Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Welsh Dragon » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:02 pm

.

New case Supreme Court of California, emergency application to stay certification of votes in 2012 electionPosted on | November 3, 2012 | No CommentssnipSUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIADr. Laura Roth, in her capacity as a candidate ) Case #For the U.S. President ) Petition for Extraordinary Emergency Writ ofDr. Orly Taitz, in her capacity as a candidate ) Mandamus/ Stay of certification of 2012for the U.S. Senate and a registered CA voter ) election for the U.S. President and for the U.S. Senate

More at :twisted: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=361408 :twisted: but nothing new that I've noticed just the same old stuff. :horse:[edit]Wrong wingnut in thread title :oops:[/edit]

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31065
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:04 pm

It will be denied, but it's too bad no sanctions will be imposed. Someone with a real case will be shortchanged because of this vexatious piece of litigation.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15675
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby bob » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:08 pm

No standing. Denied. Next.

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Mark » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:31 pm

"There was a systemic jury nullification." ](*,)"Parties :D r. Laura Roth- Candidate for the U.S. President from American Independent party in the primary election in the state of California. Dr. Roth lost her race within a very small marginDr. Orly Taitz ESQ Candidate for the U.S. Senate in the state of California in the primary election." (No mention of Taitz losing by a very small margin =)) )
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

tjh
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby tjh » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:54 pm

She quotes her experts, but doesn't mention they were ruled not to be , and that such zibbits as WERE entered were stricken by a real Judge (not to mention their little-if-any probative value).





I hereby certify that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my


knowledge and informed consent.

What the heck is THAT ?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31065
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:01 pm

She quotes her experts, but doesn't mention they were ruled not to be , and that such zibbits as WERE entered were stricken by a real Judge (not to mention their little-if-any probative value).





I hereby certify that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my


knowledge and informed consent.

What the heck is THAT ?

The craptice of law by a cargo cult worshiper.

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Mark » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:08 pm

"Additionally, allowing Mr. Obama to be certified would violate Califomia Electior Code S€ction 1203, which states “Anyone who files or submits for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy that it or any part of it has been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the state for 16 months or two or three years or by both fine and impisonment” and Califomia Elections Code Section 18500 that stales, “Any person who commits fraud and person who aids or abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast to be cast or attempted to be cast is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two or years”." (sic)





In Orly's world, probably just voting for President Obama would qualify as aiding and abetting "fraud." She will need some pretty large gulags to accommodate all the newly convicted felons. I have dibs on the Malibu or Santa Barbara gulag.
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7395
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby PatGund » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:13 pm

Laurie Roth lost in California to fellow birther Ed Noonan.Noonan - 16,926Roth - 16,326

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby jtmunkus » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:28 pm

](*,)

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6319
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Piffle » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:34 pm

.


New case Supreme Court of California, emergency application to stay certification of votes in 2012 election





Posted on | November 3, 2012 | No Comments





snip





SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA





Dr. Laura Roth, in her capacity as an ex-candidate ) Case #





For the U.S. President ) Petition for Extraordinary Emergency Writ of





Dr. Orly Taitz, in her capacity as an ex-candidate ) Mandamus/ Stay of certification of 2012





for the U.S. Senate and a registered CA voter ) election for the U.S. President and for the U.S. Senate

FIFH.





Just what Orly needs: a new exigent emergency to mis-mangle. Has anyone ever heard of a suit brought in the capacity as a candidate or is it just me?





This must be one of those swell Orlylaw improvements. It makes those stuffy captions so much more interesting. Goes well with those 200-word motion titles too.





Dr. Orly Taitz in her capacity as vacant-space landlord


Dr. Orly Taitz in her capacity as prosecuting witness


Dr. Orly Taitz in her capacity as lead-footed licensed driver


Christopher Earl Strunk in his capacity as FOIA information recipient and Eagle Scout


Barrack Obama in his capacity as non-citizen & usurper


Philip Berg in his capacity as lying scumbag and soon-to-be-former lawyer





Hey, I kinda like it.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6319
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Piffle » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:36 pm

She quotes her experts, but doesn't mention they were ruled not to be , and that such zibbits as WERE entered were stricken by a real Judge (not to mention their little-if-any probative value).





I hereby certify that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my


knowledge and informed consent.

What the heck is THAT ?

I think she used the root canal form by mistake.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31065
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:21 am

=))

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7395
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby PatGund » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:36 am

I have to honestly say, Dr. Orly surprised me with this one.I fully expected her to file this one Wednesday morning rather than before Tuesday.

tjh
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby tjh » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:39 am

I think she used the root canal form by mistake.

Best OblyLaw analysis EVER !!!!

