Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Taitz Files Response To Motion To Dismiss In Barnett v. Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:57 AM
Original message
Taitz Files Response To Motion To Dismiss In Barnett v. Obama
Never will you find a more wretched hive of conspiracy theories and incoherent rantings.

It's just so ridiculous. She actually cites DC v. Heller ( a gun rights case) as precedent!

:rofl:

She's just about guaranteed the motion to dismiss will be granted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. She starts off by misspelling Hillary Clinton's name
That's in the first third of the first page. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's thirty-five pages of absolute drivel
Man, Freeper heads will explode a week from Monday when Judge Carter grants the motion to dismiss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I skipped to the end - get this:
This response is timely filed on the Equinox, Monday, September 21, pursuant to Rule 6(a)(2) because of the intervening Federal Holiday on Labor Day.


"on the Equinox"?? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Making that distinction in a legal response is SOOOOO Important!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
41. It's a legal term in Latin.
It means "I didn't get enough face time on TV last week."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
58. I got to page eighteen before I got too light headed to continue. I
like the following in a perverse schzoidal sort of way:

'intergenerational corruption of blood' and this: the correct minority being allowed to lead the majority out of the dark woods. (I lost the exact quote due to a glitch in the scroll.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. The insanity is strong in this one.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. The fraud allegation on Page 2?
:rofl:

She is soooooooooo clueless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's a veritable conspiracy theory lasagne!
Layers upon layers of batshit insane!

I can see the conversation between Alan Keyes (her client in this case) and Taitz:

Taitz: Alan, you don't think the slavery question was too much do you?

Keyes: No way! That's your best argument yet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. That was totally fantasy land to me...
...I mean... comparing the election of Obama to California reinstituting slavery?

Hello???

BTW: Did anyone else notice that she has no clue on how to format a pleading? Not only batcrazy bullshit, but very poorly word processed on top of it! I really like how only her signature was on the last page. Bozo no-no on pleadings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. yup, noticed all of that
I can't help it even after all these years.

There is no possible way this woman passed the CA bar or attended any kind of law school. I don't think she's crazy, I think she's a massive con-artist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. Think she could sanctioned in TWO courts?"
There really should be a sanity hearing for her. Maybe she'll meltdown in front of the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It's possible
I suspect on October 7th, she'll be filing a motion to reconsider in Judge Carter's court.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. Sanctioned? Orly's on the way to getting herself declared incompetent. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Reads like it was written by Alan Keyes.
it's got that arrogant style more than Taitz's incoherent ramblings on TV. But I could only read 3 pages before my head blew up.

What is it about conspiracy theorisists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. I'm sure he had a lot of input into it
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 08:42 AM by WeDidIt
but Keyes is not an attorney, so Taitz filled in the attorney bits.

Also, do you think putting quo warranto in bold letters every time it appears in the document will impress the judge?

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. lol but I didn't see the "attorney bits"
I read tons of stuff written by non lawyers to the court (its my job) and there is a certain segment who think they can dazzle me with legal sounding BS (or they have convinced themselves their legal BS really means something). Some ppl are really out there and don't get why I can't see "IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL" to deny them UI or whatever they are asking for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. She used "quo warranto" a lot
That's teh "attorney bits"

Throw around some Latin phrases a couple dozen times.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #32
71. I've been a lawyer for 33 years and I've never used "quo warranto"
I think I should have said "real attorney who is not using a legal dictionary to write stuff"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. Nope....
That particular florid style is the hallmark of Dr. Orly's "Legal Clerk", Charles E. Lincoln III, a former attorney disbarred in California, Texas, and Florida. CEL3 is also heavily involved in the "Sovereign Citizens" movement, and has more than a slight fondness for the Neo-Confederate movement as well.

One of the gems from the filing is:

Or at least, this is the theory behind the law of quo warranto, which is and was (as a practical matter) the point at which the undersigned counsel, on behalf of her clients, the Plaintiffs, began her quest for the preservation of truth, justice, and the American Way


Look! Up in the Sky! Its a Turd! Its Insane! Its SUPER-ORLY!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Excellent point
and spot on analysis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
47. Maybe they shared some "pillow time"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. How did she pass a bar exam?
I had been led to believe that these were difficult to pass and you really had to know how to do legal writing to do so. Now I'm not so sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Some states are easy, but there are a few, like New York, which are difficult
It took JFK Jr. three tries to pass the NY bar exam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. Academically bright often does not translate to courtroom brilliance.
California, New York and Florida have the three most difficult bars in the U.S. I have seen honors grads of Harvard Law pass the CalBar with flying colors and in a courtroom bomb to the point of laughter from the bench and other attys.

