Taitz Files Emergency Stay and Motion for Rehearing

The Post and Email ^ | 9/17/09 | John Charlton

[Red Steel]

So the judge is going to outwardly biased in his decisions now? I’m sure the guy has thicker skin than you give him credit for.

[Non-Sequitur]

I’m beginning to think that Taitz is the second coming of Larry Klayman.

Larry Klayman is the reincarnation of John Marshall by comparison.

[Red Steel]

And it about takes about two seconds to correct.

[little jeremiah]

No, your reasoning is wrong. Here is the clue, penned by the wise C.S. Lewis:

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. (Without courage, all the other virtues are merely theoretical, and indeed, useless.)

[Lurking Libertarian]

Courage!= stupidity.

[little jeremiah]

Courage equals stupidity.

Okay, now I understand you.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Courage equals stupidity. Okay, now I understand you.

No, I said courage does not equal stupidity. (!= is algebraic for "does not equal).

[Fred Nerks]

Disbarred? It puts the judges misconduct at issue...

And the more of that, the better! She's a very brave woman!

[little jeremiah]

Okay, good. I don’t know algebra.

[Robert DeLong]

Well we better get over it, and soon.

[Non-Sequitur]

Get a load of this:

Letter from Captain Rhodes denying she gave Taitz approval to file another TRO

[Sibre Fan]

And this: Order Denying Motion to Stay; Issuing Show Cause Order Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed.

[pissant]

Saw it. Sounds like she sandbagged Taitz a bit. Complaining that her original filing was full of conjecture? Please. Nevertheless, if Taitz filed w/o talking to her about it, that would seem pretty stoopid.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Nevertheless, if Taitz filed w/o talking to her about it, that would seem pretty stoopid.

If you look up "pretty stoopid" in the dictionary, I think you find a picture of Orly Taitz.

[pissant]

Might be stupid, but I believe it to be within her purview to do so.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Might be stupid, but I believe it to be within her purview to do so.

To file a motion without her client's permission, in which she accuses a federal judge of treason? Sorry, not within her purview.

[pissant]

She accused him of treason in her filing? LOL. You are believing the good judges nonsense.

[Sibre Fan]

She accused him of treason in her filing? LOL. You are believing the good judges nonsense.

From her Brief: Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court.

[pissant]

Did she accuse the judge of advocating her to breach her clients oath?

[Sibre Fan]

Yes - if you read the brief in context. And, I’m sure you know of her published comments in which she directly states that Judge Land should be tried for treason. Both publicly and in these papers, she has accused Judge Land of committing treason.