Skip to comments.Barnett v Obama: Appellants' Opening Brief, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Posted on 08/13/2010 12:35:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
click here to read article
This is a stream-of-consciousness rant, not an appellate brief. There are no citations to the Record on Appeal; "facts" are discussed which were not placed before the trial court; there is not even an attempt to discuss the cases or reasoning relied upon by Judge Carter; I could go on and on. I expect the Court will strike the Brief and/or sanction Orly.
Give me a hint. 5?
"As the court reads the final order, it becomes obvious, one does not have to be a Perry Mason, does not have to be a licensed attorney, to know, that the order was written by the defense attorney and rubber stamped by the judge."Um, that's good, because she's no Perry Mason. Bwahahaha!
“how many violations of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure can you find in the first 5 pages?”
All of them?
“As such this appeal is being forwarded to the Civil Rights Defenders Raporteur of the United Nations and the International Criminal Bar Panel in Hague.”
Orly wants to “defend the U.S. Constitution” by appealing to the U.N.? Give. Me. A. Break.
Id like to get this thread started by posting an abstract of the pending comments.
Go Lady Liberty!
Nice to see that Orly’s gotten rid of whatever competent individual used to write her filings and has gone back to being the same nutcase we’ve all grown to know and love.
So which is the more insane by far? Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Prop 8, or Taitz’s dramatic pleading
Walker’s the more! By far, imo!
Or another — the Obama Care Bill? Or any other mega bill passed this session. ALL INSANITY that meets the ‘rules of procedure’, eh?
Damn empty procedure!
Orly’s got an honest spirit missing in most of Congress, and many in the Judiciary.
You forgot one.
“Here come the flying monkeys!”
That’s my personal favorite.
Her stuff used to be ghost-written for her by Charles Lincoln III, an ex-lawyer and ex-con who has been disbarred in three states, but at least knew what a legal document is supposed to look like. She and Lincoln are now suing each other, and Lincoln has been filing affidavits describing how he had sex with Orly in her dentist's chair. (No, I am not making that part up.)
Butterdezillion could have written a much better brief, it might not have been correct on the facts, but it would have presented a more compelling argument.
Walker is an activist judge pushing a homosexual agenda upon the voters of California against their will. In fact, he claims the majority vote supporting Prop 8 was “irrelevant.” His ruling was a travesty and a perversion of justice, IMHO, but at the very least, one could follow his logic to the conclusion he made. That’s not to say his logic was valid.
Orly Taitz, however, is incompetent. And she’s an attention whore, but I digress. There is no logic to follow in this brief. And there also is no conclusion, but again, I digress. As Lurking Libertarian said, this brief is nothing more than “a stream-of-consciousness rant.” She can’t keep her mind on one point of law (if she even knows what that is) without weaving off the road into a ditch of dramatic theatre and conspiratorial delusion.
Orly is a freak show. She belongs in the center ring of a traveling circus not in Congress.
It’s too bad nobody here can pinpoint any facts that butter has been wrong about.
Well, I think that’s the problem, she hasn’t really come up with any facts yet, only opinions peddled as facts. She does it well, though.
This is crazy. INSANE times. What I’m saying is Orly’s drama is much less an immediate hazard to society than the morally insane Congress and judges like Walker. That’s how insane things are.
One well-presented plate is deadly poison that LOOKS rational and sweet. The other plate is full of crazy spices and looks like a sloppy mess. But it’s harmless, and actually has some nutrients.
Start rejecting the poison, eh?
IOW, you can’t refute ANYTHING she posts. Not surprised.
The network that gives this woman a reality show will be printing money.
No doubt. I’ll probably have to watch ...
We need parsy for this thread.
Tex, who demands that parsy post log in and post something funny.
Here at first glance (dirty glasses) I thought the title was “Barrett vs Obama”.....that’s why I looked!</sarcasm>
I’m not attempting to refute anything she has posted. I don’t refute opinions.
I suppose you support the resident in chief, dismissing the will of the people, and same sex marriage?
She must have burned you badly. It’s really petty to bring her up in a thread that has nothing to do with her.
What I actually said was that she makes a much more coherent argument than does this ditz lawyer. It was meant as a compliment.
You would be wrong.
I second this.
PARSIFAL! COME BACK PARSIFAL!
As far as I am concerned every REAL Judge should be yelling down that infamy of a ruling. Instead all I am hearing is how wonderful it is how the courts have kept the crazy birthers from getting any hearing whatsoever.
Compare and contrast. The ideal of a Justice arising like a golden dawn from shining city upon a hill, to the offal rains of despair and depravity the US Bar pours down upon we citizens day after day after day ...
Parsy is missed, true.
And what's missing on Orly is most of her marbles.
Joseph Heller territory — Yossarian in Catch-22. The only sane person acts like she is insane. Her off-beat rants are a nova-star of sanity contrasted to the black moral insanities and perversions of a Justice system overtaken and gutted by banal nuances of procedure.
"The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards." Justice Felix Frankfurter in McNabb v. United States, 318 US 332, 347 (1943).
