The point is that when you are making an argument in court you need to conform to the rules (both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of the district court you are in). It's not a trivial point. You want your argument to stand out - by submitting an unfocused, non-conforming series of pleadings and drawing more attention to herself then to her arguments - she weakens her position. I have seen her cite dynamic websites by referencing the URL, as evidence. What's next - Wikipedia? The attached document in this latest effort (the reference to Equatorial Guinea) is no better than that. As evidence, on its face it has no more credibility than a Wikipedia entry.
Fine, so you have filed briefs in that court...so why aren’t you getting off your behind and helping her? If you are correct, then where are all the other big brave lawyers in the US? Or could it be that you’re just spouting off off?
BY THE WAY, the USURPERS briefs made mention of his ONLINE PRESENTATION as his already having provided proof.
Then you must know that a Hawaiian official who makes an out of court statement that they have seen the document and it is accurate IS hearsay, and violates the best evidence rule.
That doesnt negate citing Wiki (Phil Berg did it too, and I found that to be comical and it detracted from his credibility too) but the main point of these lawsuits is to compel production of the long form BC, and not rely on hearsay statements from govt. quasimodos as to what the document purports to say.
Let me ask you a questions.
You are saying Orly isn’t filing briefs correctly; that her use of evidence gathered from online websites lessens her position.
Both The Justice Department and attorneys on Obama’s payroll have filed briefs, citing websites that claim to have in their possession Obama’s authentic birth certificate.
How does the use of a website by Orly diminish her cause while the use of a website by Obama’s defense team strengthen their case?
I also question why judges; who have dismissed eligibility cases from various lawyers, have referenced “fight the smears” or other websites as a reason for dismissal.
Btw...I’m not being a smart ass asking this question, I’ve wondered for a while why so many people object to Orly using websites in her briefs when Obama’s team does the exact same thing.
You know, after reading all of her pleadings, I believe she did cite Wikipedia at some point. Perhaps in the GA case, IIRC.