Orly's appeal in Taitz v Ruemmler has been docketed...

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

If any appeal is totally frivolous -- this is it.

The claim sought to be vindicated by the case is contrary to clear statutory language prohibiting the relief. The lawsuit does not seek to modify, change or reverse the law. (Law? What's that?) It's merely another publicity stunt and act of pique by the Chaleria. Let's hope the D.C. Circuit is not solicitous of this completely wasteful imposition on their time.

Yeah, I know: Any. Day. Now.

Look at this $h1t. Just look at it.

It’s a friggin’ single-sentence notice that’s riddled with errors, omissions and protocol violations. How could anyone let so many farts in so few lines?

First, she can’t (or won’t) go to the trouble of typing out a proper caption. Let’s start on the left margin. Compare and contrast:



Orly’s name is trumpeted in all-caps sandwiched between the tacky self-aggrandizing tags of “Dr.” and “ESQ” whereas Ms. Ruemmler – who happens to be a real lawyer – is identified not as Kathryn, but just plain ol' “Kathy” and she certainly doesn't merit an "Esq.". Orly is also designated the “Plaintiff” but Ms. Ruemmler is not explicitly named Defendant.

To the right we find this handy-dandy title in upper and lower case: Freedom of information violation.

Yoo hoo, Dr Orly! This fanciful description has no business appearing in the caption of a NOA. None whatsoever. What is needed here is simply “Notice of Appeal”.

The statutory citation on the next line is equally superfluous and out of place. But if you’re so proud that you’ve managed to Google the general title and section codifying the FOIA, could you maybe bother to put a space after the title number (e.g., 5 USC 552) like a real lawyer legal secretary who is not under the influence of nitrous would do?

And then there’s the case number. It looks like someone took a pen and fixed it. Was that you or did the clerk have to fix it? Whatever. But wouldn’t it have been a tad more professional if you had managed to type it correctly in the first place? I mean, this is not what I’d call quality legal work.

Didja forget to designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed? I hate to be picky but the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure say this is one of those pesky “must” thingies. (The really anal Blue Bookers may gag, but let’s call ‘em “FRAP” for now – rhymes with “crap”.)

Also, it looks like you forgot to identify the court to which the appeal is taken. (If you can find it, see FRAP 3(c)(1)(C)) Helpful hint: In this case, it is the “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit”. I know, I know, that was tricky.

And now for the final score:



That’s 1 out of 8 for a total score of 12.5%. Way to go Orly!

One other little practice tip: When a document isn’t signed by hand but you want or need to memorialize that the doc is effectively signed, you mark it “/s/” in lieu of a signature . However, if you actually sign your name to it, you don’t include the “/s/”. Get it? Here, because you signed it in wet ink the “/s/” makes no sense.

[b][u][/u][/b]

I haz another confused. When she says, "[u][b]based on error of fact, error of law, bias and abuse of judicial discretion by this court[/u][/b][/u][/b]" (emphasis added), is she saying that the appeals court did all these bad things, even before hearing the case? Can a court make a decision "based on error of fact, error of law, bias and abuse of judicial discretion" before it even gets to the court? Orlylaw is so confusing.

Not sure I haz the same confuzzlement. "This court" refers to the court at the top of the page (the District Court). Even so, I think Orly's seriously confuzamicated.



FIFH. Make sense now?

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that _____________ (name of the party taking the appeal) hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the __________ Circuit from an order (describe the order*) entered in this action on the _____ day of ___________________, 2011.





Ya know, Orly, there is a form in the appendices to the FRAP. There are even downloadable forms on the web.




* E.g., "order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P." or "order granting summary judgment"

She knows about the form. She used it at least once before.

.

A good example of why I often think she isn't really trying to produce legal work these days. (True, she can't do it competently when she tries, but that's another matter.)

Oh yes, the testimonials would surely be fantastic.

First endorsement will be from "We the Purple" who employed OrlyLaw to great success in New Jersey.

Sell it as a True Facts Parody. How you can parody these folks is the challenge.

Orly can't stand it when her only cases are dismissed in appeals. Thus, she creates fake appeals that she knows will go no where. Now that she is "appealing" dead cases, she must create a new lawsuit. Orly needs open lawsuits to feed her narcissism. While entertaining, it is quite pathetic.

Does anyone think that Orly will try to appeal a case up to SCOTUS again?

Does a blind pig shit in the woods?

^^^^^^

Usually right next to truffles.

Yes, I think the Indigo Interns have staked their claim as the pre-eminent OL practitioners on the east coast. Within months they rose to become legends in their own minds. Not even Orly has a flying monkey squadron leader as effective as Hurlbutt. I mean, compared to what...Pammy? Florence? Thayne?

And yeah, "We the Purple" is the best. Evah!

"For the record":

* Keyes v. Bowen: Appealed to SCOTUS, but by Kreep (and not Taitz).
* Lightfoot v. Bowen: Appealed to SCOTUS; "Danny Bickel removing cases from docket" debacle.
* Barnett v. Obama: Appealed to 9th; still there.
* Cook v. Good: Appealed to 11th, then abandoned.
* Cook v. Simtech: No appeal.
* Rhodes v. MacDonald: Appealed her sanction to SCOTUS; "Thomas didn't sign the order" debacle.
* Taitz v. Obama: No appeal.
* Taitz v. Dunn: Appealed to California appeallate court; still there.
* Liberi v. Taitz: Appealed to 3d and 9th; at 9th (sorta).
* Taitz v. Astrue: Just appeled to D.C. Circuit.
* Taitz v. Fuddy: Just appealed to Hawaii appellate court.
* Taitz v. Ruemmler: Just appeled to D.C. Circuit.
* Taitz v. Clinton: To be filed.

And as soon as the primaries are over...

Taitz v DNC, et al.

And you musn't forget Taitz v RNC, et al. Whichever comes first.

Also too don’t forget:

Taitz v Feinstein & Taitz v whoever whips her ass in the GOP primary.

I'm waiting for Taitz v Taitz.

Taitz is always her own worst enemy.