity, should not withhold the placement of Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 General Election Ballot as a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States; why he should not require all presidential candidates to swear an eligibility oath; why he should not direct filing officers to check eligibility requirements for all candidates and why he should not comply with WAC 434-215-165

Here is the states response:

http://media.spokesman.com/documents/20 ... rder_2.pdf

I particularly like the opinion on page 7, line 1.

She was fined almost $13k in sanctions after her motion was found to be frivolous. She of course appealed, and was denied.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127072591/Jor ... -2-20-2013

This is one of the "experts" that Orly is using to testify in DK's NESARA loves Orly thread. Thought it might be helpful to have some background since I had not seen any other real info on her.

[notorial dissent]

In a nut shell, pun intended, Linda Jordan filed a PRO SE lawsuit in WA State court to force the WA Sec of State to decertify Obama from the ballot. For some reason, like sanity, and the law, just for giggles, quite plainly told her not only NO, but NO in no uncertain terms and very specific terms exactly why NO, that it was frivolous, the court lacked jurisdiction, the SOS had no authority to do what she wanted, even if she'd had a valid point, and that she had no standing, and that her so called certain proof was hearsay at the best, and generally was fantasy. For some reason this did not seem to either sit well, sink in, or really register with Ms Jordan in any meaningful capacity. Not being satisfied with her resounding defeat in State Court, she decided to appeal the judgment. At which point, she was told in, again, NO uncertain terms, that her arguments having been determined as frivolous by the trial court, and that they would be so found by the appeals court, and if that happened, she would be sanctioned and assessed full costs of that appeal. Apparently having the possible end spelled out to her in plain English was insufficient and she filed her appeal. She was again warned by the AG about what would happen if she did not withdraw it, and given the opportunity to do so, she held the course, and the court shortly thereafter bounced her appeal, as, wait for it, frivolous. At which point the AG's office filed for sanctions and costs, about $13K or there abouts. When the sanctions and costs came down she immediately started bleating abuse, and eventually found a former State Supreme Court Justice, to represent her before the court at her sanctions hearing. This has been bruted about as her having been "punished" for filing the original lawsuit, which is not the case at all, she was sanctioned for filing a "frivolous" appeal, and further wasting state resources, time, and money. As an aside, he is a former Justice for the very simple reason that the voters of WA couldn't stand him and his rather pecuiliar version of what the law is any longer. He is "retired" because he was voted out of office.

[Deep Knight]

Linda is always welcome to join Orly and NESARA for a threesome, just tell her to bring some rubber sheets and olive oil. And she might want to give her doctor a head's up and have him prepare a broad course of antibiotics for afterwards.

Orly wisely includes her "affidavit" about the legendary SSN and e-Verify with everything she files, but Linda is a star in her own right for tilting at windmills in Washington. A martyr to the cause in every sense, the latest details are summarized nicely by Patrick McKinnion, http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfictio ... -2013.html

20 February - The Washington State Attorney General's office responds to Linda Jordan's request to have her fees reduced or dismissed.

"This Court dismissed this appeal as frivolous and awarded a sanction in the amount of reasonable attorney fees in favor of Respondent, Secretary of State Sam Reed.! Order (Dec. 5, 2012). This Court further directed the clerk to determine the amount of fees. The Secretary filed a declaration detailing the claim for fees, totaling $12,675. Declaration of Jeffrey T. Even Detailing Request for Attorneys' Fees (Even Decl.). The clerk entered a ruling granting the Secretary's request in full. Clerk's Ruling Setting the Awards for Attorney Fees (Ruling) at 3.

Ms. Jordan moves to modify the clerk's ruling, asking for a reduced attorney fees award. The number of attorney hours for which the Secretary requested compensation was reasonable because the Secretary minimized the number of hours by successfully seeking early dismissal before filing briefs on the merits. Those hours were also reasonable in light of Ms. Jordan's actions that multiplied the scope of work necessary during the brief pendency of this appeal. The hourly rate accurately reflects the market value of counsel's time. The clerk should decline to adjust the awarded amount, and if presented with the issue, the Court should deny the motion to modify."

Agreed. Jordan was warned, she decided to go head with her frivolous lawsuit, and should have to bear the costs of her little delusional jihad.

"Ms. Jordan pursued this appeal despite being placed on notice by both the trial court and Respondent's counsel that there was no basis for doing so. The trial court found that Ms. Jordan "cannot have been unaware" of the numerous prior decisions rejecting challenges to the President's qualifications.(2) CP 13. Ms. Jordan additionally received warning from Respondent's counsel. Declaration of Even in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees, Ex. A."

Oh, she knew alright. She knew. Just take a look at footnote 2:

"2 See, e.g., Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363, 1382 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (imposing $20,000 sanction against attorney who had challenged deployment of an army officer to Iraq based on the notion that the qualifications of the commander-in-chiefs ere in doubt); Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 180 (D.D.C. 2009) (describing a challenge to the President's qualifications as a case that, "if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do"); Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, 2012 WL 3683492, *1 (W.D. Tenn. 2012) (imposing sanctions based on contention that the President is not a natural-born citizen)."

So yes, Linda Jordan knew that every single birther case out there has failed, and STILL brought up not only the same old debunked lies, but also her illegally-gained claims as well. She has absolutely no excuse in this.

"Ms. Jordan not only decided to proceed in disregard of these warnings, but the record contradicts her assertion that "there is no claim she acted in bad faith or [with] malicious intent." Motion to Modify at 3. Ms. Jordan repeatedly lodged reckless allegations of "collusion" between the superior court judge and the Secretary's counsel. See Respondent's Motion for Attorney Fees at 6-9. Ms. Jordan did so despite possessing information demonstrating her conspiratorial allegations to be unfounded. Id. at 8-9; see also Respondent's Reply in Support of Motion for Attorney's Fees at 3-5."

I think Jordan figured that since most birther cases are simply dismissed, there would be no harm or foul in following that playbook as well.

Ooops.

"Ms. Jordan continued to assert frivolous claims even when no reasonable person could believe them to be meritorious."

But we're not talking a reasonable person, we're talking about a birther.

"Ms. Jordan argues, in essence, that the frivolous nature of her appeal was so obvious that the Secretary should have secured its dismissal "within two hours, with time to spare." Motion to Modify at 6-7. But just because claims are frivolous "it does not follow that such claims are simply and quickly disposed of." Reid v. Dalton, 124 Wn. App. 113, 127, 100 P.3d 349 (2004). And Ms. Jordan's argument leads to the absurd result that the more clearly frivolous a case is, the lower the sanction for pursuing it. Moreover, Ms. Jordan's argument ignores the fact that the Secretary minimized the amount of attorney fees incurred by promptly seeking dismissal of this appeal, and that her own filings increased the burden on this Court and counsel."

If anything, the sanctions should be more, not less, because Jordan KNEW her case was frivolous.

[LaVidaRoja]

She should get a few $$ more tacked on for the additional waste of the Court's time and energy in responding to her request for a reduction in penalties.

[notorial dissent]

And while I haven't read the material being proffered by the former, as in booted out of office, Supreme Court Justice representing Jordan, the gist of it that I have seen reported is that he is now claiming that her case and appeal weren't frivolous, which if true I feel he ought to be in for some sanctions as well.

[JamesVincent]

Statement I found from Richard Sanders:

For the first time in 17 years, 15 of those sitting on the Washington Supreme Court, I have agreed to represent a private citizen. And I am pleased to lend Linda Jordan a helping hand.

