SCOTUS 4 or more. Long Live Birthers.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have a question that has nothing to do with beating horses, dead or otherwise, why did Obama present 3 different birth certificates? I mean if I had only the one and I presented it then I don't have another one to put out there.

As for dead horses; RFK jr. says two people shot JFK and that was almost 50 years ago. Then there are those truthers from 2001. Why do liberals hate dead horses so much?

You named one guy and a fringe group that really hasn't been in the news much lately.


17% of the gop are birthers. They don't believe the state that issued the certificate. That's a lot of whippin' that's still going on.

3 certificates? No links of course. How about this one?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tificate-quip/

"He released a certification of live birth during his 2008 presidential campaign, and in the spring of 2011, released his long-form birth certificate. Both show that he was born in a Hawaii hospital on August 4, 1961. Contemporaneously published newspaper announcements also noted the birth in the Aloha State."

Speaking of whipping a dead horse, you seem to keep coming back.

[JD Barleycorn]

How about a headline from this last week Munchie? http://www.kvue.com/news/186703761.html

The truthers are now onto the conspiracy at Sandy Hook. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/newto...1/10/id/470866


I would love to know where you got that little statistic.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How about a headline from this last week Munchie? http://www.kvue.com/news/186703761.html

The truthers are now onto the conspiracy at Sandy Hook. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/newto...1/10/id/470866


I would love to know where you got that little statistic.

the truthers seem like a good fit for you Barley.

[JD Barleycorn]

Biggen they belong to you. Just like Occupy, Obama, the anti-semitic, the communists, the gun grabbers, the hate American first crowd. They are your people.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

Read what I posted COG. You make my point but you're too stupid to realize it. The court hasn't accepted writ. A writ has been filed. Any party that has lost an appeal at the federal circuit level can file a writ. That does not mean the writ has been accepted or the case will be heard. In fact, the vast majority of writs of certiorari filed with SCOTUS are rejected. Like this one will be.

But, facts don't matter to you, do they? The next time you open your mouth, try to know what you're talking about first.

I apologize, Timmy. I thought the writ had been accepted. If it hasn't been, then you are right.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Biggen they belong to you. Just like Occupy, Obama, the anti-semitic, the communists, the gun grabbers, the hate American first crowd. They are your people.

sorry barley brains you are the conspiracy theorist on the board.I don't fall for that crap.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I apologize, Timmy. I thought the writ had been accepted. If it hasn't been, then you are right.

another lie. He's not sorry, just tired of have his ass handed to him...

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I apologize, Timmy. I thought the writ had been accepted. If it hasn't been, then you are right.

It's one of about 10,000 writs that are filed with SCOTUS every year. They accept about 100.

This Orly Taitz person ought to be disbarred and put in jail if she keeps filing this bogus lawsuit. The identical lawsuit, just the parties are different, was dismissed by a federal judge a couple of weeks ago. Same evidence, same contentions. The same case that this stupid bitch keeps filing has now been dismissed by over a dozen different courts. She's a fucking disgrace and should be disbarred. She also ought to be forced to pay the government's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in every one of these frivolous lawsuits.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's one of about 10,000 writs that are filed with SCOTUS every year. They accept about 100.

This Orly Taitz person ought to be disbarred and put in jail if she keeps filing this bogus lawsuit. The identical lawsuit, just the parties are different, was dismissed by a federal judge a couple of weeks ago. Same evidence, same contentions. The same case that this stupid bitch keeps filing has now been dismissed by over a dozen different courts. She's a fucking disgrace and should be disbarred. She also ought to be forced to pay the government's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in every one of these frivolous lawsuits.

Disbarring is probably a bit much--I don't think you really want to set that as a normal "punishment" if you file a case that is unpopular, or that someone else deems stupid. But I do think hitting her with the full cost of the gov't's expences for those decided upon as frivolous is a perfectly reasonable response.

Unfortunately, without knowing her at all I am very confident she has only one real reasin for doing this: money. Do you know what it's worth in advertizing to be able to tell potential sue-crazy clients, "I was good enough to argue before the US Supreme Court"? When apealing to a lot of folks with $$$$ in their own eyes that attracts a LOT of clients (who are often too dumb to research whether you won, or whether the case had anything to do with theirs).

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Disbarring is probably a bit much--I don't think you really want to set that as a normal "punishment" if you file a case that is unpopular, or that someone else deems stupid. But I do think hitting her with the full cost of the gov't's expences for those decided upon as frivolous is a perfectly reasonable response.