The CalBar is like three days of mental and physical rape. I did it once and passed. Thank gawd I never had to do it again. I would go through three days of hard labor or 12 root canals before ever doing that bullshit again.

BTW: There are lots of failures from schools like Bolt Hall and Stanford Law that only take the very best there is with the highest LSAT scores and undergrad records. Like I said, academic smarts only gets a person through the bar. The courtroom is a place where a whole bunch of other talent and smarts is needed. Obviously Orly is lacking in the kind of talent and smarts it take to PRACTICE law.

JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
30. The on-line law school she attended....
....does all their tests from the California Bar. Basically it's a four year bar prep course. Under those circumstances, my daughters dolls could pass the bar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. All it does is prepare one for the Bar...
...it does not teach theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Which is why it is not acredited
Simple, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. Exactly....
...but I do have to admit that my accredited school really did not prepare me for the practice of law ~~ but I passed the Bar Exam.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. Her mail order school in California teaches ONLY how to pass the bar there.
No philosphy, legal theory, or even how to do case law. Just how to pass the bar, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. I'm having trouble getting past
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:17 AM by LiberalAndProud
"the single bifurcated question question". I wonder if the judge will be amused?

ETA: "the Sentate". The judge should dismiss based on spelling errors alone. This is unmitigated drivel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. And the reality is, her bifurcated question quesiton is answered in the constitution
United States Constitution

Article II

Section 1


<snip>

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

<snip>


Each state is responsible for determining eligibility of candidates for the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. she writes question twice because...
her single question is actually 2 questions

she is lucky this is not graded like an english paper
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. Was Lee L. Mercer an instructor at her online law school?
ALL THREE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. 4th page, lines 16 -19, assumes the Hawaii BC is not official.
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:06 AM by demwing
Since it is, her entire foundation crumbles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Bingo
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding"

She cannot get around that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milk Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. "WHAT IF POLITICAL MAJORITY CHOOSES SLAVERY?"
Oh lord. I'm reading this instead of the paper this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dccrossman Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
18. Top paragraph of (page 9 of 35 at the top) is worth following the link
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:29 AM by dccrossman
How the hell did this woman pass the written portion of any bar exam?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. hee hee
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:42 AM by WeDidIt
"The
question
is
not
one
of
precedent,
the
question
is
whether
politics
dictate
the
outcome
in
many
or
most
Obama‐related
cases,
where
avoiding
discovery
and
fact‐finding
is
the
primary
 ;(and
outcome‐determinative)
goal.

Plaintiff
submits
that
if
discovery
is
ever
allowed
in
this
case,
it
will
be
rapidly
settled
by
the
resignation
or
impeachment
of
the
President.

If
the
stone
wall
of
secrecy
and
suppression
is
ever
removed,
if
California
sunshine
is
ever
allowed
to
shine
for
one
day
on
the
real
evidence,
the
Presidency
of
Barack
Hussein
Obama
will
be
rapidly
brought
to
a
rather
embarrassing
close,
and
the
Defendants
counsel
know
it,
just
as
Judges
Land
and
Lazzara
know
it
in
Georgia
and
Florida.

Secrecy
and
refusal
to
divulge
information
can
have
only
one
possible
purpose:
to
hide
an
inconvenient
truth.

Everywhere
the
Plaintiffs
or
their
counsel
have
gone,
they
have
been
met
with
resistance,
which
can
only
be
described
as
irrational
if
there
were
nothing
to
hide."


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Hello! "... if California sunshine is ever allowed to shine on this evidence..."?! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #25
35. LOL!!!! I think the CA sunshine is shining on Orly's crazy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. I swear she had to have paid someone to take it for her
Ain't no way this loon passed the bar. Impossible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
20. "her quest for truth, justice, and the American Way"
this is hilarious stuff. Wasn't that Superman's motto? or some other superhero?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. But we all know that Obama is the son of Jor-el
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. OMG! It WAS Superman!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_way
Comics

The comic book superhero Superman fights for "truth, justice and the American way."

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
26. "Fundamentally it all comes down to a single bifurcated question question."
"a single bifurcated question question" page 4 para 2

Does the constitution mean what it says? Well that all depends on this one, two question questions. How many questions are there? Find out next week.

Good stuff.