In good faith Ms. Jordan commenced an action to question President Obama's name on the ballot. She did the best she could with limited resources and no legal training. The government's response was immediate and in some respects heavy handed. Having obtained a summary dismissal of her case, and then her appeal, the attorney general went further to demand the Secretary of State be reimbursed, claiming attorney fees amounting to almost $13,000. However what the attorney general did not tell the court is that the Secretary never actually paid this amount, nor was he billed this amount, nor probably anything close to it. The number is made up, pure fiction. The AG did not disclose the actual amount to the court probably because the objective is to get a punitive judgment for as much as he can without regard to actual expenditures which were much less.

I dont think he is arguing the sanctions, I think he is arguing the amount.

[Cathulhu]

Richard Sanders has always prided himself on a maverick image, very Libertarian (which up here in Whacka-Whacka Washington, gets pretty weird--I personally had met a cross-dresser that ran for governor on their ticket, many moons ago) but when it came to gay marriage, suddenly had an attack of conservative bile. He lost in 2010, tried for a comeback in 2012, and this is just the sad ending of a career that frankly, could have been better.

[notorial dissent]

I think that pretty well covers the base position that Richard Sanders is taking with this appeal. The fact that the statement is fact might have something to do with why he is an ex-justice. While it is true that Ms Jordan may well have begun her tilting at windmills "in good faith", after her defeat in court she no longer had the option of claimiung that, because 1) she lost, and 2) the judge in no uncertain terms explained to her why she lost, and referred to all the other birther cases that had gone done in flames for exactly the same set of reasons, so "good faith" went right out the window then and there. Plus, if she had actually researched the issue as diligently as she claimed, she would have to have known the current track record for the claims she was making. So that is lie the first. The claim that the gov'ts response was not "immediate and in some respects heavy handed", considering that she had been told her case was frivolous and was dismissed for same, and that it would be dismissed upon appeal for the same reason, and she was warned repeatedly by the AG about what would happen if she did appeal, and then they even gave her the option of withdrawing the appeal, no harm no foul, which she didn't do, and thus she got sanctioned. She was warned and warned repeatedly, so she was not unaware, so lie the second. Lie the third is one of degree, while it is true, that the SOS was not charged the amount claimed, it is common, and more importantly allowed practice, to figure legal costs in a gov't case based on what it would cost with an outside lawyer(s). So this is equally disingenuine.

Sanders is indeed arguing both the sanction, and the amount, to what effect I am not sure. I don't think the state is inclined to budge on this any more than the court is, and I personally think Sanders has stepped out onto some very thin ice if this is the argument he intends to pursue.

As I understand it, one of his initial arguments was that the case was so obviuously frivolous that it should have been dismissed out of hand, which doesn't say much for his helping his client.

[Olsenfin]

These are the sort of people who would enjoy playing Russian roulette with a chambered semi-automatic pistol. They should be encouraged to do so.

[Pottapaug1938]

These are the sort of people who would enjoy playing Russian roulette with a chambered semi-automatic pistol. They should be encouraged to do so.

Yeah; but if the pistol fires, what is there to damage or destroy?

[The Observer]

These are the sort of people who would enjoy playing Russian roulette with a chambered semi-automatic pistol. They should be encouraged to do so.

Yeah; but if the pistol fires, what is there to damage or destroy?

Excellent point. Besides, it would be a waste of gunpowder.

[Olsenfin]

It might be a waste of gunpowder, but I'd be willing to donate some .45 ACP ammo to the cause. Of course, even a full metal jacket round might not be able to penetrate the skull of the sort of person we're talking about.

[Deep Knight]

Victory for Birthers over Obama eligibility scandal

Former Supreme Court Justice Sanders who successfully defended Linda Jordan from punitive measures of federal government for proving Obama’s Social Security Numbers was fraudulent.

By Doc Vega

One might recall a story that received little coverage from the mainstream media here in the US, but happened, none the less. A woman by the name of Linda Jordan in the state of Washington invoked controversy as well as the unwanted attention of the Secret Service. Running a small business from her home, Linda, could not understand why President Obama was not being properly vetted as well as the fact that the US news media were completely ignoring the story. So, she set out to prove a point.

