BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:49 pm

Mike - You forgot something. The documents have nothing to do with the sole issue in the case -- standing.

Edit: By the way -- I bet Taitz uses this as her new template. The next court to get this POS? The D.C. Circuit. You can take it to the bankster.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:00 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mike - You forgot something. The documents have nothing to do with the sole issue in the case -- standing.

Edit: By the way -- I bet Taitz uses this as her new template. The next court to get this POS? The D.C. Circuit. You can take it to the bankster.

You're right. I need to breathe and focus on the basics. Standing. The issues before the court on appeal. Relevance. The question of whether it's ever proper to submit a request like this after oral argument is complete. The fundamentals. Then I can deal with the fact that the meshugga chaleria actually wants the freaking Army - I mean the freaking United freaking Stat.....

Nope. Still stuck on the whole military thing. This one might take a while.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:21 am

Mikedunford wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mike - You forgot something. The documents have nothing to do with the sole issue in the case -- standing.

Edit: By the way -- I bet Taitz uses this as her new template. The next court to get this POS? The D.C. Circuit. You can take it to the bankster.

You're right. I need to breathe and focus on the basics. Standing. The issues before the court on appeal. Relevance. The question of whether it's ever proper to submit a request like this after oral argument is complete. The fundamentals. Then I can deal with the fact that the meshugga chaleria actually wants the freaking Army - I mean the freaking United freaking Stat.....

Nope. Still stuck on the whole military thing. This one might take a while.

Schofield Barracks huh...Send it to the folks that court-marshaled and cashiered (almost gone) LTC Lakin - and Orly want them to store the records =))

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:23 am

Mikedunford wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mike - You forgot something. The documents have nothing to do with the sole issue in the case -- standing.

Edit: By the way -- I bet Taitz uses this as her new template. The next court to get this POS? The D.C. Circuit. You can take it to the bankster.

You're right. I need to breathe and focus on the basics. Standing. The issues before the court on appeal. Relevance. The question of whether it's ever proper to submit a request like this after oral argument is complete. The fundamentals. Then I can deal with the fact that the meshugga chaleria actually wants the freaking Army - I mean the freaking United freaking Stat.....

Nope. Still stuck on the whole military thing. This one might take a while.

Mike, you will understand it much better once you buy a set of transcripts from the Taft School of Law.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:31 am

raicha wrote:

Mikedunford wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mike - You forgot something. The documents have nothing to do with the sole issue in the case -- standing.

Edit: By the way -- I bet Taitz uses this as her new template. The next court to get this POS? The D.C. Circuit. You can take it to the bankster.

You're right. I need to breathe and focus on the basics. Standing. The issues before the court on appeal. Relevance. The question of whether it's ever proper to submit a request like this after oral argument is complete. The fundamentals. Then I can deal with the fact that the meshugga chaleria actually wants the freaking Army - I mean the freaking United freaking Stat.....

Nope. Still stuck on the whole military thing. This one might take a while.

Mike, you will understand it much better once you buy a set of transcripts from the Taft School of Law.

Trying to understand this filing better seems like a really bad idea.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

What does Justia.com have to say about it?

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:23 am

Mikedunford wrote:

I still can't get my mind wrapped around fact that Orly has just filed a motion demanding that an appeals court order the US military to take possession of a wide range of documents - including many that contain private details of individuals with no earthly connection to the case - from one of the 50 states, when that state is not a party to the underlying case, and when the records in question WERE NEVER FREAKING SUBPOENAED IN THIS CASE to begin with.

I can get bits and pieces of that to stick, but every time I try to grasp the entire splendor of the concept my mind simply rebels.

Can't blame you for a New York second. Moreover, Mike, since you're havin' some trouble cogitatin' and grasping the big picture and stuff, I certainly won't be the one to remind you that this is the same lawsuit wherein she asked a federal judge to order Secretary of State Clinton to fly to Kenya to attempt to authenticate a prank birth certificate with the Kenyan government, way back in 2009. Yep, same case. Or that the whole lawsuit was originally based on an executive order that explicitly said it wasn't grounds for a lawsuit ... an order that never applied to the president in any event.

This case has it all. This one is the Big Enchilada. This one isn't just outside the box. This case and the box have never shared the same galaxy.

'Course, we all know that Orly has a high probability of prevailing on her mandEmus, too also, because the Ninth Circuit judges are huge supporters of O'rly. If you'll be so kind as to recall, back in May, just days after President Obama, in a state of total panic, released the long-form birth certificate and killed Osama bin Ladin in a pathetic attempt to somehow distract attention from this case ... the Big Enchilada ... the Ninth Circuit judges were so favorably impressed by her professional demeanor and her awesome rhetorical skill as an advocate that they listened to her oral argument in rapt attention, never daring to interrupt the brilliant stream of analogies and arcane references to critically important precedents from prior litigation.

Teh awesome; she haz it. The mind reels. :shock:

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

I love Orly's attempt to get custody of the microfiche in advance of Sheriff Ho'. Her ego just won't let someone get one up on her!

[-(

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2107

Comment from Orly's website regarding her write of mandamus:

Quote:

Proud American
November 3rd, 2011 @ 4:00 pm
The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. So far, you have not shown proof of anything.