Come now the plaintiffs, indeed :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
36. LOL! I have to admit I was only able to read to page 10 of 35...
before I gave up. I can't wait to read the response to this, it should be another 'one for the books' as was Judge Land's wonderful "It's deja vu all over again" ruling. It seems Judge Carter has the same 'way with words' as does Judge Land, yesssssssss!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. I think Judge David O. Carter is the most patient jurist on the bench
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
37. Perhaps she should sue Dick Cheney for a preposterous cop out
Page 5-6
Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. Idem:
Motion to Dismiss at 1314.


The Defendants position in this regard is simply
Plaintiffs Preliminary Response to Defendants 9-4-09
(Document 56) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
a preposterous cop out. Defendants in effect ask this Court to conclude, find, hold, and rule that willful disregard of the letter of the law is proof of compliance with that law. Plaintiffs submit and contend, by contrast, that Congress neglect and derogation of its duty to take investigative or prosecutorial action does not render any unchallenged action legitimate. Surely in a free society, the sovereign people have more and better rights.


"cop-out" is that new legal jargon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. She fails to mention the constitutional requirements for objection
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 11:17 AM by WeDidIt
Objectors must submit their objection in writing and at least one Representatice AND one Senator must join the objection.

No written objections were submitted, ergo, the results were recorded as submitted without objection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
55. Oh--please don't ruin the latest birther meme--the Freepers
have been all over it...

see my post # 53. Classic freeper threads on the objection issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
53. You hit upon a new birther meme--Cheney fucked the Electoral Count to
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 01:43 PM by msanthrope
to save the Republic. Cheney, the silent hero.....

Seriously. The latest from Leo Donofrio, another birther lawyer, is that Cheney deliberately didn't follow 3 U.S.C. 15, and screwed up the Electoral count becasue he didn't call for objections properly. Now, because the DOJ (in their Motion to Dismiss) cites the Electoral count as proof of Obama's legitimacy, but it is screwed, therefore, it is further proof of his illegitimacy.

Sounds even crazier coming from Donofrio himself......

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/barn... /

Donofrio's been posting for weeks (freeper thread classics) how Taitz need to bring this point o' crazy up in her Response...so she did.

Of course, these assholes conveniently forget that not one of their Republican reps had the guts to rise in objection and submit anything in writing...

Like in 2004, when Stephanie Tubbs Jones rose....


Dick Cheney: For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio rise?

Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio: Mr. Vice President, I seek to object to the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and have a signed objection, and I do have a Senator.

Cheney: Has the Senator signed the objection?

Jones: The Senator has signed the objection.

Cheney: An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.

The Clerk will report the objection.

Clerk: We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given. Signed Stephanie Tubbs Jones, State of Ohio, Barbara Boxer, State of California.

Cheney: The two Houses will withdraw from joint session. Each House will deliberate separately on the pending objection and report its decision back to the joint session.

The Senate will now retire to its Chamber.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.p...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Donofrio is even more batshit insane that Taitz
I wonder if a homeless guy will be talking to the government via Donfrio's cell phone again in this case.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucy Goosey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
43. Dear California Bar,
This is why you should make like the other 49 States, and stop admitting people with mail-order law "degrees". Seriously.

On the plus side, she is entertaining as hell. Along with her lack of legal awareness, she seems to have a complete and total lack of self-awareness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
44. Naming MICHELLE OBAMA as a co-defendant?!?!?
America says...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
45. This filing is even funnier than Mayo v. Satan and his Staff.
I can't wait to read Carter's order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
68. OMG, I'd forgotten about that one!
:rofl:

BTW, next time you're in a law library, look up 12 So.2d 305. In most libraries that volume will automatically fall open to p. 305, which will be raggedy and dog-eared. This is because of the legendary nature of this case and the natural perversity of law students.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Ms. Connie Lingus? I recognized that one by the cite, and
the phrase "little, though potentially influential and powerful vaginas" has always stuck with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Ha! Everybody knows that case, I guess.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insanity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
49. I couldn't read it all
It is more of the same rambling bullshit in the same poorly written and factually incorrect style. I got through about 6 pages, skimmed her discussion of precedent, and skipped to the end to see one of the oddest phrases I've ever read in a law document about the Equinox.

I've been studying law for a few years now, and I've got to say this case will make a textbook example of inane uses of the Federal Judiciary. Her argument is asinine at best, but more likely it is delusional and bigoted.