Using the President’s forged info against him

Using information provided by President Obama’s alleged Social Security Number, Mrs. Jordan did what any employer would do in running a background check on that federal document submitted by Barack Hussein Obama as belonging to himself, and complying with the same laws that we as United States Citizens, are required comply with.

An alarming surprise

What Linda Jordan got was astonishing! President Obama’s supposedly legitimate Social Security ID failed to pass an E-Verify check. This system ensures that all who seek employment in the US are legal American citizens. This check is used to thwart illegal aliens and their use forged federal documents in order to attain employment under fraudulent grounds.

What happened next alarmed the Washington State home maker. She was visited by Secret Service Agents, who asked a lot of questions and ran a criminal background check on her. Linda then found herself being assessed a $13,000.00 fine by the federal government under the auspices of invoking a frivolous enquiry into the President’s personal background! I thought that we Americans had freedom of speech and the freedom to make investigations into members of the political parties that supposedly represent us such as pulling up their Congressional and Senate voting records to find out who and what they really support? I thought that our government was of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, guess I was wrong, and, apparently, so was Mrs. Linda Jordan.

US Supreme Court sanctioned oppression

People all over the US who have been calling upon the Supreme Court to hear their cases against the controversial eligibility of President Obama have been threatened with lawsuits by the federal government over seeking a court decision in this matter. Contrary to what many believe and have been falsely informed by the leftist liberal media, not one case challenging the eligibility of President Obama has been defeated based upon its merits of argument, but rather has been refused trial due to technicalities used by the President’s legal staff to prevent the case from going to trial.

Competent lawyers failed

Despite the attempts by such well known attorneys as Philip J. Berg, Mario Apuzzo, and Doctor Orly Taitz, the US Supreme Court has involved itself in a conspiracy to uphold an illegitimate President in office despite his committing fraud, forgery of federal documents, and the lock down of academic records. One of the most grave travesties of justice ever to be perpetrated by the federal government has been allowed to take place despite evidence that would convict any normal citizen of such charges!

A new opportunity to bring the usurper to justice

That being said, new developments have arisen that may now have set a new legal precedent and will finally number the days of our fraudulent Commander in Chief. Recently, a judge in the case of Linda Jordan, former Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders successfully defended her from paying the $13,000.00 fine designed to discourage Birthers from challenging the President’s fraudulent ID and committed forgery, and got the fine reduced to $3,500.00, the amount he wanted it reduced to. Sanders has stated publicly that he believes that President Obama has been forging his true identity. What are the implications of this ruling?

The beginning of a wave of legal inquiry

It appears that such a decision will open the flood gates for more litigation by others challenging President Obama’s flagrant flaunting of the US Constitution and the US court system. This decision will not only embolden those with a case to be heard against the President, but may finally demonstrate that the courts know the jig is up, and are afraid of the repercussions, they themselves, will be faced with once an illegitimate President has been brought down by the people and the legal system that once upheld this fraud in order to allow him to illegally hold the office of the US Presidency. If the courts are indeed recognizing that their complicity in perpetuating this conspiracy over what has amounted to being a Constitutional crisis, then perhaps they will begin to cave, and actually do their jobs!

But for the efforts of one humble home maker

Many competent men have tried to see that justice was done in separating Obama from the oval office due to the fraud he has knowingly perpetrated. Military veterans, high powered attorneys, Tea Party conservatives, and constitutionalists alike have taken up the cause only to be frustrated and even threatened by a corrupt federal judicial system with a substantial fine, but maybe we will finally see justice. Is it not ironic that a humble and yet courageous housewife from Washington State, took it upon herself to do more than the US Congress was willing to do, and question the President’s forged credentials?

Bad Fiction answers this much better than I could.

