How many times does one have to file an Amicus Brief before getting it right, especially when the Court has yet to grant leave.
11/27/2009 INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY -DISREGARDCORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217860] filed by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/27/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]–[Edited 11/30/2009 by LMF]
11/30/2009 Open Document CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958] filed by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/28/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]

Note: This is a case where Orly was helping Charles Lincoln with some of his foreclosure issues. She previously filed a statement with the Court that she had not signed various submissions to the Court.

11/25/2009 25 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Orly Taitz. (non-party to case) (cqs) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

MARSHA G. RIVERNIDER;
ROBERT H. RIVERNIDER; AND
CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN,III,
Vs.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
As Trustee for the C-bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, series 2006- CBS, and all JOHN & Jane DOES 1-10,
Defendants

Case No.: 09-81255-civ

DIMITROULEAS

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Continue reading »

Ouch.. Judge Carter does not need to hear oral arguments to decide on the motion for reconsideration, hearing removed from calendar…
11/30/2009 99[RECAP] MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: taking under advisement 90Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set December 7, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. is removed from the calendar. Parties will be served with the Courts ruling. (ade) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

PlainJane commented

These clowns make the clintons’s and the rose law firm billing records look like amatures…. this off the wire.

When would scientists expecting the world to take them seriously throw out the raw data on which their conclusions are based? Probably at the same time that they e-mail each other to launch professional vendettas against skeptics and conspire to hide contradictory data. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — already in a deep scandal over the e-mails released by either a hacker or a whistleblower that shows highly unscientific behavior behind the scenes — now admits they threw out the raw data on which much of their theories on anthropogenic global warming are based (via Fausta):
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Keep drinkin’ that kool-aid obamma critters.

Now let’s look at the known facts.

Continue reading »

Source: CRU

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years.  We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements.  Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

Continue reading »

Orly has written another fascinating posting

Tampering with docket-Important

Posted on | November 30, 2009 | No Comments

this letter was sent to Judge Carter by a concerned citizen on 10.26.09. It showed how a party, believed to be an attorney from a large prestigious law firm has doctored the docket of my case in front of judge Carter in order to poison the public opinion and poison the jury pool. I cannot confirm the findings. The party asked to be anonymous as much as possible, therefore I don’t provide his name as the moment. He has sent a copy of his letter to FBI. Since the letter came out on the 10.26.09., it should have been received by judge Carer on 10.27.09. What happened? Why did judge Carter’s order on 10.29.09. included baseless slander and defamation of my character which was made by convicted forgers and felons without an opportunity to respond on my part, while on the other hand there was no mention of such serious allegations and evidence of doctoring the docket and evidence, reportedly done by an attorney? Did judge Carter know about this letter? Did he burry it? Or was the letter burried by the clerks and never shown to judge Carter? Why didn’t FBI do a thing after this report? My clients and I are waiting for answers and action to remedy this travesty.

The letter in question outlines an accusation against a poster named Nolu Chan who presented a marked-up document based on Orly’s 88-2 filing to show that the links in the sidebar disproved Orly’s assertions in DOC 88-2

DOC 88-2 Keyes v Obama – Exhibit A – AP Newswire Re Obama Kenyan Born

BELOW is a copy of DOC 88-2 with the sidebar linked pages appended. I used the PDF as submitted to the Court by Orly and appended the links using Adobe Acrobat. The page purported archived on June 27, 2004 shows links to pages from future dates.

DOC 88-2 Keyes v Obama – Exhibit A – With Sidebar Links Appended by nolu chan

You cannot make up this stuff. I wonder how patient Judge Carter will be…

With a larger version to show the temperature trends (click to enlarge). Note how the variation is well within what has been observed in the past?

Year-to-year differences in global average temperatures are unimportant in evaluating long-term climate trends. During the warming observed over the 20th century, individual years lie above or below the long-term trend line due to internal climate variability (like 1998); this is a normal and natural phenomenon. For example, in 2008 a La Niña occurred, a climate pattern which naturally causes a temporary dip in the average global temperature. At the same time, solar output was also at its lowest level of the satellite era, another temporary cooling influence. Without anthropogenic warming these two factors should have resulted in the 2008 temperature being among the coolest in the instrumental era, while in fact 2008 was the 9th warmest on record. This underpins the strong greenhouse warming that has occurred in the atmosphere over the past century. The most recent ten-year period is warmer than the previous ten-year period, and the longer-term warming trend is clear and unambiguous (Figure 3).

Seems that Orly was too late to file the civil appeal statement and her motion to file for stay was also late.

Date Motion Party Emergency
11/17/2009 Motion for Leave to File Civil Appeal Statement Out of Time: (Atty: Jonathan Harris Levy) Orly Taitz
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY
RCHO STA MARG, CA 92688-3616
(949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 766-7036
drtaitz@yahoo.com
No
11/20/2009 Motion to Stay Lower Court Action Pending Appeal: (Atty: Jonathan Harris Levy) Orly Taitz
29839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWY
RCHO STA MARG, CA 92688-3616
(949) 683-5411
Fax: (949) 766-7036
drtaitz@yahoo.com
No

With the latest dismissal of Cook v Good, the batting average has improved to 0.000…

See BIRTHER CASE LIST (PDF).

Continue reading »

Oops.. Orly dropped another one… So far unconfirmed

The docket was confirmed by the 11th Circuit Court clerk. Yeah…. Pacer for the 11th Circuit is also online but requires IE, otherwise you get stuck in an eternal logon cycle.

09-14698-CC Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good

09-14698-CC
Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good

Closed
Docket #: 09-14698-CC
Short Style: Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good
Docket Date: 09/18/2009
Lead Case:
Agency:
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Misc. Type:
Clerk: Dixon, Eleanor
Clerk Phone: (404) 335-6172

Continue reading »