Why? To add the sick, Sick, SICK assertion that the child’s death was some sort of Obama family ritual satanic murder to the Orly repertoire. This child has parents. Orly have you no decency left as a mother or has your obsession with destroying President Obama consumed you totally?

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

In a desperate gamble against incredible odds, crusading nobot lawyer, Orly Taitz, already rejected by her client, presses on by filing an appeal of her $20,000 sanction by federal judge Clay Land in Georgia.

Having her lawsuit, Rhodes v. MacDonald, identified as “frivolous”, the unrepentant Taitz is now filing a frivolous appeal with the Circuit court  of appeals. Perhaps mail order lawyer Taitz is unaware that not only are there rules against filing frivolous lawsuits, there are also rules against filing frivolous appeals.

RULE 38. Frivolous Appeals–Damages and Costs

If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

Uh-oh.

What is her argument? Bias by the judge. What is the proof the judge was biased? He didn’t rule her way. She actually wrote:

…the court proved its pervasively  extreme and outrageous (extrajudicial) prejudice and bias against the undersigned [yes, she remembered to sign it] counsel by not only denying her Motion to Recuse but also her Motion for Extension of Time to Respond… [citations omitted, emphasis in original]

And here it is, the whole notice for your r0tten vegetable throwing pleasure:

RHODES v MacDONALD – 29 – NOTICE OF APPEAL – Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.29.0

The New England clergy…  accused him [the President] of conspiring to ban Christianity and terrorize its adherents.

Oh, did I mention that the president being mentioned was Thomas Jefferson?

Nothing going on here. Move along.

IMPORTANT: IMPORTANT NOTICE OF REDACTION RESPONSIBILITY: All filers must redact: Social Security or taxpayer-identification numbers; dates of birth; names of minor children; financial account numbers; and, in criminal cases, home addresses, in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9037. This requirement applies to all documents, including attachments.

Birther lawyer (and I use the term loosely) Orly Taitz filed documents with the US District Court for the Central District of California with some of her nutty Social Security number stuff. However, instead of fully obliterating the Social Security numbers of one innocent victim from Connecticut, her scanned images clearly expose the number along with the fellow’s name and a date of birth for which there was no attempt to obscure.

Orly the Inept, however, miscategorized her filing, and so received a notice of deficiency from the court. So given the opportunity to correct her failure, what does Orly do? Files the same thing again.

Also included in Orly’s filing was the Social Security of a deceased person, something that is public information. I will show that following in order to demonstrate the sloppy redaction.

042-68-4424

A major sign of hope is embodied in Obama’s personal background as a product of at least three civilisations (American, African and Islam), with a wider multiculturalism in Indonesia, when he was a child, and in Hawaii, where he was born and spent much of his childhood.

Speculation abounds about how the birthers found this obscure article which doesn’t appear to be on any search engine, and it has been suggested that the article is a fake; but that’s not likely. More likely is the fact that Barack Obama (the President’s father) was born in Kenya just led to a little confusion. I mean after all, if folks today can’t find a shred of evidence to support the crazy idea the President was born in Kenya today, how could a newspaper back in 2004 have found anything (particularly when the article was just a small Kenya-twist embellishment on an AP story).

Oh, you say, there is a great conspiratorial cover-up of the evidence? Sure, OK. [Obot1 backs away slowly, making no sudden moves.]

Taitz with fake birth certificate in Columbus, GA

In an article in the Columbus Georgia Ledger-Enquirer newspaper, local lawyer William Mason called Orly Taitz “nuts”.

“She’s nuts,” Mason said. “Based on what I saw and read, she’s nuts.” … “First of all, a lawyer has an ethical duty not to advance an argument that either you know is not true or you do not have an honest basis to argue,” Martin said. “She’s the type of person who gives lawyers a bad name.”

That reminds me of what attorney and CNN legal affairs consultant Jeffrey Toobin said about an earlier round of birther lawsuits, way back in 2008: “whack-job”, “total bull”.

The Ledger-Enquirer has had some great coverage of the Rhodes v MacDonald lawsuit in their home town.

GA Federal Court

Christmas came early this year for the Obots. In a 43-page order, Judge Land in Georgia raked birther lawyer Orly Taitz over the coals. But not only did he excoriate her and sanction her, he included the following cherry on top of the Obot ice cream sundae:

The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.

Court to California Bar: You have a problem. Deal with it!

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

Oh dear, poor little Orly. The big bad old judge has sanctioned you to the tune of $20,000. But think of it as a learning experience. You really have to learn some respect for the legal profession that you are trying to be a part of.

Read federal Judge Land’s scathing order here. The judge called your contentions “laughable”, your claims “frivolous” and your allegations “fictitious”!

You have 30 days to pay up the $20,000. Better get filling those teeth because I don’t think you have any future in the legal field.

Impeach!

The NoBots have been busy trying to redefine “natural born citizen” by denying that it comes to us from the British Common Law.  But now GOP operative Floyd Brown, in an article in WorldNetDaily has been busy trying to redefine the British Common law itself , this time the definition of “impeachment”.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law well-known to our Founding Fathers, but grossly misunderstood in this day and age. “High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior….

Go read the article yourself. I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP. The article goes on to say:

In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which include: gross incompetence, negligence and distasteful behavior.

For those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act….

Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn’t up to the job.

I see this as proof of the low regard the birther leaders have for their followers. They think they  are idiots–complete idiots. Personally, I think it’s time to impeach Floyd Brown, Rush Limbaugh, WorldNetDaily and the whole bunch for “distasteful behavior” and “public stupidity”.