TAITZ v RUEMMLER - ACT II

Hektor · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:04 pm

realist wrote:

Akshully, I believe the events are reversed.

Judge Land issued his OSC, CEL III filed his masterpiece, on the last of the 20 days to respond, and Orly asked for an extension of time to file her response to the OSC. "Could" be wrong, but just sayin'.

Offtopic :

Well I'd trust your memory on the matter better than my own. I just seem to recall a filing by Orly in Rhodes claiming that she would come back with plaintiff after military plaintiff. Maybe I'm just remembering wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

She did stop her stunts that interfered with deployment after Rhodes I think though.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:27 pm

MrBrown wrote:

Why won't judges get medieval on this witch ?

Teachable moment: You might as well ask why won't judges get medieval on this Catholic or this Jew or this Budhist or this Atheist or this Jane or this Christian, etc., etc., etc. [-X

ducktape · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:38 am

Plutodog wrote:

MrBrown wrote:

Why won't judges get medieval on this bwitch ?

Teachable moment: You might as well ask why won't judges get medieval on this Catholic or this Jew or this Budhist or this Atheist or this Jane or this Christian, etc., etc., etc. [-X

FIFY EZ

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

ducktape wrote:

Plutodog wrote:

MrBrown wrote:

Why won't judges get medieval on this bwitch ?

Teachable moment: You might as well ask why won't judges get medieval on this Catholic or this Jew or this Budhist or this Atheist or this Jane or this Christian, ewe or doe or mare or cow, etc., etc., etc. [-X

FIFY EZ

Not so fast, ducky!

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:24 am

It's an insult to American female dogs....doggone it.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:55 am

SueDB wrote:

It's an insult to American female dogs....doggone it.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

It's a DOUBLE SMACKDOWN FRIDAY!!

The court ruled against Orly in Astrue. And also. Too.

2012-05-25 - TAITZ v RUEMMLER - USDCDC APPEAL - ORDER

Quote:

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 6:27 pm

SCREECH!

esseff44 · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 6:29 pm

Double smack down Friday! :cheer:

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Hahahaha awesome =D>

Just when you think it's too late on a Friday and the smackdown isn't coming, BAM! :mrgreen:

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 6:43 pm

Just to put this in perspective, summary affirmance is as close as a circuit court of appeals can come to saying "the appellant is so full of shit that we're going to shitcan the turd before it cools down to room temperature."

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Piffle wrote:

Just to put this in perspective, summary affirmance is as close as a circuit court of appeals can come to saying "the appellant is so full of shit that we're going to shitcan the turd before it cools down to room temperature."

Well put.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5244

Um to non-laywers, what does summary affirmance actually mean? Does it mean "the lower courts opinion is judged 100% correct." with the inference of "what the fuck were you thinking when you decided to appeal this, moron" and bonus "GTFOOMC"?

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 7:11 pm

Suranis wrote:

Um to non-laywers, what does summary affirmance actually mean? Does it mean "the lower courts opinion is judged 100% correct." with the inference of "what the fuck were you thinking when you decided to appeal this, moron" and bonus "GTFOOMC"?

In a word, yes.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 7:18 pm

But.. but.. but... Lena is smarter and knows more about U.S. law than all the courts put together. This decision is sooooooo wrong! Just ask her.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

Orly must not know about Ruemmler yet... not screeeeeeeeeching!! Or she doesn't want anyone to know she lost twice in one day. =))

She did FUBAR her blawg by posting an article API ran, which is basically the endorsement from from Eric Dondero from the Republican Liberty Caucus. :lol:

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10644

realist wrote:

Orly must not know about Ruemmler yet... not screeeeeeeeeching!! Or she doesn't want anyone to know she lost twice in one day. =))

She did FUBAR her blawg by posting an article API ran, which is basically the endorsement from from Eric Dondero from the Republican Liberty Caucus. :lol:

Boy, she sure did. It's even more of a mess than usual. Can you imagine what her freaking house looked like when the kids were all at home? Even a live in housekeeper and nanny would have difficulty just picking up after Lena. :shock:

jcm52 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:43 pm **Posts:** 14

Plutodog wrote:

MrBrown wrote:

Why won't judges get medieval on this witch ?

Teachable moment: You might as well ask why won't judges get medieval on this Catholic or this Jew or this Budhist or this Atheist or this Jane or this Christian, etc., etc., etc. [-X

Speaking of teachable moments... I remember the first time I was talking with someone who was using the word "Christian" to mean non-Catholic and non-Orthodox (i.e., Protestant). Made for a very confusing conversation until I realized that she really thought I knew I wasn't a Christian.

rosy · **Joined:** Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:36 pm **Posts:** 718

Excellent double smackdown! The screeching will be heard around the world...

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2097

I love that the judges cited Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice in their ruling because that case was originally brought by deadbeat dad Larry Klayman.

Birfer lawyers are stepping all over each other in their rush to fail.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23530

AnitaMaria wrote:

I love that the judges cited Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice in their ruling because that case was originally brought by deadbeat dad Larry Klayman.

Birfer lawyers are stepping all over each other in their rush to fail.

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:02 am

Just to tie a bow on this one...the deadline for Oily to file a cert petition at SCOTUS in Taitz v. Ruemmler passed earlier this week. The deadline for Oily to file a request for an extension of time to file [a cert petition at SCOTUS in Taitz v. Ruemmler] passed two weeks ago.

Obviously, this one--like everything Oily touches--was a loser. Now, it's a most sincerely dead loser.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:07 am

Paul Lentz wrote:

Just to tie a bow on this one...the deadline for Oily to file a cert petition at SCOTUS in Taitz v. Ruemmler passed earlier this week. The deadline for Oily to file a request for an extension of time to file [a cert petition at SCOTUS in Taitz v. Ruemmler] passed two weeks ago.

Obviously, this one--like everything Oily touches--was a loser. Now, it's a most sincerely dead loser.

Unless you have cut off it's head, stuffed it full of garlic, staked the body of this abomination down, the let the full light of the sun hit it after the ROOSTER has crowed....then maybe it's dead.

Orly has been known to practice necromancy and reviving the undead for fun and possible profit. =))

Piffle · **Posted:** Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:12 am

Paul Lentz wrote:

Now, it's a most sincerely dead loser.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:27 am

Piffle wrote:

Paul Lentz wrote:

Now, it's a most sincerely dead loser.

Ah, the infamous "Norwegian Blue"...

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

TAITZ v RUEMMLER - ACT II

Who is online