Army Girl --

But, but, but she asked some people to check a website AND to think about what they think was on that website a year ago!! She didn't do that earlier, thus this is "new" evidence!!

Has Orly filed her reconsideration? Or has she simply posted what she is thinking of filing on her website?

Orly says she's filed it, but Orly says many things that are untrue. She does not have ECF filing privileges so she has to mail it. Normally when Orly mails a pleading she posts the mailing information on her website. If she's done that here, I missed it.

Just sayin'.

Thanks, Realist!

Maybe she's just pretending she sent it so she can accuse the judge of ignoring her, or the court clerk of not filing it, or the mailman of losing it as part of the federal conspiracy...

She claimed on the video the Teabagger shot that she filed it "yesterday", which would have been Wednesday. If she sent it via first class mail, it may have arrived in DC today, and may make the docket by, what, mid-week (after anthrax screening)?

What Taitz has claimed she filed to support her imaginary motion to reconsider (there is no such motion), is

1. not "evidence,"
2. not admissible,
3. not lawfully obtained,
4. not relevant to any issue in the case; and
5. not newly discovered.

Other than that, Taitz has a real winner.

FIFY

But, but, but It's a Kookstitutional Krisis®. She thinks her 'cause' is more important than anyone's feelings, emotions, or the laws of the various localities/states/country. Since it is such a "Crusade" against Obama, the various laws mean nothing to the Queen of Barfistan.

I am left wondering what Daft Law Skool for Dummies actually gave her as learning material. I am left with the impression that they teach that every ruling by a judge must be first opposed by a motion to reconsider, rather than going straight for an appeal where appropriate. It seems to me that Orly thinks that a ruling is just some legal brain fart and the judges will change their opinion when challenged.

Taft obviously teaches that the chances of a judge changing his/her opinion is directly proportional to the number of zibits presented with your MTR.

It makes me wonder if it's not that she's a moron, but that she can't fathom herself ever being wrong, so she unconsciously modifies her own knowledge and beliefs in order to make the worlf fit what she thinks is true. It's possible that she could pass the Bar simply because it was an objective situation where she had no personal interest, but then where she enters the real world her mental ... problems take over. When there is overwhelming evidence that shse is completely wrong, she imagines the only thing that could possibly recocncile her being right with the overwhelming evidence against it ... that it's a great conspiracy and she's the only one who sees it.

Of course, there's also a lot of evidence for her being a complete moron as well.

We can all speculate as to what motivates Orly but such motivations are at best speculative and fail to point out that at the basis of Orly there are no facts. She has asserted that the President was not born on US soil, and was presented with all the evidence to contradict her belief. Rather than accept the facts, she then insisted that an ever expanding conspiracy was to be found at the foundation of her 'arguments', even though court after court, official after official found her claims to be lacking and without much merit.
Unable to make her case, she moved to an assertion that the President could not have obtained a Connecticut SSN, again totally against the available evidence. And yet, Orly fails to accept the evidence.

At the foundation of Orly's efforts lies a dislike of our President which drives her to ignore fact and reason, while making unsupported claims of fraud. Not only has she shown herself unable to make a case by meeting the burden of proof, but also she has failed to show herself familiar with what evidence would look like. Stating that the President uses/used a fraudulent SSN is not enough without showing that there is any fraud involved. She may argue that once she will get access to the evidence, she will be able to make her case but our legal system is not based on witch hunts but rather the presumption of innocence. That Orly is unable to overcome this presumption is yet another failure on her part. That she continues down a path of filing frivolous motions which never pass the motion to dismiss stage, further shows the lack of legal foundation for her claims.

Her motivations, while interesting, are totally irrelevant when explaining her total failure in court and outside. What is sad is how easily some of her followers have been fooled into believing such things as the difference between a court ordered examination and a subpoena signed by the Clerk of the Court because Orly not being a lawyer admitted in the Court has to get the Clerk to sign the document. There is no court order involved here in the sense as required by Hawaiian state law.

And thus she continues to fail while fooling her supporters, who come back for more... That itself is fascinating but nothing unusual, we see this all the time with the Republican party and its Tea party follies.

Orly must be taking a page from the P&E/Fitzpatrick III playbook; if no conspiracy exists, create one!

Sorry, but in my opinion this wasn't possible at all. There is simply no evidence that she was capable of passing the bar exam at any time. Everything she has ever written, filed or argued indicates complete incompetence.

Yesterday during Mini FEMA Camp 17 meetup in Waikiki, Mikedunford and i discussed briefly this very thing. How birthers, not just Orly, will latch on to the very first thing they hear, and that will remain in their brains as indisputable fact. They will invent all kinds of scenarios to back up that fact. They will go on the intertubes and attack as a dumb azz (yes you Ed) anyone who challenges them.

And then 24 hours later, they will embrace a totally opposite proposition, and once again invent a scenario. It's the Scientific Method stood on end, the conclusion has been made, now lets go find some "facts" to back it up.

In their minds it is impossible for them to be wrong, the word "maybe" doesn't exist except in the speculative sense that FauxNoise uses it ("maybe" Ann Dunham got on a boat and went to Vancouver).

A conspiracy is an explanation for a situation where the facts do not line up with one's expectations and biases and thus one can reconcile this by either rejecting the premise, or by asserting a non explanation such as 'conspiracy' which allows one to maintain one's beliefs in spite of the evidence.

Find me a conspiracy and 99% of the time, this is what happens. It's easier for some to not revisit one's biases and premises and assert 'conspiracy' than to admit that one has been wrong...

<minor threadjack>

Sanctions for improper Subpoenas



From the order:



From:
BoingBoing http://boingboing.net/2011/09/11/judge- ... -isps.html
The EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/j ... l-attorney
The Documents https://www.eff.org/cases/mick-haig-pro ... does-1-670

</threadjack>

Then again - How long ago did she take the bar? An intervening auto wreck with head injuries could account for the loss of capacity. There are several organic (tumor etc) conditions that could affect her and her reasoning ability. She could just be physically sick which could account for some of her actions.

Hmmm -- wonder if Mr Nemeroff would be interested in getting a copy of this ruling, though his case is nearly closed. Would be nice to see a motion for judicial notice reference this and the motions to compel within the docket.

It certainly does look to me like she has earned any sanction(s). She has worked really hard to piss the judge off. She should collect her "just rewards".

Probably not. Mr. Nemeroff has not filed anything at all regarding any of Orly's 3 fake subpoenas nor her 2 motions to compel.

Note: those sanctions came out of the Northern District of Texas, Judge Godbey. Once again demonstrating that federal judges who are not on the left or right coasts are far less tolerant of litigation abuse.

I saw that when I first read the articles, and wondered why this guy didn't get assigned the Berg v Hale fiasco. It would all be over by now.

They've probably got instructions not to feed the trolls.