Odds Taitz wins loses, evens Obama wins?

In his final order Judge Lamberth noted that indeed White House Director of communications Dan Pfeifer, and Press Secretary Jay Carney and former White House counsel Robert Bauer held an independent press conference with this alleged birth certificate, which later shown to be a forgery and Mr. Obama was kept away from the document,judge Lamberth argues that there is no proof that the president did not know about their actions, that he did not direct them to act in this manner,therefore there was no independent authority and FOIA applies.

Rant, rant, rant, reargue, reargue, reargue. She is so patently nuts that it is impossible to describe anymore. She twists Judge Lambreth's words -- even says he "argues," which is not true, he "rules" -- so that it appears he is saying that Pres. Obama knew it was a forgery.

FIFY.

Another indication, that the decision in this case was not on the merits, not according to precedents and biased, lies in the notation made by judge Lamberth in his final order. Shockingly judge Lamberth wrote: “the President released his long form birth certificate on April 27th, 2011, and posted copy on the White House Web site. The certificate confirms the President’s birth in Honolulu Hawaii. See Michael D. Sheer, “With Document, Obama seeks to end “Birther issue” The New York Times, Apr.28, 2011, et Al.
This notation is so laughable that it makes U. S. judiciary a laughing stock in the eyes of the World jurisprudence. Clearly a high ranking federal judge or any judge for that matter, even a small claims court judge, knows that a computer image posted on the Internet does not represent a document, does not mean a release of anything. One can use an adobe illustrator or photoshop and create a birth certificate of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and post it on the Internet. A judge should know better than that, should know that some stupid article in New York times does not represent a legal authority on anything. To see a judge embarrass himself by writing some utter nonsense, attempting to give weight and authenticity to some computer image, calling it a document, by quoting some nonsense from “Communists R US New York Times” is sad, it shows total disintegration of the fabric of the system of justice. Needless to say that Obama never presented any certified copy with the embossed seal of the document in any court of law or to any elections commission, Hawaii department of Health never opened their books and never presented the original for review and authentication. Any time Taitz conducts a hearing or trial, and Obama is subpoenaed to appear and produce documents, he is too scared to appear, his attorneys are too scared to appear, as they know that no judge in any hearing would deem a computer image to be a document, and they know that they have nothing else, but this computer generated forgery
CONCLUSION
Motion for summary affirmations needs to be denied, as there is no blanket FOIA immunity for the White House counsel and White House records. White House records were released under FOIA in quoted precedents. Aforementioned “document” presented to public by the former White House counsel Robert Bauer and currently held by White house counsel Kathy Ruemmler is not immune from FOIA release, as former White House Counsel wheeled independent authority. Additionally the “document” in question is not immune to disclosure as it is not a legitimate document prepared within the scope of work of the White House staff. It represents a forgery, a felonies act, which is outside the realm of documents covered by immunity.
Respectfully submitted,

Another indication, that the decision in this case was not on the merits, not according to precedents and biased, lies in the notation made by judge Lamberth in his final order. Shockingly judge Lamberth wrote: “the President released his long form birth certificate on April 27th, 2011, and posted copy on the White House Web site. The certificate confirms the President’s birth in Honolulu Hawaii. See Michael D. Sheer, “With Document, Obama seeks to end “Birther issue” The New York Times, Apr.28, 2011, et Al.
This notation is so laughable that it makes U. S. judiciary a laughing stock in the eyes of the World jurisprudence. Clearly a high ranking federal judge or any judge for that matter, even a small claims court judge, knows that a computer image posted on the Internet does not represent a document, does not mean a release of anything. One can use an adobe illustrator or photoshop and create a birth certificate of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and post it on the Internet. A judge should know better than that, should know that some stupid article in New York times does not represent a legal authority on anything. To see a judge embarrass himself by writing some utter nonsense, attempting to give weight and authenticity to some computer image, calling it a document, by quoting some nonsense from “Communists R US New York Times” is sad, it shows total disintegration of the fabric of the system of justice. Needless to say that Obama never presented any certified copy with the embossed seal of the document in any court of law or to any elections commission, Hawaii department of Health never opened their books and never presented the original for review and authentication. Any time Taitz conducts a hearing or trial, and Obama is subpoenaed to appear and produce documents, he is too scared to appear, his attorneys are too scared to appear, as they know that no judge in any hearing would deem a computer image to be a document, and they know that they have nothing else, but this computer generated forgery
CONCLUSION
Motion for summary affirmations needs to be denied, as there is no blanket FOIA immunity for the White House counsel and White House records. White House records were released under FOIA in quoted precedents. Aforementioned “document” presented to public by the former White House counsel Robert Bauer and currently held by White house counsel Kathy Ruemmler is not immune from FOIA release, as former White House Counsel wheeled independent authority. Additionally the “document” in question is not immune to disclosure as it is not a legitimate document prepared within the scope of work of the White House staff. It represents a forgery, a felonies act, which is outside the realm of documents covered by immunity.
Respectfully submitted,

...former White House counsel wheeled independent authority...

Another question about Orly's latest pile of poo: She claims (I think, it is hard to tell exactly what she is saying, she is so convoluted): there is no such thing as a Summary Affirmance. Does that have a nugget of truth, anyone? (Affirmance doesn't seem to be a word ... affirmation?)

Peavey v. Holder, No. 09-5389, 2010 WL 3155823 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2010) (per curiam). The court grants agencies' motion for summary affirmance where "[a]ppellant has not demonstrated that any agency 'improperly withheld' a record within its possession" and "the district court correctly concluded that the agencies conducted searches reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."

Lewis v. DOJ, No. 09-5225, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7367 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition). Defendant's motion for summary affirmance is granted. "The district court properly determined that [one of plaintiff's requests] was beyond the scope of the litigation. Construing appellant's complaint liberally, the complaint does not adequately notify the government that appellant sought to litigate [that request] in the district court, and appellant failed to move to amend his complaint."

Respectfully submitted? It's impossible to respectfully submit that POS.

Is that screed actually something she submitted to the court?

Remind me -- is Judge Lamberth the judge for this case, too?

Taitz is appealing (to the D.C. Circuit) Judge Lamberth's decision in which he noted Taitz's "Sisyphean quest."

Could she/should she be sanctioned?

The relative paucity of errors in English grammar in this "response" makes me think that she had some help from somebody with a high school education, someone who is equally angry and deluded.

...After all, her sanctions went all the way to SCOTUS, right? That certainly made her important.

If, in some biazzro world set of circumstances, Orly ever wound up arguing her case in front of SCOTUS, I think even Thomas would speak up and tell her to STFU.

Another question about Orly's latest pile of poo: She claims (I think, it is hard to tell exactly what she is saying, she is so convoluted): there is no such thing as a Summary Affirmance. Does that have a nugget of truth, anyone? (Affirmance doesn't seem to be a word ... affirmation?)

That video was awesome.