Thursday, July 8, 2010

Orly!

A little Googling of text in this SF Examiner story reveals what may be the whole of Orly's latest filing. For starters:
1. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

2. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?

3. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?

4. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?

5. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

6. Can the courts indefinitely evade the issue of eligibility of US president, while endangering the well-being of the public?

7. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?

8. What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?
Also:
Taitz was born and raised in the Communist totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, where no one single attorney was ever able to get a judgment against the Soviet Rulers and the regime. No Constitutional attorney was able to uphold any Constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, as those rights were routinely violated by the regime and the judiciary. It didn’t mean that the legal actions by the Constitutional attorneys were frivolous. It simply meant that the whole country descended in the darkness of tyranny. Similarly, allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?” This is the most dangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and not having a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.
If Orly gets a fine, that is the beginning of tyranny. It's like having a $20000 cake and eating it too.

We await Squeeky at the OC Register.

20 comments:

Rusty Shackleford said...

The answer to all those questions, including no. 8, is "yes."

mikey said...

"Tyranny".

The latest word from which illiterate lunatics from the political right have decided to forcibly extract all possible meaning, leaving it to stand in incoherent representation of all their ill-formed, nebulous unhappiness with any given political, legislative or judicial outcome.

They should not be allowed to so savagely rape innocent english language words with specific meanings listed in books called 'dictionaries', which have historically acted as the arbiters of the meaning of words. But ever since these thugs discovered that they could change the definition of the perfectly utilitarian word "liberal" to mean "horrific subhuman creature of no redeeming qualities and a hatred for all that is good and pure and right" there's been no stopping them...

Rusty Shackleford said...

The English language, if it must be raped at all, should be raped tenderly.

mikey said...

Y'know, Shackleford, if that's your real name, my exciting use of clarifying adjectives should not be so brutally dismissed by thoughtless people of dubious respectability such as your unwashed self. It clearly seems utterly logical for an intelligent commenter of immeasurable importance to appropriately recognize the relative savagery of a given assault...

Substance McGravitas said...

I call treason on Rusty AND mikey!

J Neo Marvin said...

But ever since these thugs discovered that they could change the definition of the perfectly utilitarian word "liberal" to mean "horrific subhuman creature of no redeeming qualities and a hatred for all that is good and pure and right" there's been no stopping them...

That was amateur stuff. Now they've moved on to "progressive" meaning "part of a monmstrous all-encompassing 100 year old conspiracy to destroy all that is clean and good and decent" and the very useful concept "Overton Window" now essentially meaning "Don't tease the panther." Yes, it is fucking infuriating, especially for anyone who loves the English language.

J Neo Marvin said...

And before you ask, "monmstrous" was not my capcha.

Another Kiwi said...

Words have meaning, you know. I read that at Bug Eyed Hollywood

ckc (not kc) said...

...most importantly, what's the difference between (among?) Civil Rights, Civil rights, civil Rights, and civil rights? (my friend wants to know what to ask for)

Rusty Shackleford said...

Adjectivism: Aly is Aly

Rusty Shackleford said...

Fuck, no it isn't. That would be Adverbism and thus NO JOKE HAS OCCURRED

ckc (not kc) said...

NO JOKE HAS OCCURRED

it's the Hound of the Baskervilles all over again!

ckc (not kc) said...

(to be confused with Silver Blaze)

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

The joke that didn't Bork.
~

mikey said...

See, I always thought that was CIVIT rights.

Couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Dammit...

Another Kiwi said...

The right to poop coffee beans? Hell anything less is Trarrny!!

Smut Clyde said...

the Hound of the Baskervilles

Don't blame me if you get tigris started on the typography jokes.

Smut Clyde said...

Orly flight
Madrid tonight
Close the door
On the last floor

Close the flight
Prepare your sight
As if you'd never
Seen the light

Understand
The fortune spent
This crazy crime
Has no regret

Understand
The fortune spent
Conceal your pain
Conceal your pride

Smut Clyde said...

Sounds better in Nico's voice, but this is true of most things.

Smut Clyde said...

Also, I am impressed by Ms Taitz's concerns that a purely intra-military system of justice cannot be trusted to respect the constitutional rights of the defendants, but I would be even more impressed if her concern had been aroused earlier by the plight of people in Guantanamo Bay.