Posted on 07/08/2010 4:07:23 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
This brief for stay was forwared to Hon. Assocate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
I guess when I was asking as I did, I was really hoping for specific quotes and not further generalizations.
ML/NJ
SAT scores? That's an odd thing to bring up. Also irrelevant. If you've paid attention in your life, you know that otherwise very intelligent people can also be deeply irrational on certain subjects. We are not machines, and an ill-considered emotional investment can get the better of any of us. “There but for the grace of God...”
I am curious about two things. If you think the Supreme Court should take a case and “rule that since Obama had at least one parent who was a US citizen that he was a natural born citizen under the meaning of the Constitution”, why do you refer to a usurper and bring up the two-citizen parent argument yourself as “evidence?” And if it is about the rule of law, why would you question Judge Land's perfectly appropriate use of sanctions for attorney conduct as an attempt to silence or intimidate? The rule of law certainly applies to misbehaving attorneys.
Worth repeating.
Orly Taitz - much to the delight of Democrats, and to the chagrin of thinking conservatives - has become the face of opposition to Barack Obama. If the Democrats had gone to central casting and hand-picked a bogeyman, Taitz is EXACTLY whom they'd choose.
Of course, it begs the question - Perhaps they did?
Preposterous. The temerity. The Audacity. The nerve. How dare you interject logical thought and reasoning into this conversation. Good day, Sir!
sarcasm, it's the American way.
I confess that I did really enjoy the following:
She is seeking a stay and reversal of sanctions, as well as limited rule 11 discovery, to show that her actions were not frivolous, but rather reasonable and justified, that is not only not frivolous, but is the most important case today and possibly most important in US history, as sanctions were asserted to obfuscate illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama for US presidency.
When you get down to it, I really kinda feel sorry for Orly Taitz.... It's really sad to watch her come unglued.
(SAT scores are always irrelevant to people who scored low. Jesse Jackson used to scream that they were "culturally biased.")
I didn't say ruling that Obama is an NBC because he is the child of an American citizen was what I believe to be correct or what I thought should be done. I said it was preferable to not ruling on the merits. It is clear to me that NBC meant to the Framers someone born to two US citizen parents and raised in country (but not necessarily born here).
As for sanctions on Taitz, I guess I'd have to know more about her transgressions to know what I thought of whatever sanctions this judge imposed upon her. I know you would like this to be about "Orly" but it isn't. It's about Obama and the Constitution. In my first post to you on this thread I asked, " Do you think it might be okay to decide one of these cases on the merits, whether Orly or Berg or Donofrio or Appuzzo or whoever?" You blew smoke about "standing." The other lawyers I mentioned probably have more legal experience than Taitz does, but like a lion looking at a herd of antelopes, you only focus upon the weakest one. The lawyers are irrelevant, to me anyway.
ML/NJ
I’ve taken the liberty of preparing a form letter for everyone’s use. Feel free to cut and paste as needed.
All you ever do is post on the _______ threads _______bot!
Every time a true patriot supports the cause of _______ here on FR you _______bots come out of the woodwork to cut them down.
So why don’t you go back to taking _______ from _______ and _____ing your beloved _______ .
So stay off the _______ threads!
I checked your posting history...there seems to be a 3 month gap between March and June of ‘06...
Care to explain OBOT?!? Why do you hate the constitution?
(You probably enjoy gladiator movies.)
From page 17.
“If this court does not reverse such sanctions and
does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of
the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.”
I think I have answered. Maybe you just don't like the answers you got. Also, as noted, I'm not actually the opposition.
“(SAT scores are always irrelevant to people who scored low. Jesse Jackson used to scream that they were “culturally biased.)”
I hope you're young, because if you're still using SAT scores to bolster your self-esteem once you're out working and supposedly building up actual accomplishments, that would be sad. But it also completely misses the point. What I told you was that SAT scores are an irrelevant indicator as to whether one can engage in irrational behavior. Irrational behavior is an emotional state. High-SAT and low-SAT scorers, both being human, are equally susceptible to succumbing to their emotions. Less bright people might succumb to simple frustration more often, but bright people are also more likely to succumb to imaginary constructs of their own creation.
