Main Menu

Cat Fight

“There ain’t enough room for two of us in this town…” seems to be the attitude from the Berg Camp as Linda Starr takes aim at Orly Taitz:

Orly Taitz is playing with serious fire when she starts messing with the military. She is going to get slapped down and very hard and I shudder to think what will happen to Easterling. She is encouraging his actions by agreeing to take this case. There are reasons why any active duty personnel suits will be struck down, and struck down as hard as possible because we are at war in two countries. It is her lack of experience practing [sic] law that is the problem. She should know better. Any lawyer with any experience in litigation or criminal prosecutions know better. Hell, I’m not an attorney and even I know better as a civilian! The government is going to come back on her. She does NOT know what she is doing and her actions prove it. Somebody better warn her she is playing with fire and is going to get burned BAD when this blows up into a bonfire in her face!!!…

The original of this article is no longer on the Internet at its former location.

,

24 Responses to Cat Fight

  1. avatar
    Cee Cee February 25, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    “Somebody better warn her she is playing with fire and is going to get burned BAD when this blows up into a bonfire in her face!!!…”

    Hello Linda Starr this is what we Obots(as you and the wingnut parade likes to call us) have been doing since this stupid nonsense of COLB been going on.

    I would also like for Linda to past that same message to Berg and remind herself to follow that advice. 😀

  2. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 25, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

    Berg’s camp is a funny one to be talking about how to practice law.

    Today’s new docket entry in Berg’s Hollister v. Soetoro suit:

    ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

    Instead of the opposition plaintiff was ordered to file
    by 2/13/09 (or defendants’ motion to dismiss would be granted as
    conceded, see [#10]), what plaintiff filed was (a) the affidavit
    of a paralegal (who works in the office of a Pennsylvania lawyer
    who has not been admitted to practice in this Court), complaining
    about her treatment by an employee of the Clerk’s Office, and
    (b) many blank pages, decorated only by what appear to be
    botanical drawings and the illegible photocopy of an Hawaiian
    certificate of live birth. (a) The affidavit was apparently
    intended as a response to my earlier observation that plaintiff’s
    motion to file interpleader was frivolous, see [#2], [#10], the
    argument being, “Maureen Higgins made me do it.” What was
    frivolous about the motion, however, was not the fact that it was
    filed, but the suggestion that “duties” could be filed in the
    registry of this court. (b) The blank pages were either
    somebody’s idea of a joke (in which case I don’t get it) or a
    mistake. If the latter, plaintiffs have until 5:00 pm EST on
    2/26/09 to correct it, by re-filing their points and authorities
    in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss (in the .pdf
    format required by the Court’s CM/EDF system), or otherwise to
    show cause why that motion should not now be granted as conceded.

    It is SO ORDERED.
    JAMES ROBERTSON
    United States District Judge
    Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 14 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 2 of 2

  3. avatar
    Angi February 26, 2009 at 12:59 am #

    Ah, but according to Miss Linda, it’s all a hoax.

  4. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 26, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    Linda Starr is also hinting at poaching….

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=582&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=100#p6309

    “Re: A Poll from “The Muster” at military.com
    by Linda Starr on Today, 05:31

    …You want to know the truth? I asked Phil tonight flat out if he’d help these people or not. Phil is reluctant to get involved with anyone who has been involved with Orly, but he said he’d do it to help these brave folks, if they needed his help. Now that’s big because when Phil commits, that’s huge. He doesn’t give up easily. I’d rather have Phil fighting for me than a whole team of expensive hot shot lawyers who don’t know my name, if you want the truth. Phil has more heart than a dozen bigshot lawyers put together. Yes, I have every confidence in Phil and Lisa. They are going to prevail.”

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=582&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=120#p6315

    Re: 02/25/2009 Daily Discussion Topics
    by Linda Starr on Today, 05:42

    My point exactly. And today I learned the military command has issued direct orders not to discuss Barry’s eligibility issues in public or with other military personnel, period. No if, and, or but. Orly’s gross negligence and irresponsible behavior is already a disaster. She’s committed a gross act of negligence to her own client. She hung him out to dry bympsting his comments and in doing so condemns him to prison, just to serve her own selfish agenda. if someone knows how to reach him, he needs to be advised to either get other legal representation, or RUN to call Phil before he is arrested. If he hasn’t already been arrested.
    I can’t believe Orly is so ignorant and irresponsible. I’m no lawyer and even I know better than to do this. This is gross negligence and malpractice.

    And if anyone knows legal ignorance and irresponsibility, it’s Linda Starr…..

  5. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill February 26, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    I’ve seen judges use language like this before. It usually follows a statement like

    “Plaintiff also makes the following allegations against the defendants. Former President Jimmy Carter was the secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill Clinton is the biological son of Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot have made fortunes in the death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the murder of at least 10 million black women in concentration camps, their bodies sold for meat and their skin turned into leather products.”

    The judge didn’t like that case, either.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    And today I learned the military command has issued direct orders not to discuss Barry’s eligibility issues in public or with other military personnel, period.

    And the orders are, of course, “top secret”.

  7. avatar
    kerok February 26, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Lt. Easterling seems comfortable with his decision.

    http://www.scotteasterling.blogspot.com

  8. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 26, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Is it just me, or is the obamacrimes.us link not working?

  9. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill February 26, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    Pretty sure that’s not him. Last I checked, the army had some pretty strict guidelines about blogging from a combat zone. To the extent that they’re actually capable of enforcing those rules, we would not be hearing from Lt. Easterling.

  10. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    I think it is him: If he thinks he’s going to be court martialed, some unauthorized blogging is really the least of his worries.

    But I do love the caption on his blog: “Misery stalks the unprepared.”

    Oh, the irony.

  11. avatar
    kerok February 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    According the Orly Taitz at defendourfreedoms.us, it is not Lt. Easterling.

    Sorry for the misinformation.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    Perhaps something temporary. It works for me now.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    I think Orly Taitz has now crossed the line, for just about everybody.

    Lame Cherry blog
    Natural Born Citizen
    Obama Crimes

  14. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill February 26, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    I just sent Donofrio the following comment:

    Leo Donofrio–

    I disagree with you on Obama’s eligibility, but I wanted to commend you for your statements on this matter. It is reckless to expose a client in the way that Orly has, and you can bet that any prosecutor at a court-martial will try to enter as evidence his lawyer’s headline on the matter.

    But that’s not why I’m here. Joseph F. Zygmunt suggests that in cults, when prophesied events do not turn out how they are expected, one of three things may happen: The prophet got some small details (like the time) wrong, the events took place, but we were unable to see them because they were on a different plane of existence, or (and here’s my point) they may blame internal or outside forces.

    Since Orly is claiming that her client won’t be court-martialed for her actions, that doesn’t leave her any room to be wrong on (1), and since the court takes place in this dimension, that leaves only one option:

    I’m here to suggest that you be aware that if things don’t go Orly’s way, she may come after you as a perceived threat to her. Not just by sending her readers out to spam your comments, but in some actual, more concrete ways.

    We’ll see if it shows up, but honestly, I just wanted him to see it. Donofrio may find himself the target of Orly’s suits. I don’t think it will or should deter him from saying what he’s saying, but I think it’s only fair to tell him what he can expect.

  15. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill February 26, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    You can fool all of the people some of the time.

    We’re accustomed to reading the NBC rumors through blogs, so we’d expect to find his own words on a blog.

    And the site was designed to fool people.

  16. avatar
    Bob February 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/26/1st-lt-scott-r-easterling-does-not-have-a-blog.aspx

    I love this part: “Impersonating a military officer is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 912, which states that is illegal for a person to falsely assumes or pretend to be an officer of any department of the United States and while doing so, either act as an officer or obtain any money because of it” (emphasis added).

    So there’s no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, and then there’s that pesky First Amendment….

  17. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    I’ll update Hollister with today’s order.

    The judge was complaining that he had gotten a bunch of blank pages, instead of an opposition brief.

    The thing is, I could download and read Berg’s timely filed opposition brief, so it seemed to me there was a technical glitch in the court.

    And indeed… today….

    ORDER

    Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss
    [#13] was illegible on most of the Court’s computers, as was
    plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause [#15],
    because plaintiff filed documents scanned with resolutions so
    fine that they overwhelmed the Court’s CM/ECF system. On the
    Court’s website, go to ECF Filing Pointers and then to Attorney’s
    Checklist, for instructions. The Court’s order to show cause
    [#14] is discharged.

    JAMES ROBERTSON
    United States District Judge

  18. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm #

    But I should add that the opposition brief is a loser.

    The motion to dismiss cogently argues that Hollister’s claim of not being able to resolve his “duty” (the res of the interpleader) is hypothetical, since Hollister has not been recalled to duty.

    The opposition brief pretty much says “Yes, but IF he were recalled to duty, he’d have a problem.”

    In other words, the opposition brief fails to establish how the hypothetical harm creates a case or controversy.

    And that is aside from the judge’s already expressed skepticism concerning the merit of this case as an interpleader action.

    I will say, though, that the Berg camp does a good job of disguising the substance here as a dispute with the court clerk. And by that I mean a good job of disguising it to their camp followers. He’s not fooling this judge, though.

  19. avatar
    Mike February 26, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Wow… That is just chock full of the stupid.

    And I love how he frames in terms of concern about the soldiers – “Well, I would join this losing suit and make myself look an even bigger fool than I already did, but won’t someone please think of the children military?”

  20. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill February 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    The motion to dismiss cogently argues that Hollister’s claim of not being able to resolve his “duty” (the res of the interpleader) is hypothetical, since Hollister has not been recalled to duty.

    The opposition brief pretty much says “Yes, but IF he were recalled to duty, he’d have a problem.”

    In fact, you have to look no further than Roe v. Wade to see that these hypotheticals are not welcomed by judges.

  21. avatar
    kerok February 26, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Paraphrasing from Hollister’s amended complaint …

    Not only does Hollister have a duty to answer a recall, but a duty to defend the Constitution against all enemies and a duty to disobey certain unlawful orders.

    An usurper CiC when the country is at war is certainly an enemy and constructs a Constitutional crisis. And Hollister has a duty to reject a recall order from a usurper.

    The Court can competely resolve the controversy by having Soetoro present credentials many Americans routinely demonstrate throughout their lives.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    Having spent the first three days of this week in a birth certificate issuing office (I do work in this industry for a living), I will tell you that the computer certification of live birth that Obama posted on his web site and gave to independent witnesses who photographed it up close, is exactly the “credentials many Americans routinely demonstrate throughout their lives”.