20 March - Retired Judge Richard Sanders and the Washington State Attorney General's office works out a settlement, and Linda Jordan's sanction is dropped from almost $13,000 to $3500. (Plus the $1000 she now owes Sanders).

Obviously they're touting this as a Glorious Peoples Victory for Birtherstan. But what it looks like to me is that retired Judge Sanders told his client "Look, our best option is to settle. Really. Otherwise it's going be upheld". Then he contacted the Attorney General's office and said "how much are you willing to accept to allow my client to drop this?"

So Linda Jordan gets away with a quarter of the amount she owed, (and she's working on something new now. Maybe she won't break the law this time?). Those of us who pay taxes in the State of Washington are annoyed that we're going to have to pick up the rest, but so it goes.

At the end of the day though, she still lost her case and the appeal. She's still having to pay costs. The "Glorious People's Victory" boils down to "we still managed to sock the taxpayer with costs for our crap."

[JamesVincent]

20 March - Retired Judge Richard Sanders and the Washington State Attorney General's office works out a settlement, and Linda Jordan's sanction is dropped from almost $13,000 to $3500. (Plus the $1000 she now owes Sanders).

Obviously they're touting this as a Glorious Peoples Victory for Birtherstan. But what it looks like to me is that retired Judge Sanders told his client "Look, our best option is to settle. Really. Otherwise it's going be upheld". Then he contacted the Attorney General's office and said "how much are you willing to accept to allow my client to drop this?"

One of the statements I had seen from Sanders stated that he figured the actual cost of the AG should have been around $3100. So it appears they settled for an amount slightly higher then what he figured the real cost was.

[Pottapaug1938]

"People all over the US who have been calling upon the Supreme Court to hear their cases against the controversial eligibility of President Obama have been threatened with lawsuits by the federal government over seeking a court decision in this matter. Contrary to what many believe and have been falsely informed by the leftist liberal media, not one case challenging the eligibility of President Obama has been defeated based upon its merits of argument, but rather has been refused trial due to technicalities used by the President’s legal staff to prevent the case from going to trial."

WHAT "merits of argument?"

I guess that, in order to satisfy the birfers, we must expend valuable time and money to provide them with a courtroom forum in which they may expound their fantasies.

[notorial dissent]

Jordon lost on the merits of the case before the WA court, and they told her so, and told her why. She decided to appeal and lost yet again and got sanctioned.

What Jordan got was a gift from the state of WA.

Any bets as to when or how she blows it?

[rogfulton]

Victory for Birthers over Obama eligibility scandal

An alarming surprise

What Linda Jordan got was astonishing! President Obama’s supposedly legitimate Social Security ID failed to pass an E-Verify check. This system ensures that all who seek employment in the US are legal American citizens. This check is used to thwart illegal aliens and their use forged federal documents in order to attain employment under fraudulent grounds.

What happened next alarmed the Washington State home maker. She was visited by Secret Service Agents, who asked a lot of questions and ran a criminal background check on her. Linda then found herself being assessed a $13,000.00 fine by the federal government under the auspices of invoking a frivolous enquiry into the President’s personal background! I thought that we Americans had freedom of speech and the freedom to make investigations into members of the political parties that supposedly represent us such as pulling up their Congressional and Senate voting records to find out who and what they really support? I thought that our government was of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, guess I was wrong, and, apparently, so was Mrs. Linda Jordan.

That would be a normal reaction here in Texas (and I am sure in other states). Any law enforcement or criminal justice employee with access to the Dl/Criminal History/Warrant databases who ran the President's info would definitely have received a visit from a group who leaves their sense of humor at home when it comes to the President's safety.

At the very least, they would lose their job and quite possibly lose their freedom over misuse of the system. If the public person they are checking doesn't rate as high on the list as a politician, they may only lose their access, but the President????

Nothing to do with freedom of speech, everything to do with personal security of high value targets. And that would certainly include the sitting President.

What did she think would happen? (We need a dumbass Smilie!)