Okay, I admit to never having appealed anything to the 9th Circuit in my life, but wouldn't a "notice of related case" only be relevant to the court before the briefing and argument on the first appealed case? What difference could it possibly make to the Barnett/Keyes case if the Berg nonsense is heard by the same panel?

I can see why Orly is requesting it. She thinks the shrouding at oral argument was actually agreement with her stupendous legal reasoning. Until the 9th rules in Barnett/Keyes, Orly will remain deluded that they are the best judges evah.

But there was no reason for Kreep to oppose this, as the composition of the Berg panel cannot possibly effect the Barnett/Keyes case.

I think she thinks that this will effect a consolidation of the cases, and then she'll get a hearing where she can outline her grand conspiracy theory linking Berg and Liberi to the crimes and machinations of the Obama regime. The judges will sit, as before, mesmerized by her compelling arguments and then immediately decide in her favor. Game over.

Orly receives Kreep's response. Never one to let sleeping dogs lie, she will fire off an incendiary letter detailing all of Kreep and Berg's collusion.

In 3...2...1

Generally, yes. The exceptions would be if cases with substantially similar facts or legal issues appeared only after the lead case was sent to a panel. (E.g., some new theory of liability or defense in, say, an asbestos case or an energy-price-fixing case, was raised, and it attracted a lot of me-too appeals.) Or if the lead case was going to decide an important issue that was holding up a bunch of cases, and it would be easier for the panel to issue a bunch of "For the reasons stated in ...." dispositions in the trailing cases. Or, more rarely, if the clerks goofed and didn't catch that two cases were related.

But the normal course is for the later cases to be assigned to a new panel with an annotation of the cases raising similar issues.

I suspect Drake is being conservative and opposing this out of fear that if the cases were deemed related it would slow down the ruling on his clients' case.

At a quick glance, it appears all she did was rearrange some of the words, but didn't really change anything in the letter.

Context, please.

Upon a more close review, I'm not certain she did even that. I'm not going to spend anymore time on it, but whatever the "amendment(s) are/were are pretty small.

I think realist is responding to my earlier post about the amended letter to the judge, which I soon deemed to be repetitive and quickly thereafter scrubbed, thus leaving mr. -ist's post hanging out there by itself.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

OMG! Did she really ask the court to combine Barnett with Liberi v Taitz? Really?

That is a new chapter in OrlyLaw.

I am astonished; I shouldn't be, but I am.

I think Orly wants to join the cases because she is certain that Barnett will be dismissed and not so certain that Liberi v Taitz will be.

Wow.

Not really. But I think she thinks she did. What she actually did was attempt to mislead the court about what would be an irrelevant fact even if true.

Loh wins the "OrlyLaw in 15 Words Or Less" award!

Now where was that trophy I had stashed around here? It had a brass fog, with an ormolu bow chased in silver, attractively mounted on a rococo base of Italian marble, carved into the shape of a California Bar ...

And fine Corinthian leather?

I just love the way Ricardo Montalbon (sp) would speak those words in the Dodge Commercials - Something about finished in fine Corinthian leather. One of the convertibles I think.

Absolutely fab...1975 Cordoba...thanks for the trip down the to 1975.

He tore up the Star Trek II move.

New Docket Entry... (as Tes would say, for "completeness")

Nuts.

Orly's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day just got worse:



http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... rcuit.html

The "full panel" of 25 judges or an en banc panel of 11, which is all the rules allow. Have ORYR and WND gotten it wrong once again? (Perhaps there was nothing for Corsi to copy?)

well...unruh this time.

(I see Loren caught Joey Farah this week too. That makes Corsi, Klein, and Farah. )

Birfers. their like cockroaches. yuk!

Direct from Wing Nutz Daily
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-appeal-seeks-level-election-playing-field/

Aww ... they seem to have changed their web site. No more of those ads between every "news" item.

By the time Kreep gets around to appealing to SCOTUS, Obama is going to be working in an office in his presidential library.

Theres no way Kreep wants to appeal to SCOTUS, this year at least. They rule against him and its over for him. 2012 is going to be the big year for birtherbucks and he wants his share. After the election this case is moot anyway.

I disagree, Suranis. I think Kreep is committed to file a petition for cert. However, the case is an unimportant standing case and there's no way SCOTUS would take it. It's not a case on the merits, either, as some of the cases now percolating might become.

Agreed; Kreep filed a cert. petition for Keyes v. Bowen, which was based entirely on state law.

As long as there is a case in the system, Kreep (and WND, etc.) can make a plea for donations. If Kreep times it correctly, he can file his cert. petition so late that SCOTUS won't deny it until October.