It is obvious here that you are referring to Taitz’s filing this stay to SCOTUS. It still would not have mattered to you if it was written by another attorney as you would have said the same thing or a similar derision. I've seen enough of your postings to know.”
No, I'm referring to the amateurish, grossly vulgar (from a technical legal perspective) nature of the argument being made. She has learned nothing from this experience, unless the whole point of this exercise is to sell “the book” at $100 a pop. Even then, it is badly overdone.
“I disagree. As an example, there is truth to this comment that Orly has stated.
It was not a case of anything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay S. Land to silence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US military challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. “
No, there is no truth there. If you understand the law, her behavior in Land's court was grossly improper and a sanction would be expected. It would happen to anyone on any case who behaved in that manner.
“Obama is illegitimate and the courts are evading the Obama eligibility issue. These sanctions by judges are used to intimidate lawyers who bring the issue to the courts. The truth of the matter is that these judges are afraid as school children to see Obama eligibility cases on the merits. They hide behind the made up court doctrine of standing as a technicality. This issue is a singular issue that is unique to the presidency that should be heard by the courts.”
That is simply the delusion of someone unfamiliar with the law and how it works. As noted above, there is nothing unusual about sanctions for the behavior Taitz demonstrated. And if you think standing is simply a technicality, again, you are uninformed about how the law works. I can't convince you that you're wrong, but that attitude and approach does have zero chance of success in the courts. That's been rather amply demonstrated to date.
“Because it was written by her doesn't make it ‘insane’”
No, the identity of the person who wrote it doesn't make it insane. It's the actual content that makes it insane. However, at this point, there seems to be a historical correlation between Orly's authorship and outlandish briefs.
Oh, I've got a good idea about how it works. This isn't rocket science - hell 'rocket science' to me is not rocket science.
I never said it was a "simple" technicality, but it is used rightly or wrongly to block seeing cases on the merits, and judges being imperfect beings, will fall to their own human frailties.
From the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law school:
"STANDING
Among the essential elements of what the Court considers a case or controversy is an injured plaintiff. The requirement that a plaintiff show that he or she has suffered "injury in fact" is a key requirement of the Court's doctrine of standing. (Note: Since standing is necessary to establish jurisdiction, courts will undertake to examine the issue even if not raised by either of the parties.)
Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. "
And
"Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened.
The standing doctrine consists both of constitutionally-derived rules and judicially-created gatekeeping ("prudential") rules.
The Court has found Article III to require that plaintiffs demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision.
Standing has been an issue when taxpayers have challenged expenditures of general tax revenues. In 1923, in Frothingham v Mellon, the Court announced that a taxpayer's mere ideological opposition to an alleged illegal expenditure of federal tax revenue failed to provide a sufficient basis for standing. In Flast v Cohen (1968), however, the Court found that Florene Flast had standing as a taxpayer to challenge as a unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power the use of federal dollars to pay for instructional materials in religious schools."
-end snip-
In the recent proverbial words of that learn'ed X-judge Alcee Hastings, who like a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile and in a candid moment said, ‘We Make Up The Rules,’ or other words, it could be said, We just sh*& up.