“As for sanctions on Taitz, I guess I'd have to know more about her transgressions to know what I thought of whatever sanctions this judge imposed upon her.”
All you have to do is look it up and read. It's pretty straight forward. I would expect to be sanctioned if I ever did anything like it.
“I know you would like this to be about “Orly” but it isn't.”
Actually, this thread is about Orly.
“In my first post to you on this thread I asked, “ Do you think it might be okay to decide one of these cases on the merits, whether Orly or Berg or Donofrio or Appuzzo or whoever?” You blew smoke about “standing.”
Standing isn't smoke. You can't understand the law if you think that. The very first thing a lawyer has to do is navigate multiple procedural issues to even be in the game. To do so is part and parcel of a case's merit.
Berg sued Bush for conspiring to bring about 9/11 and has been successfully sued for legal malpractice by former clients. To expect him to yield any results is simply a case of poorly researching one’s attorney.
As far as I know, Donofrio and Apuzzo have never done anything derelict or obviously insane. I have, however, read their arguments. They seem clearly to me to be blowing smoke as they take quotes out of context and deliberately omit portions of the text that do not support their positions. I think they have been treated fairly by the courts, though Apuzzo is on notice now to document why he should not be sanctioned for a frivolous filing. I expect him to do a much more professional job trying to wiggle out of that than anything of which Orly is capable.
“It is clear to me that NBC meant to the Framers someone born to two US citizen parents and raised in country (but not necessarily born here).”
And you are entitled to that opinion. What you are not entitled to is for a court to spontaneously expound upon that subject absent an actionable case. And if you ever do get an actionable case, I strongly suspect the answer will be one with which you disagree.
All you ever do is post on the _______ threads _______bot!
Every time a true patriot supports the cause of _______ here on FR you _______bots come out of the woodwork to cut them down.
So why don’t you go back to taking _______ from _______ and _____ing your beloved _______ .
So stay off the _______ threads!”
If memory serves, you need to add an option for statements about being on one’s knees for Obama and homosexuality in general. Several of the core birthers seem to have an unhealthy fixation on both.
“If this court does not reverse such sanctions and
does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of
the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.”
Yes, rather.
Isn't it odd how more briefs don't try that? Goodness knows most judges appreciate being told they are a felon if they don't do what you want. Cuz’ like, you're special. Your Mommy told you so.
As I pointed out, this is nearly the absolute truth, about you. You countered with an apparent LIE. But we should all respect you because you call yourself a "Conservative." Well, sorry. I've been around here a long time. I know quite a few conservatives, and you sir are no conservative. You are an obfuscator. If you aren't getting paid for what you do here, you are a fool.
ML/NJ
As I pointed out, this is nearly the absolute truth, about you. You countered with an apparent LIE. But we should all respect you because you call yourself a “Conservative.” Well, sorry. I've been around here a long time. I know quite a few conservatives, and you sir are no conservative. You are an obfuscator. If you aren't getting paid for what you do here, you are a fool.”
Honestly, now, I can't be held responsible for the lackadaisical incompetence of your research. I guess it's not surprising. though, since you admit you didn't even read the material that is germane to this thread.
I haven't obfuscated at all. I've stated basic facts. You're the one huffing and puffing “You , sir are no conservative” and calling me a fool. I'll leave it to others to draw whatever conclusion they will.
But honestly, if you're going to die on a rhetorical hill, for your own dignity, don't go down on the one with Orly. Nobody deserves that.
They've already done that. It's just that you haven't noticed.
ML/NJ
They've already done that. It's just that you haven't noticed.
ML/NJ”
That the birther-bots are by and large negative to me?
Who could miss that? But who would care?
There are still some reasonable folks here.
Attacking other freepers does nothing to advance your arguments. In fact, it’s the sign of a losing argument.
It isn't losing in court, where our old friend reality intrudes. And I believe it is the birther-bots and you who started attacking on this thread.
But by all means, tell us why you think the Supreme Court will regard Orly's brief, the subject of this thread, as anything other than the obvious joke it is?
I think you’ve misread to whom I was responding.
Yes, I did. Thank you for the polite correction, and I sincerely apologize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.