(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37223864)

WRONG

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37224040)

DENIED

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37224088)

Are you referring to 18 USC 1927?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37229257)

Forget which is the vexatious statue.

Court also has inherent authority to sanction under uh Chambers v. Nasco.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37229284)

1927 appears to be only for cumulative conduct, not available for the lone filing of a frivolous complaint like Olsen’s. It is Rule 11 that addresses frivolous filings.

“Thee scope of authority to sanction under § 1927 is both broader and narrower than Rule 11.84 Section 1927 is broader in that the attorney’s behavior is examined throughout the entire litigation, as a “course of conduct,”85 while Rule 11 applies to individual filings. The filing of a frivolous complaint, alone, may violate Rule 11, but not § 1927 because such a complaint does not "multiply" the proceedings.86 Conversely, a course of conduct can be sanctionable under § 1927 even though the individual filings during that conduct comport with Rule 11 standards.”

http://www.federalpracticemanual.org/chapter4/section2#footnoteref84_yu3g590

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37230494)

any update on when that sanctioning is gonna occur?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37246321)

b. In the alternative, immediate restoration of Acosta’s press credentials pending “due process,” including but not limited to a formal written explanation as to why the pass is being revoked, an opportunity for Plaintiffs to respond to the allegations and be heard before a neutral arbiter, and a final written decision;

c. A declaration that the revocation of Acosta’s press credentials was unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;

d. A declaration that the revocation of Acosta’s press credentials violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); and

e. An order granting Plaintiffs costs, fees, and disbursements incurred in connection with these proceedings and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37224828)

Either 120 or 180.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37226814)

1. FAKE NEWS.

2. FAKE NEWS.

3. FAKE NEWS.

4. FAKE NEWS.

5. FAKE NEWS."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37224977)

1. We're gonna build the wall.

2. It will be a beautiful wall.

3. Believe me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37229299)

Will be a complete shit show if they actually have Ted Olsen do the oral argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37225196)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37225333)

“I think it’s a really strong lawsuit,” Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer, told CNN on Sunday. “I think [CNN] should sue, and if it’s not about Acosta, this is going to happen again . . . So whether it’s CNN suing or the next company suing, someone’s going to have to bring a lawsuit, and whoever does is going to win” unless the White House can show that Acosta is violent and disruptive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37225256)

Therefore, we are of the opinion that appellants must publish or otherwise make publicly known the actual standard employed in determining whether an otherwise eligible journalist will obtain a White House press pass. We do agree with appellants that the governmental interest here does not lend itself to detailed articulation of narrow and specific standards or precise identification of all the factors which may be taken into account in applying this standard. It is enough that the Secret Service be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or his immediate family21 so serious as to justify his exclusion. See A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 516 F.2d 717 (1975). This standard is sufficiently circumspect so as to allow the Secret Service, exercising expert judgment which frequently must be subjective in nature, considerable leeway in denying press passes for security reasons. At the same time, the standard does specify in a meaningful way the basis upon which persons will be deemed security risks, and therefore will allow meaningful judicial review of decisions to deny press passes. We anticipate that reviewing courts will be appropriately deferential to the Secret Service's determination of what justifies the inference that an individual constitutes a potential risk to the physical security of the President or his family.

IV

16

In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.22 The only further determination which this court must make is "what process is due," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).23 We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-97, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914). The requirement of a final statement of denial and the reasons therefor is necessary in order to assure that the agency has neither taken additional, undisclosed information into account, nor responded irrationally to matters put forward by way of rebuttal or explanation. This requirement also will avoid situations such as occurred in the case before us, where an applicant does not receive official written notification of his status until more than five years after the status decision is made.24

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37225957)

Re remedy to exhaust perhaps, but it is academic as there is no right to the pass in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37225988)

(xo mel gibson)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131989&forum_id=2#37227923)