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21472
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby SueDB » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:44 am

Hmmmm....File this before the election and take the chance that - since the elections hasn't happened yet, the matter isn't ripe. Filing after Tuesday the matter is overripe and moot???? Or will this run from election day to the certification day (about a month give or take)??? For what it's worth, Orly should file her usual STAY and continuance until January 21, 2013. [hidden]=)) =)) =)) =))[/hidden]
You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.
Or... you can follow the money - The Two Jakes -

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:47 am

She's bringing back ......................





POLARIK!!!!!!!!!!!!


















In paragraph 5.12.2. WTF?

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Sam the Centipede » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:43 am

She quotes her experts, but doesn't mention they were ruled not to be , and that such zibbits as WERE entered were stricken by a real Judge (not to mention their little-if-any probative value).





I hereby certify that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my


knowledge and informed consent.

What the heck is THAT ?

Ah, applying Occam's Razor to Ms Taitz's screechy screed, I have some insight: Taitz thinks the word "foregoing" means "following" because almost the only true and correct statement in that midden of mendacity is that she is Orly Taitz. But who would claim that if it were not true?





I think the root canal explanation is the best for the informed consent... Taitz informed? Difficult to believe.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6319
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Piffle » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:10 am

Ah, applying Occam's Razor to Ms Taitz's screechy screed, I have some insight: Taitz thinks the word "foregoing" means "following" because almost the only true and correct statement in that midden of mendacity is that she is Orly Taitz. But who would claim that if it were not true?

Having personally observed several rhinoceros middens in South Africa that approached six feet or more, the answer to your well-propounded rhetorical question is obvious.





I hope that the sentence above makes sense, although I am reluctant to vouch for it. The rhino, after all, backs up to its midden. It follows no other rhinocerous and foregoes nothing.





Nevertheless, your analysis works for me because the rhino has an amazing ability to shit and piss in virtually any direction with astounding velocity and volume.

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Welsh Dragon » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:45 am

Orly's new great white hope - Justice Kennedy.

one of 3 largest legal research engines Legal News/FindLaw.com covers my latest Patition for stay of certification of votes in the Supreme Court of CAPosted on | November 4, 2012 | No CommentsNew case Supreme Court of California, emergency application …10 hours agoDr. Laura Roth, in her capacity as a candidate ) Case # Dr. Orly Taitz, in her capacity as a candidate ) Mandamus/ Stay of certification of 2012 for the U.S. Senate …legalnews.findlaw.com/article/0eLCbH55kk3j4?q… – Cached[highlight=#ffff00]Supreme Court of Ca is extremely liberal and will not rule against obama, however, I will forwar this appeal to Anthony Kennedy in SCOTUS, who lately was more conservative and more reasonable than Roberts. So brace yourselves for a denial by the Supreme Court of CA, but possibility of a stay being ordered by Anthony Kennedy, who is in charge of the 9th circuit[/highlight]

:twisted: :twisted: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=361469 :twisted: :twisted: Well a girl can dream can't she?

Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Roboe » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:59 am

I wonder if at any point, Orly realise that her client is actually Laurie Roth?





Nah, didn't think so either...

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15690
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby TollandRCR » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:10 am

Can Orly go directly to the California Supreme Court with this "case?"

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31065
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:39 am

Can Orly go directly to the California Supreme Court with this "case?"

Sure. But that's not the right question. And the answer to the right question is "never; it's simply not done."

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6845
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby Kriselda Gray » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:22 am

I saw a comment about the screwy numbering "system" she used on this doc and thought you were kidding. OMFFSM what the HELL is that stuff? I pity whomever has to write the opposition to that... They'll go nuts just trying to get the references to her POS right. Good Lord!

User avatar
rosy
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby rosy » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:56 am

Do we know it's filed? She may be using us to proofread (though proofreading can't make that POS into a viable pleading).

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Roth & Taitz v Bowen Supreme court of CA

Postby SLQ » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:05 am

She quotes her experts, but doesn't mention they were ruled not to be , and that such zibbits as WERE entered were stricken by a real Judge (not to mention their little-if-any probative value).





I hereby certify that foregoing is true and correct to the best of my


knowledge and informed consent.

What the heck is THAT ?

Ah, applying Occam's Razor to Ms Taitz's screechy screed, I have some insight: Taitz thinks the word "foregoing" means "following" because almost the only true and correct statement in that midden of mendacity is that she is Orly Taitz. But who would claim that if it were not true?





I think the root canal explanation is the best for the informed consent... Taitz informed? Difficult to believe.

=)) =)) =))





Do you suppose she meant "on information and belief" but decided the root canal language will do?


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests