The 2012 election lawsuit, Grinols v. Electoral College, is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court granted the request of Taitz to file an oversized reply brief of 7,697 words. and now the oral arguments are scheduled for October 20.
Taitz is asking for her supporters to show up: “Please, come to the October 20 hearing in San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to show us support. It is extremely hard to stand and fight the ruling mafia.” There is some speculation that the oral arguments will not actually take place, so keep that in mind when booking non-refundable accommodations. I dearly love San Francisco, but October is a busy month for me, and I will not be attending.
I don’t see the Taitz’ Reply in the Court’s electronic system, except for a note that it was filed last April; however, there is a document at Scribd that looks like part of it. Taitz doesn’t seem to understand this appeals thing, since she has piled on all of her allegations and evidence, accreted since the beginning of time, which will not be addressed by the Court.
For reference:
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-16359
Docketed: 07/03/2013Nature of Suit: 2441 Civil Rights Voting
James Grinols, et al v. Electoral College, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Read more:
- Appellant’s Opening Brief – Taitz
- Answering Brief – Federal Defendants
- Answering Brief – State Defendants
Taitz has now gone full circle and is right back where she started. It should be remembered that it was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (this very same court), that was the first court to tell Taitz that US Courts had no jurisdiction in this matter back in 2009. I believe it was Justice David O’Carter who delivered the opinion. O’Carter was the Judge that Taitz at the time claimed was a former Marine and a stand up guy and therefore sympathetic to the Birther cause.
The 9th Circuit or as Rush Limbaugh calls it the “9th Circus”, is the most liberal court in all the US and will no doubt repeat what they said in 2009, specifically that US Courts do not have jurisdiction over this matter and that the only court that could ever have jurisdiction over this matter would be a court created by Congress with the special purpose of dealing with this matter specifically the Senate Judiciary.
[David O. Carter is the district court judge in Taitz’ first big lawsuit in California. Doc.]
The 9th Circuit said nothing in Taitz’s previous case (Drake v. Obama) about Congress creating a special court or the Senate Judiciary Committee; that’s just crazy talk.
But conclusion is ultimately correct: The 9th Circuit will cite Drake heavily and affirm the district court’s dismissal. And not because the 9th is “the most liberal court” but because that is what the U.S. Constitution requires.
I see from similar comments on BR that “Senate Judiciary” is not a reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but rather is an obtuse reference to impeachment (by the House) and removal (following a trial in the Senate). Which is what the 9th did say: only Congress can remove a sitting president.
Oh, I do so love it when Orly sets herself up for soul crushing disappointment!
How to play The Orly Taitz drinking game:
Step 1.) Take a half-a-shot* every time Orly Taitz loses a court case, or has a case denied/thrown out.
Step 2.) Quickly find a liver donor.
*Originally a full shot was prescribed, but players kept dying from alcohol poisoning.
Which raises two questions:
1. Why on earth would any judge authorize Taitz to dump the product of her loony logorrhea on a busy court?
2. Will Orly get sanctioned this time for her multiple failures to properly redact SSNs and other personal info in her zibbits?
I like it. If I may offer an addition –
Any time Orly says, “Let me feeeenish!”, everyone takes a drink. 🙂
For the record, there are currently 29 active judges on the 9th Circuit bench. 20 were appointed by Democrat presidents and 9 by Republicans. Bill Clinton appointed 11 and Barack Obama appointed 7 of the current judges.
The limit is 7000 words; 10 percent over. Sounds like too much hassle to not grant it. (And it is usually a decision made by staff, not a judge.)
Very doubtful.
Senior judges can (and often do) hear appeals. And occasionally judges from other courts sit by designation and hear appeals.
Among the Senior Judges for the Ninth Circuit, there are two Nixon Judges, five Carter Judges, three Reagan Judges, two Bush #41 judges, and three Clinton judges.
And the margin gets even smaller when you consider that many of the groups of letters included in her writings are not actually “words”. So, technically, she might even be under the limit 😉