In her assignment of error, Obly wrote:
1. The Court erred in its assessment of the case by concluding that the Plaintiffs were seeking to remove defendant from office. Plaintiffs were seeking declaratory relief. The plaintiffs did not specifically seek removal of defendant Obama from office. Declaratory relief was sought, which was within the purview of the court. The court misstated the relief sought and thus wrongly concluded the case presented is a non-justiciable political question, which it is not.
Wrong, Orly. You have no friggin’ idea what a declaratory judgment is, so let’s start here: It is NOT merely an advisory opinion. If you’d taken 10 minutes to read, or at least dither over, the Declaratory Judgments Act, you’d know that a DJ must address the legal relations of two (or more) parties with adverse interests and must be subject to
specific relief of a conclusive nature. That is, you can’t get a DJ if it doesn’t
solve the conflict between the parties. Except to the extent that additional orders of the court (e.g., injunction) may issue to enforce the prevailing party’s rights, a DJ is not a “stepping stone” to some other remedy to be pursued at some other time in some other forum – including the forum of public opinion.
Because your filings and pleadings and ‘zibits and screeching never identified any such conclusive remedy, the Court quite reasonably inferred that the only thing that would solve your antagonistic legal relationship with the President was his removal from office. Got it?
But-I-Tried-So-Hard Taitz wrote:
3. The court erred in disregarding the fact that counsel on the case, Orly Taitz, filed two legal actions against the secretary of state of CA, Debra Bowen, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing Secretary of State to vet Obama and, due to evidence of him not being eligible, to de-certify election. Those actions…blah, blah, blah.
Judge Nishimura in Hawaii tried so hard too. She really did. But you didn’t take in a word she said, did you Orly? A court in one case could give a rat’s ass about what’s happening or what happened in some other case, somewhere else. Well actually, they
do care when another court’s
holdings establish precedent or invoke some other actual legal principle (e.g., res judicata or estoppel). However, whining about how the court didn’t give you credit for failing elsewhere is not one of those legal principles. So you think that a full en banc panel should go research and read all of your related fails?
This Court doesn’t care if you made an extraordinary effort flying around the country filing incompetent lawsuits. That’s your problem.
Clownselor Orly wrote:
4. The Court erred in ruling that plaintiffs lose standing in an elections fraud complaint filed after inauguration. This decision is not based on any law or precedents and defies basic logic. The court is saying that because the election is over the candidates for office are no longer candidates and cannot sue for fraud committed.
Groan. OK, two points: First, a court cannot entertain a suit if the court cannot grant the remedy sought. Got it? It’s a different way of ‘splaining the jurisdictional idea of “justiciability” and it’s also more or less a restatement of Rule 12(b)(6) as well. Here’s the deal: Once a President is inaugurated, a court can’t remove him/her; only Congress can.
Does that defy basic logic? I don’t think so. If you knew anything about Constitutional and statutory construction, you’d realize that it’s in your beloved adopted Constitution. So let’s try a simpler analogy. It’s kind of like how a football referee can’t assess a 15-yard penalty for celebrating in the end zone after the game is over. But if the celebration gets way out of hand, you can call the cops, but not the referee. OK?
Second, you’ve never pleaded a case for fraud, Orly. Not once. Please study carefully the elements of civil fraud. You’re not even close.
They’re-putting-powdered-glass-in-my-food Orly wrote:
5. The Court erred in not addressing undue influence on the Federal judge by the Defendant and his attorneys.
No, Orly, ‘fraid not. The court did not address undue influence because you have not one scintilla of admissible evidence that would suggest, much less prove, your delusions.
T'orly the Tort Lawyer wrote:
6. The Court erred in completely disregarding financial damages to Plaintiff Presidential candidate Keyes, who also ran against Obama for US senate in 2004.
The court ignored this claim in much the same way that it ignored the financial damages I suffered the last time I went on a weekend bender in Las Vegas. If I hadn’t had that terrible night at the craps table, I’d own a yacht now. And if I had a yacht, I probably would have discovered sunken treasure and I’d be a gazillionaire. Obama should pay, I tell you. Could you add this in your next suit?
Joan D’Arc the Maid of Orly wrote:
7. The Court erred in not considering the fact that the plaintiffs and their attorney were defrauded by the federal judge who pressured the plaintiffs’ attorney to agree not to file an interlocutory appeal for default judgment, while promising on the record, that the case will be heard on the merits. Later Judge Carter refused to hear the case on the merits.
Uh, well, let’s try to look at this another way. At the time you
think you heard Judge Carter promise you a pony and a trial on the merits, the Defense hadn’t filed their preliminary motions or their answer. Are you telling me that it would have been fair for Judge Carter to promise you that, whatever motions the Defendants filed, he was guaranteeing you he’d deny them? Sight unseen? Golly, how would you feel if a judge did that to you? (Remember the Golden Rule!)
Only Orly wrote:
8. The Court erred in not considering the fact, that an attorney for the defense firm was placed as an attorney law clerk for the presiding judge.
The defense firm? Say what? I would have sworn that the “defense firm” in this case was the U.S. Justice Department.
Konstitutional Kommentator Orly wrote:
10. Court erred in not considering the precedent of State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie (N.D. 1935) 65 N.D. 340, 258 N.W. 558, in which the court held that the sitting Governor’s failure to have lived in the state for the required five years prior to the election served as a “legal disability” preventing him from holding the office. The court stated, “When the framers of the Constitution used the language which we are here considering, they intended to include legal as well as physical or mental disabilities, and did not exclude disabilities existing prior to election.
I gotta admit you got me there, Orly. This is powerful precedent to have Governor Obama removed from office in North Dakota. But what makes you think a Federal court is obligated to give deference to a North Dakota state case, especially as “precedent”? And, isn’t the “constitution” they mention actually the N.D. state constitution?
Login
Register
FAQ
x 3 
x 21
yeah, mish-mash past BS.
I like that much better.
