Then there's Berg's Declaration.



And this has what to do with your case or anything about it?? Legally this is about the same as saying "I am a lawyer in East Chickenshit, a community down the road from where Ol' Farmer Green was caught shagging sheep"



In other words, same Berg bullshit as usual, in handy paragraph form.



No, you have spent over three Thousand [3,000] Hours having a giant hissy fit because the "more electable Hillary Clinton" lost in the primaries to Barack Obama, who then went on to defeat John McCain and win the White House you believed was the rightful due of Hillary Clinton.

It has nothing to do with the US Constitution, and everything to do with your butthurt that "Dear Hillary" didn't win.

Interesting you put the "our" into quotes though. Almost like you're actually admitting your not following the REAL US Constitution, but rather "your" version that says what you want it to say.

I guess that would be with Kreep, not Orly, if she ever got off the pot.

The Liberi Declaration is interesting though. She documents pretty much line by line where Hemenway's claims don't dovetail with Berg's claims.



Birthers - Your PayPal funds at work for you.



And that is......



(Falling over laughing my rear off) And Dr. Orly's lack of tax ID or proper registration as a "charity" comes into play!



And another skirmish line in the birther civil war opens up. Though it's interesting to note that this tends to lead one to question ALL of Dr. Orly's claims.

Including the ones she borrowed (okay, stole) from Philip Berg.

(Bold face mine)



Now this is interesting in that it puts out in black and white many of the charges that those of us who have been debunking the birthers have been stating about Dr. Orly for a long time now.

Andy Martin is an anti-semite with mental problems.

Steven Pidgeon is a theocrat who wants his faith to hold dominion over all, and wants the law to change to reflect his views.

Leo Donofrio is a performance artist and poker player who treats the law as a hobby.

Mario Apuzo is a DUI lawyer who's annoyed that the wrong person won the election.

Philip Berg is a conspiracy buff with past ethics issues and questionable legal theories.

The Fantasy Tiddlywinks League likes to pretend they're a real jury and get their panties in a knot when the real courts ignore them.

But Orly Taitz is in a different realm altogether. Orly Taitz honestly acts like the law simply does not apply to her or anything she does, and goes off on a screaming tear when she is held accountable for her actions. The others simply lie or misstate what the law really says, but Dr. Orly simply ignores the law AND the US Constitution entirely and demands that the courts and law enforcement do exactly what she wants them to do, ethics and reality be damned.

And she could care less if anyone gets hurt along the way, as long as SHE'S not affected in any way, shape, or form.

No one else but you, Pat, quite knows how to turn a phrase such as that.

*Bows to accept the complment*

From Berg's declaration:

Well, maybe if you'd left crap like this out

you wouldn't have to be apologizing!

At some point I stopped following this case closely, but is there any justification whatsoever for any of this garbage being even marginally relevant to the issue, whether it is interpleader or the reprimand from Judge Robertson?

That is cause he has been infected with the Brit sense of humor and it is incurable.

*Raises an eyebrow quizzically* That observation has been been made about me in the past, yes.

I blame Monty Python. And the Goodies. And growing up reading the Paddington books, and...and...and...

and...

....I was doomed early on, wasn't I?

(Actually my daughter shows the early stages of the same dry sense of humor. Goddess help us all)

Nice to know what you believe, Phil. Now, what can you actually prove? Or, perhaps more accurately, got anything you can offer that would even begin to show reasonable cause? Given all your court experience, I'm sure you know that you can win a case just on your personal belief.

At least I'd *hope* you would.



You know, it cracks me up how PUMAs - like other birthers - talk about Obama's supporters as being "Obots" who are so enamoured of Obama that we throw all sense out the window and go along with anything he says. Have they ever looked in the mirror? They're so blindly obsessed with Hillary that they not only throw all sense out the window, they do things like voting for the Republican candidate - not because they think he's the better candidate, but because he's not the man who took Hillary's "rightful" place (even though that "right" has to be earned by getting the most people in your party's primary to vote for you, which she didn't this time around....) and come up with theories on how to oust Obama that not just strain the bounds of credulity, but the bounds of sanity as well. Hey, PUMAs! Project much?

Oh, slightly off topic, but I think the funniest thing I've seen in a while - and I wish I could remember which birther came up with this one - is the argument that Hillary isn't eligible to be President because Presidents are limited to 2 terms, and since she was, in effect, Bill's "co-president" she's had her two terms at the same time he did. Talk about reaching! OMG! The only thing to dampen that laughter is knowing that the blowhole who wrote it probably thinks its true.