Orly's response:

Quote:

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
November 4th, 2011 @ 1:46 am
for an emergency writ of mandamus I need something tangible, I can’t bring pure theories in an emergency writ

xxxhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27219#comments

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27219#comments :evil:

Quote:

Insight
November 3rd, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

How does the 9th Circuit get jurisdiction over Fuddy? I’m confused.

Other, than that, it’s a very, comprehensive example of your recent work.

No truer words could have been spoken. :lol:

bob · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:43 am

Quote:

Paul Jackson wrote:

“Thinking outside the box”?

Dr. Taitz, you are being far too modest. I think it’s safe to say that no other attorney in the country, perhaps the world, would have thought of this approach.

You are indeed one of a kind.

God Bless.

[...]

Taitz wrote:

Mr. Jackson (or whatever your real name is), I am used to your irony. So far nobody else came with anything that would press the issue of forgery and SSN fraud

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27219#comments

*sigh*

Jackson is being sarcastic.
Taitz is being ironic.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:49 am

Taitz is being stoopid.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:28 pm

SuEdB wrote:

Can the judge sanction everyone named or just Orly?

The judge can sanction everyone named Orly.

PatGund · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:31 pm

Besides, it's no longer Hickam AFB (and it hasn't been Hickam Field since Army Air Corps days!)

It's "Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam" now.

*rolls eyes*

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9356

Res Ipsa wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

Can the judge sanction everyone named or just Orly?

The judge can sanction everyone named Orly.

On a slightly more serious note, I would not be surprised if some of the "plaintiffs" don't even know they're a party to the suit. They can't be sanctioned just because some nutjob filed something in their name.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

bob wrote:

...and give Taitz credit: She finally learned to redact Obama's social security number!

Her redaction diligence (pointed out to me elsewhere in the intertubes) doesn't extend to her (enlarged) exhibits.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23548

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27219#comments :evil:

Quote:

RacerJim
November 4th, 2011 @ 9:13 am

@Proud American,

You are entitled to BELIEVE that Barry Soetoro, Soebarkah, Barry Obama, Barack Obama or whatever his true legal name is, is a natural born American but your belief in no way, shape or form makes it so. He could have been born in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington DC and he still would not be a natural born American. End of story, PERIOD! Orly et al have shown ample proof. If the Social Security System and Selective Service Administration don’t constitute proof to you then you can’t handle the truth.There’s nothing illegal about obtaining documents by downloading them from the White House web-site to further the case against the usurper. Obama can proclaim his SFBC or LFBC authentic until the cows come home, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see they are all bonefied forgeries.

That's right, RJ, everyone else's opinions do not make it so but yours does. =))

bob · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:15 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

On a slightly more serious note, I would not be surprised if some of the "plaintiffs" don't even know they're a party to the suit. They can't be sanctioned just because some nutjob filed something in their name.

And there is anecdotal evidence that some of plaintiffs are unaware of this appeal, e.g., Missouri Speaker-elect(!) Tim Jones.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

I want to know who bonefied them.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:18 pm

bob wrote:

...and give Taitz credit: She finally learned to redact Obama's social security number!

I disagree. Her scratch thru redactions (on zibit 7 for example) are nothing more than her way of saying "Fuck You" to Judge Lambreth.

Zibit 7 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/ ... ts-7-9.pdf

BFB · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:18 pm

realist wrote:

:evil: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27219#comments :evil:

Quote:

RacerJim
November 4th, 2011 @ 9:13 am

@Proud American,

You are entitled to BELIEVE that Barry Soetoro, Soebarkah, Barry Obama, Barack Obama or whatever his true legal name is, is a natural born American but your belief in no way, shape or form makes it so. He could have been born in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington DC and he still would not be a natural born American. End of story, PERIOD! Orly et al have shown ample proof. If the Social Security System and Selective Service Administration don’t constitute proof to you then you can’t handle the truth.There’s nothing illegal about obtaining documents by downloading them from the White House web-site to further the case against the usurper. Obama can proclaim his SFBC or LFBC authentic until the cows come home, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see they are all bonefied forgeries.

I dunno. I don't think he stuck enough cliches in there.

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:45 pm

MaineSkeptic wrote:

I want to know who bonefied them.

Is that a term for "boned and butterflied"?

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:52 pm

This is the best pleading ever filed by Orly. The only thing that she could have done better would be to request hearing en banc.

Yoo hoo, Orly!!! Count on me to be at the hearing on this.

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:04 pm

Sequoia32 wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

I want to know who bonefied them.

Is that a term for "boned and butterflied"?

I think he meant bonerfied which is another way of saying...

[-X

Oh, nevermind.

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:07 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

This is the best pleading ever filed by Orly. The only thing that she could have done better would be to request hearing en banc.

Yoo hoo, Orly!!! Count on me to be at the hearing on this.

Oh good! It'll give you a perfect chance to catch up with Mitzi and let us know how she's doing. :-bd

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

BARNETT|KEYES v. OBAMA - II - DISCUSSION (9th Cir.)

Who is online