Barnett v Obama: Appellants' Opening Brief, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

9th Circuit Court of Appeals ^ | 08/06/2010 | Orly Tatiz

[RowdyFFC]

Oh, too cute, Abu Tex-Con-Man...

[RowdyFFC]

No, they’re not, they’re vile insults from a bunch of chest beating misogynists just like the ones they threw at the woman before they cut her nose off, or the one they buried and stoned because she couldn’t find four male scab witnesses that would fess up.

[Mr Rogers]

Your hero is a damned idiot who shames the birther movement. She has no business ever stepping foot in a courtroom since she has no clue. A stream of consciousness blather is NOT a legal brief.

And if you think the above is equivalent of cutting someone’s nose off, you are an idiot as well.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Like a morbid curiosity at a car accident, I find myself wondering how does the dental chair sex figure into his lawsuit?

It doesn't really; Lincoln was trying to embarass Orly and get her in trouble with her husband. But Orly was nuts to hire a convicted felon as her de-facto law partner, so I have little sympathy for her.

[jamese777]

It doesn’t really; Lincoln was trying to embarass Orly and get her in trouble with her husband. But Orly was nuts to hire a convicted felon as her de-facto law partner, so I have little sympathy for her.

---

In my gut, I believe Orly Taitz to be an Obama false flag operation. She is so successful at poisoning the well for other legitimate attorneys through the precedents she sets. Her latest filing is full of misspelled words and tortured grammar and anyone who pisses off as many judges as she does deserves to be disbarred for that alone.
When an attorney pursuing a case calls the judge “a traitor” it makes it unlikely the judge is going to rule favorably on that attorney’s behalf.

As Judge Carter said of Orly: “Plaintiffs (Orly) have encouraged the Court to ignore the mandates of the Constitution; to ignore the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people,” over sixty-nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of the Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett et. al. v Obama, et. al. 10/29/09