Unfortunately, without knowing her at all I am very confident she has only one real reasin for doing this: money. Do you know what it's worth in advertizing to be able to tell potential sue-crazy clients, "I was good enough to argue before the US Supreme Court"? When apealing to a lot of folks with $$$$ in their own eyes that attracts a LOT of clients (who are often too dumb to research whether you won, or whether the case had anything to do with theirs).

I disagree. She's an officer of the court. Refiling the same case over and over, which is exactly what she does, after that case has been repeatedly dismissed as without merit by multiple different courts is an abuse of the judicial system. It's one thing to file a case once and get poured out by a court. It's something else entirely to continue to file the same case, over and over, in different courts around the country when that case has been repeatedly dismissed by every single court who has addressed it.

She's a drama whore and a shitbag. And, you are exactly correct, she does it for money and attention. And, by the way, she's never argued before the supreme court and she never will....as I indicated earlier in the thread, all she has done is file a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS. 99.9% of those writs are disposed of by the SCOTUS with a one-line order that says "Writ is denied" without any kind of hearing or oral argument. A clerk reads what was filed with the court and makes a recommendation to a 4 judge panel that convenes regularly to consider what cases the SCOTUS will accept. I assure you, Orly Taitz' case will not be one of those.

[Old-T]

Agree with most of what you say. But if it is returned as "Writ denied; you owe $8K" each time, it will probably self-correct pretty quickly.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by timpage

This Orly Taitz person ought to be disbarred and put in jail if she keeps filing this bogus lawsuit. The identical lawsuit, just the parties are different, was dismissed by a federal judge a couple of weeks ago.

Without knowing WHY it was dismissed, it is impossible to say whether the refiling was frivolous or not.

If it was dismissed for lack of standing, then refiling with new parties is perfectly reasonable.

Dismissal for lack of standing to sue says nothing whatsoever about the actual merits of the case. It just says that the Respondent's attorney convinced the judge that the Petitioner (the guy who filed the suit) did not in fact have a dog in the fight. You have to be harmed, or show real possibility of actual harm, before you can sue.

John Q Public doesn't have standing to challenge Barack Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. Hillary Rodham Clinton would have had standing, during the primary season four years ago. John McCain would certainly have had standing, after the conventions were over and Obama had been nominated. Mitt Romney would certainly have had standing after he'd been nominated.

The corollary is that, if someone files, and it is decided that he/she DOES have standing, then the case goes forward. That's when things get interesting.

What makes this interesting is that Obama's lawyers have successfully argued lack of standing to sue in all of the other cases, and gotten the cases dismissed immediately. This time around, that hasn't happened.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Without knowing WHY it was dismissed, it is impossible to say whether the refiling was frivolous or not.

If it was dismissed for lack of standing, then refiling with new parties is perfectly reasonable.

Dismissal for lack of standing to sue says nothing whatsoever about the actual merits of the case. It just says that the Respondent's attorney convinced the judge that the Petitioner (the guy who filed the suit) did not in fact have a dog in the fight. You have to be harmed, or show real possibility of actual harm, before you can sue.

John Q Public doesn't have standing to challenge Barack Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. Hillary Rodham Clinton would have had standing, during the primary season four years ago. John McCain would certainly have had standing, after the conventions were over and Obama had been nominated. Mitt Romney would certainly have had standing after he'd been nominated.

The corollary is that, if someone files, and it is decided that he/she DOES have standing, then the case goes forward. That's when things get interesting.

What makes this interesting is that Obama's lawyers have successfully argued lack of standing to sue in all of the other cases, and gotten the cases dismissed immediately. This time around, that hasn't happened.

Yeah, that would be interesting, I suppose, if there wasn't a right to appeal a dismissal for lack of standing. And, of course, there is...so, is that what this appeal is about? And how many chances do you get to refile with a new plaintiff? I haven't been able to find a exact number but she's had over a dozen cases thrown out by various courts. This last dismissal was some sort of application for an injunction. The judge, after hearing argument for an hour, concluded Taitz had no likelihood of success on the merits, told her that her argument "made no sense at all" and then dismissed the case.

I'd be interested to know your source for the statement that all of these cases have been dismissed based on FRCP 12(b)(1) motions or state-based pleas to the jurisdiction. Got a link?

Here's a news story on the injunction case. Doesn't sound like she lost based on standing. More like because she is nutty as a fruitcake and the judge recognized it.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/0...itz-knows.html