In 1919, Frankfurter married Marion Denman, the daughter of a Congregational minister and a Smith College graduate. They married after a long and difficult courtship, and against the wishes of his mother, who was disturbed by the prospect of her son marrying outside the Jewish faith.American socialist Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge as a way to indoctrinate children into loyalty to the State.
Frankfurter himself was a non-practicing Jew, and regrded religion as "an accident of birth".
Frankfurter was a dominating husband and Denman suffered from frail health, which resulted in frequent mental breakdowns. The couple had no children.
Frankfurter's adherence to the judicial restraint philosophy was shown in 1940  Minersville School District v. Gobitis, a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses students who had been expelled from school due to their refusal to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. He rejected claims that First Amendment rights should be protected by law, and urged deference to the decisions of the elected school board officials.
He stated that religious belief "does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities" and that exempting the children from the flag-saluting ceremony "might cast doubts in the minds of other children" and reduce their loyalty to the nation.
Although Frankfurter was a fierce Zionist, he was also a Statist. The State could do no wrong.
So ... Frankfurter's "Liberty" was far from that conceived of by the Founders.
Orly has perfected the run-on brief.
It just rambles here, there and everywhere with no real attempt at focus. She doesn't even understand what legal space she is currently in. What comes though is her sense of personal outrage that everyone doesn't agree with her, not an actual legal argument of the kind briefs are supposed to convey.
She is, however, entertaining.
What’s really insane is the 0thugga groupie toadies on FR.
Go away troll. This is a whack-a-mole thread. You’re not invited.
Good for Orly Taitz...keep knocking on doors...keep the issue up front...do whatever it takes Orly...someday that door is going to open up and you’ll be ready. At least you’re doing something.
Most are just gutless wonders like the Taliban that bury their women in a hole and throw rocks and vile words at them until they’re dead.
Most are just gutless wonders like the Taliban that bury their women in a hole and throw rocks and vile words at them until theyre dead.
So asking for non-insane legal briefs that might actually accomplish something is the same thing as stoning women to death?
That's a thought worthy of Orly.
That's a thought worthy of Orly.
I know, right?! /teenager off
Yeah, your beating up on this woman is clearly the same frame of mind as the Taliban.
I looked at her legal brief, and the citations in it. And if it only had one cite in it to the Constitution’s qualification of a natural born citizen, it would still make perfectly good sense...certainly more sense than a bunch of men beating up on the woman who wrote it with their pithy little remarks and condescension as they beat on their chests and throw verbal rocks.
I looked at her legal brief, and the citations in it. And if it only had one cite in it to the Constitutions qualification of a natural born citizen, it would still make perfectly good sense...certainly more sense than a bunch of men beating up on the woman who wrote it with their pithy little remarks and condescension as they beat on their chests and throw verbal rocks.
Well, if you are unable to distinguish between the acts of throwing acid in someone's face or stoning them to death and the act of pointing out the follies of a ludicrous, legal brief, then your intellect is obviously not up to the task of having a meaningful opinion on much of anything.
Verbal rocks are common in life. They are very different from actual rocks. Lose the rocks in your head, and you may be able to grasp the distinction.
lol... these guys are stroking each other like it’s Pride Day in SF!
Thinking Orly Taitz has no legal sense is hardly equivalent!
Um, that’s good, because she’s no Perry Mason. Bwahahaha! (Makes your ego feel good, doesn’t it?)
Nice to see that Orlys gotten rid of whatever competent individual used to write her filings and has gone back to being the same nutcase weve all grown to know and love. (Next comes she’s a nutcase argument...Taliban lite...)
Her stuff used to be ghost-written for her by Charles Lincoln III, an ex-lawyer and ex-con who has been disbarred in three states, but at least knew what a legal document is supposed to look like. She and Lincoln are now suing each other, and Lincoln has been filing affidavits describing how he had sex with Orly in her dentist’s chair. (No, I am not making that part up.) (Taliban lite .I guess she needs 4 witnesses to prove that never happened.)
Orly Taitz, however, is incompetent. And shes an attention whore, but I digress. There is no logic to follow in this brief. And there also is no conclusion, but again, I digress. As Lurking Libertarian said, this brief is nothing more than a stream-of-consciousness rant. She cant keep her mind on one point of law (if she even knows what that is) without weaving off the road into a ditch of dramatic theatre and conspiratorial delusion. Orly is a freak show. She belongs in the center ring of a traveling circus not in Congress. (More Taliban lite now she’s a whore and a freak. I bet that’s what they said right before they cut off that woman’s nose.)
The network that gives this woman a reality show will be printing money.
23 posted on Friday, August 13, 2010 4:01:28 PM by naturalized (Oh nice pics there Abu Naturalized!)
And what’s missing on Orly is most of her marbles. (She’s insane...Typical NEXTTTTTTTTTTT....)
She is, however, entertaining. (NEXT comes condescention )
ROFL! The PROUD American Taliban lite...NOW WE’VE DONE ORLY TAITZ IN LET’S ALL GIVE OURSELVES A ^5!
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.