It's about damn time!

It was Zampolit Charlton of The Pest and eFail who pulled that one out of his rear.

That business about when a man "acknowledges" his son he confers citizenship is, of course, misinterpreted by the birthers.

I can't find the law now, but essentially it was talking about acknowledging paternity. As in biological parentage.

New Docket Entry...



Amazing...these two (Berg & Joyce) do nothing in the lower court case, yet are inserting their BS into the appeal at every possible opportunity.

Back with link shortly.

I haz some interrogz:
From the brief:

1. Will it 'prejudice' the statement that 'Sunday, December 15, 2009' is not a valid date in the Gregorian calendar?

2. Does Mr. Joyce live in a universe where being "out of town" (which town?) puts him out of reach of telephones, email, and the Internet?

3. Why do I keep thinking of Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, and Martin Short?

4. As a point of legal procedure, is it really proper to think of the Amici as being potentially subject to prejudice? Certainly not in the main action, right? And even in this case, where they appear to be pursuing an argument as to why their brief Amicus Curiae should be permitted -- it is not the Amici themselves whose position could be prejudiced, but (arguably) appellants' -- right?

Agreed. If these bozos believe they have a dog in this fight, they should have intervened. My personal name for briefs like this is "inimicus brief."

New Docket Entries...



Back with links shortly.
Waiting on Scribd to behave to link the final document 53-1.

Thanks, realist! I find it humorous that even though IANAL, I know that any time standing is in question, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife should be cited; as it was in this brief.

How weird. How exactly does a lawyer imagine he will get away with asserting:


When the opposition referenced says:


In my book, that certainly counts as a "mention."

I mean, come on!! The opposition was not that hard to read. Does Hemingway actually think that the Appeals Court will not notice that they are being directly lied to?

Yes, he does. A common thread amongst all the birfer lawyers is that they underestimate the intelligence and diligence of the courts.

Thanks for the link. After reading Obama's lawyer's reply, I actually now understand that the hell an "interpleader" is and why Hemenway etc., are all such idiots for trying to use it. Sadly, however, I didn't really understand a thing in any of the responses that Hollister/Hemenway filed. i ges i ain't edukated enuf to no wat al that fansy loyer tak ther usin meens.

The "fancy loyer tak" that Joyce and Berg are using is nothing more than in-fighting between they and Mr. Hemenway, to this point, aimed at Joyce and Berg, who were never attorneys of record in the lower court trying now to insert themselves in the appeal.

Mr. Hollister has been cast aside by Joyce and Berg in preference to their interests in "their" case. Mr. Hollister has made it abundantly clear he wants nothing to do with Berg nor anyone on "Berg's team."

New Docket Entries:





Links to follow.

Hemenway's reply isn't bad...argues the respondent's citations, attempts to distinguish them, points outs alleged errors by the district court. Not horribly convincing, but a marked improvement over other birther attorneys.

The amici reply, however, is hi-larious. All fingerpointing. The declarations are particularly funny: the good counselor from Arizona admits that he is a pharmacist who got a law degree to overturn Roe v. Wade (and does no other legal work) and that he went on leave from all that to volunteer for Keyes' 2004 race. Berg just boasts about all the pro bono work he's done.

What an astounding clown dance. If Hemenway's continued stupidity were not enough, Phil Berg's officious intermeddling is enough to make a mockery of the entire situation. I wonder why they even accepted that nonsense as an amicus brief, since it has none of the purpose of an amicus brief, is not intended to benefit the court, cites only AmJur2d, which the court is entirely capable of pulling off its own library shelves if it feels compelled to do so, and attempts to interfere with another lawyer's representation of his client, insulting him by calling him senile at the same time. The continued assertion that there is any merit whatsoever to the interpleader action is also patently frivolous. I suppose Berg's misconduct is the worse of the two, since unlike Hemenway, he isn't even representing a client, merely insulting another attorney and the court.

I also like how Berg is still trying to take credit for some of the most moronic legal arguments made in a birfer case outside of Orly's, as if they are something to claim with pride. It's rare to see, even in birferland, a document this utterly useless, which has no point whatsoever and could not possibly achieve anything useful for anyone.