Also, no one is impressed by the Latin when you can't spell Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retrograde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. I skimmed, but got bogged on when I got to Justice Taney
IANAL, but this strikes me as the ravings of a deranged mind rather than a formal brief. And what did poor Michelle do to deserve being on the list? What does the equinox have to do with anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
50. ok, this is what finally really got me peeing my pants...
(not that there aren't ample examples of pants peeing fodder)

page 5, line 13

Defendants show a certain confusion of mind at several points in their Motion to Dismiss...
{emphasis added}

Oh irony!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
51. Can I have whatever she's on?
I know lawyer-speak and she's gone off on some drug-fuelled stream-of-consciousness rant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Undercurrent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
60. Just when I start to think
this can't get any stupider, the hits keep rolling in! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. The stupid, it burns
And now that Leo Donofrio has gotten back in the birther game, the batshit insantiy he'll produce will make Taitz seem positively grounded!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Undercurrent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Oh. Tell me more.
Is Leo Donofrio wackier than this dingbat? That would be a thing to behold!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. HE most definitely is nuttier than a Taitz
He has had precisely one birther case, Donofrio v. Wells. This from his blog regarding his SCOTUS filing:

On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. I took a Greyhound bus from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. because I was afraid to use Amtrak where I would have had to present ID for a ticket. I took that bus to the Greyhound station in Washington DC and walked from there to Union Station.

I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. As you all know, the SCOTUS rules were not followed when a clerk tried to overrule the SCOTUS precedent from McCarthy v. Briscoe.

I had previoulsy felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS.

In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008 my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008.

On the Greyhound bus to DC, I had made a plan to pay for a tourist trolley ticket to take me one stop from Union Station to SCOTUS. I figured I would be safer blending in with tourists rather than being alone.

Before leaving for DC the night before, I died my hair blond, shaved, put on rock and roll clothes and stuffed the copies of my application in a hole through the pockets of my jacket which hid the documents in my back.

I looked nothing like the attorney who had been in the Hughes Justice complex all week in New Jersey.

But I made one mistake.

I had my electronic passport in my sneaker. I walked into Union Station to purchase a $35 trolley ticket and probably set off an RFID tracker.

I waited outside of Union Station for the trolley. At approximately 2:45 PM, just after I had purchased my ticket inside the station, I was sitting next to a white homeless man with a grey beard in his 50s. He had two shopping carts full of clothes, food, radio etc., apparently his life possessions. We were the only two people sitting on this stone circle just outside the station. Suddenly, the homeless man starts gibbering some kind of weird code. He sounded like this,

Echo one four two seven, target is in the building, repeat target is in the building

Then he paused and I looked up and a big SUV had pulled up right next to us, and two BIG mofos in yellow gold shirts got out of the SUV, opened the back door and started putting on body armor and packing mega heat all the while they are scouring the area for the target.

The homeless man is talking to them through a device in his battered shirtsleeve,

No point in wasting time, I want to get paid for this, target is in the building Ok, but I thought you might want to just get the target, repeat target is in the building, target is in the building. Stop wasting time out here.

He was mixing in code talk with things I could understand.

<snip>


More of his paranoid delusional rant here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Undercurrent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Thanks!
Oh this is choice! (Sure it's not a script for "Fringe"?)

Let's see. Sabotaged by "the cult", homeless men talking in code, attacks upon his sanity, and gold shirted goons. Yup. Donofrio wondered so far into nut land he got lost!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #63
75. What in the name of fuck?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
65. Is a decision due tomorrow?
I vaguely remember something about something coming out on Wednesday. Anyone else hear this or am I delusional? Oh the delusions! They're contagious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. The hearing on this case is October 5.
Her response to Judge Clay Land is due on October 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Thanks.
Like Orly, I'm a little off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LLStarks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
69. I wish she would stop literally making a federal case out of this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
70. is it just me, or did she actually miswrite Rhodes on the very last page
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:37 PM by Bodhi BloodWave
and for that matter, what exactly does that have to do with THIS case o.O

Also, i looked over on the site that should not be named to see what they think of it, here is the 'best' reply i found, vast majority is just cheering on and such
***

ROFL! ITS AWESOME! Blows the motion to dismiss clear out of the water.

It all boils down to how much the judge understands and believes in the constitution.

One of the arguments made was that if the courts do not act, then the people have no remaining recourse but armed revolution... which was pointed out as also being authorized in the constitution.

25 posted on 22. september 2009 08:02:29 by Safrguns

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
74. Did this ass ever hear of SPELL CHECK?
She didn't even write this at a fourth grade level. The judge should fine her for each misspelled word!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC