Cook v Good – Appeal – Motion to Dismiss explored
Buterfly Bilderberg on Politijab explains how Orly was five weeks late in filing her motion for reconsideration.
Orly quotes the rule for reconsideration (Circuit Rule 42-3(e)), which specifically states that a motion for reinstatement will be entertained “upon the timely filing of a motion to set aside the dismissal and remedy the default showing extraordinary circumstances” and that a timely filing is one which is filed “within 14 days of the date the clerk enters the order dismissing the appeal.” The order dismissing the appeal was entered on November 24, 2009, therefore Orly’s motion for reinstatement was due no later than December 14, 2009 (a Monday — Orly actually had 15 days). In this motion for reconsideration, Orly admits that “Appellant filed a compliant brief on January 21, 2010” — IOW, five weeks late — and then complains that “inexplicably, the Motion to reinstate was denied with no reason provided.” DUH!
As to Orly’s claim that she was not allowed in a timely fashion to apply for Pro Hac Vice statutes…
As to Orly’s claim that she “could not prosecute any earlier as her pro huc vice [sic] request was not granted earlier,” such contention is pure bullshit. In the Eleventh Circuit all that was necessary for her to be admitted pro hac vice was (1) to be a member of the bar of California, (2) provide a recent certificate of good standing from the Supreme Court of California, and (3) enclose the $170 admission fee made payable to “Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.” On the form for admission to the Eleventh Circuit:
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 46(a), to qualify for admission you must be a member in good standing of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, another U.S. Court of Appeals, a U.S. District Court, or the highest court of any state. You must attach to this application (1) a certificate of good standing issued within the previous six months from one of the courts described above, and (2) a list of all state and federal bars of which you are a member, including state bar numbers, and your status with each bar (e.g., active, inactive, retired, etc.). See 11th Cir. R. 46-7.The fact is, Orly failed to make her application for pro hac vice admission until it was too late. This does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” by any stretch of the imagination.
I think she was waiting for her flying monkeys to hit the paypal button before she filed the $170 dollar fee.
She really is on another planet…
I would think that the Flying Monkeys should be getting tapped out by this scandalous rouge-ette shortly. As she goes further away from the land of sanity, only the truly insane will follow. This should automatically sort the really hard core nutters from the p-nut butter crowd.
There’s no Fool like a Birfer Fool®
It also sounds like she should have actually gone through the process of signing on a local lawyer instead of applying for and allowing the judge to let her violate the rules from the beginning. This may be a case where Oily’s incompetency ended up shutting the door on her future. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Sometimes it looks like – when you set out to hang yourself before the case is finished, the judge just gives you enough rope to do the job without making too much of a spectacle of yourself. Unless of course your point is to be the spectacle. That behavior has never worked well in a court of law, but Oily hasn’t figured that one out yet.
Additionally, Oily put the rush on to hear/process these cases in a rapid/emergency manner then gets offended when this is done. She obviously wasn’t prepared as her blind hatred for our Black Christian President, and gross incompetence (give me a sec – I think we can come up with 144 errors) had shielded her from the actual truth about the garbage which she spews so liberally.
She just can’t seem to fathom that you need real evidence not smoke, mirrors, and various piles of bullshit that are cluttering up her case.
It looks as though she did not even file her application for pro hac vice until December 1, 2009, two weeks after the opening brief was due. So I’m not sure how that explains her failure to either file the appellant’s opening brief or request an extension.