Main Menu

Orly’s monumental incompetence

ineptI’ve written before on these pages in the article Alan Keyes Needs a Good Lawyer about how Dentist-cum-Correspondence School lawyer, Orly Taitz, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Alan Keyes in the Central District of California federal court, that was based on a totally inapplicable executive order signed by George Bush in the final days of his administration.

That lawsuit was filed on January 20. While Orly has been scooting around the country visiting Washington, DC, stalking Supreme Court justices in Moscow (Idaho), making YouTube videos, harassing the FBI, blathering on radio shows, and at tea parties, she hasn’t bothered to take care of one important piece of business: serving President Obama with the lawsuit.

There was an anecdote on her former blog about an untrained volunteer attempting to serve the papers a full 20 days after the suit was filed. But to date, almost 90 day after the suit was filed, there is still no notice of service filed with the court. According to federal court rules, in another 35 days, the suit will be automatically dismissed for lack of service.

Given the lack of a snowball’s chance in hell of the suit going anywhere, perhaps failing to serve the papers is the easiest way out (while keeping open the opportunity to lay the blame on somebody else).

Ah, but you, true patriots in the tradition of Orly, can help her, let her know of the impending demise of her lawsuit. You can save everything! Go! Plead with her!

, , ,

28 Responses to Orly’s monumental incompetence

  1. avatar
    Bob Weber April 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    Correct me if I’m wrong, anyone, but I believe that Orly has never actually tried a case. IIRC that correspondence law school was intended mainly for business law where lots of practitioners never ever go to trial.

    IMHO, Orly is crazy and incompetent while Berg is opportunistic but incompetent (he’s been sanctioned previously for a “laundry list of unethical actions”:
    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263

    Berg, I think, is smart enough to realize that he hasn’t any case, which is why he blew off the opportunity afforded by Judge Robertson to outline his case re Hollister v. Soetoro in open court. If he had anything, he should have jumped at the chance. What a chance for media coverage! But since he hasn’t anything, there was no point in making a fool of himself and being exposed to legal risks.

    OTOH, I think Orly just doesn’t know what she’s doing. Same with Kreep, who can’t even serve a subpoena in accordance with the California civil procedures code.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    There were indications that Orly represented family members in some local cases. Kreep, based on what I’ve read of his stuff, is a much, much better lawyer than Orly Taitz.

    But you know, when you’re wrong, there’s not a lot you can do.

  3. avatar
    Bob Weber April 15, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    “When the facts are with you, hammer on the facts.”

    “When the law is with you, hammer on the law.”

    “If neither the law nor the facts are with you, hammer on the table.”

  4. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 16, 2009 at 5:54 am #

    Perhaps Keyes should hire Philip Berg to represent him in a malpractice case against Orly !

  5. avatar
    Doug Mataconis April 16, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    The one thing to note is that dismissal of the case case under FRCP 4 for failure to serve within the perscribed period would be a dismissal without prejudice.

    So, she could let this lapse and file again

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Shhhh! Don’t let her fans know.

  7. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    Post on Orly’s old blog by “Criminal Law” who wrote: FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS

    Orly Taitz born 08/30/1960
    1. Orly lied that Orly escaped from the Soviet Union 20 yrs ago. That would be 1989. But in 1987 Orly was married in Las Vegas USA as an established resident of California.
    Nevada Marriage Index, 1956-2005
    Name: Orly Averbuch Gender: Female
    Spouse: Yosef Taitz
    Spouse residence state: California Marriage Date: 2 May 1987
    Marriage County: Clark Recorded county: Clark
    Book: 783 Page: B685519 Instrument number: 470169
    Here is her husband’s picture daylight.daylight.com/meetings/mugshots/muggers/taitz_yosef.html
    2. There is no record of her immigration, arrival in USA or naturalization, although records for those events are publicly available for the years from her birth through present day. Demand Orly prove Orly’s a citizen before you follow her off the cliff.
    3. Orly’s had 3 anchor babies. Isaac Yitzhak Taitz, 14 Jul 1989, Benjamin Samuel Taitz,7 Oct 1991, Ronald Michaeladam Taitz, 3 Sep 1993. When Orly registered Ronald’s birth Orly fraudulently gave her maiden name as Auerbuch instead of Averbuch. Maybe both are fake names, because there is no record of her in the official list of Soviet Citizens from 1960-1987.
    4. Orly claims Orly got her dental degree from Hebrew University in Israel. Was that before or after her “escape” from the Soviet Union? Hebrew U does not have a record of her on their Alumni list. Fake dental degree explains the dozens of dental malpractice suits. Her dental license was obtained in 1989 when Orly was in US having babies. Which adds to the suspicion the Israeli dental degree is fake.
    5. It is a well-established rumour that Orly paid someone to take the California Bar exam for her. Her lack of knowledge of the law and of legal procedures supports this. Her terrible grammar and spelling shows her lack of formal education and supports the theory her dental degree is fake, and of course her unaccredited online law school required no prerequisites or LSAT. Before you cry “but Orly’s speaking in a foreign language” remember Orly’s been in the USA since before 1987, and to receive any college degree Orly would need a basic proficiency in writing, grammar and spelling.
    4. There is no record of her in the list of California Registered voters. A person not registered to vote is trying to usurp the choice of the voters.
    5. The same year as her marriage, husband Yosef opened Daylight Chemical Information Company, even though he has no degree listed in his bio. [url=About”http://www.daylight.com/about/index.html]Daylight>About He also owns Metaphorics, LLC.
    Ask yourself why her computer expert husband does not set up her blog on his own server and run it for her. Instead Orly takes from others what Orly can afford herself.
    Reply to this
    4/15/2009 7:01 PM Criminal Law wrote:
    FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS

    6. Look at her 3 million dollar home. Her address is listed at whitepages.com. Look it up on Zillow.com or google earth or maps.live.com for a street view of the mansion. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/birds-eye-view-map/25575662_zpid/#birds-eye-view%5DBird's Eye View of 31912 Monarch Crst, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 – Zillow
    Why does Orly need your donations when all Orly’s had to pay for is a couple small filing fees? Orly made a cash payment of $14,000 2 months early for the second half of her $29,000.00 property taxes. Your money paid her tax bill. Before Orly founded her cash cow website Orly was a tax evader. The tax lien is listed at the Orange county Recorder website, along with all sorts of judgments and liens against both her and her husband.
    7. Orly claims Orly’s also a realtor but that is another lie. Her license was revoked years ago.
    8. Orly calls herself a Constitutional law expert, but besides the obvious fact that Orly doesn’t understand it at all, Orly’s never had a case before, other than defending herself against malpractice, and Orly lost every single case. Orly is not even legally competent, let alone an expert. Orly’s just a liar. On Alan Keyes website he stated Orly approached him to be her plaintiff, not eh other way around. And now Keyes and Kreep have disassociated themselves from her. That’s why Orly started soliciting the rest of you. Solicitation is against the Rules of Professional Conduct, by the way.

    Another thing about Orly that doesn’t add up is that in the WND article she said that she left Russia in 1981, went to Israel got a undergrad degree (4 years for that) and a Dentistry Degree (4 more years for that). A total of 8 years in school in Israel at Hebrew University would have had her in Israel until 1989. But we see that by May 2, 1987, Orly was already married and living in California. Did Orly TIME TRAVEL back to the future (1989) in Israel to get her Dentistry Degree then back to the past (1987) married and living in California while she was pregnant with her first son, Issac?

    And how did Orly who is functionally illiterate pass the essay section of the California Bar Exam?

  8. avatar
    Anastasia April 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Who said she escaped from the Soviet Union “20” years ago? She didn’t. She did not give a date on the video on which she gave this information, so where did the writer get that date “20 years ago”?
    She said on the video that she left the Soviet Union and went to Israel where she lived before coming to the U.S. No dates were given by Dr. Orly Taitz.
    I do not think she is dumb. I think she is very smart and clever. What is objectionable about her is that she keeps raising the issue of integrity and Obama’s evasions, but she herself when all the evidence is viewed, does not have reasonable grounds to believe that Obama was not born here in the U.S.A. The birth announcement and the school records show her accusation to be bordering on frivilous. Her legal argument that he is a not a “natural born citizen” entitled to run for President raises an issue of law on the basis of the father’s lack of citizenship only. It is a questionable argument, but at least it has a reasonable basis.
    My question is why she is doing this? Why is she taking up this crusade. She seems a most unlikely crusader, especially if she is not even registered to vote.
    If there is no record of her coming to the U.S. (how did the writer get this information?), then perhaps she is a foreign agent, working for Russia or Israel. But you would have to tell me what kind of search you did in determining that you found no record of her coming to the U.S. Otherwise, I take what you say about there being no records with a grain of salt

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    I think the public records searches on Orly were done more to show how such results can be manipulated and used to smear someone, not so much to build a real case against Orly Taitz. It demonstrates Orly’s own tactics turned back on herself.

    As for her actual motivations, I think it’s one of two things:

    She’s sincere in her belief that Obama is not eligible to be president and a serious danger to the country and that she is the person destined to save the country from him.

    She believes that Obama is a danger to Israel and will do whatever she can to derail his administration.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    What I warned about has happened. The judge issued an order to Taitz to Show Cause why the suit should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. She has until June 12 to respond.

    Orly did file a document of sorts on 5/17 that sort of suggests that the amateur process server filed the papers with some individual at the Justice Department mail room by the name of “Mail Clerk” who “took the papers” last February 10.

    In the mean time, Orly filed a Motion for Default against Obama for not answering the suit.

    The documents are all there under the Docket link, top of page. The process server’s affidavit is interesting reading. Look at Keyes v. Obama et al. Maybe some time after June 12 we’ll see who failed to do what when. Orly really appears to be “playing lawyer” or perhaps getting “on the job training”.

  11. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 29, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    You’d think that even a nutcase like Orly would have the sense to read the rules of court. The explanation on how to serve parties is pretty clear. (FRCP 4(i) “Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule4.htm)

  12. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 29, 2009 at 7:47 am #

    Is the default against her in the Berg case still pending? On her site she is ranting about the process server not receiving the document until the 27th so her answer wasn’t filed until the 28th, but Berg received it on the 26th. Problem is, I thought her deadline was the 25th. A late answer is a late answer unless you have an extension.

  13. avatar
    kimba May 29, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    Sounds like “but, but, but the dog ate my homework” excuse. And of course, it’s not Orly’s fault, it’s FedEx’s. What did she expect sending it on a holiday weekend? Do judges ever allow late filings?

  14. avatar
    Bob May 29, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Not really. An answer a few days late will earn a tongue lashing, maybe even some sanctions, but very doubtful a judge would enter default against an active defendant.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. ”

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 (m)

    Are we talking about Orly missing the deadline in Liberi v Taitz or Keyes v Obama? My comment refers to the latter.

  16. avatar
    kimba May 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    This is classic, from Orly’s blog today:
    “I spoke with Susan Brown on Friday, 29 May 2009. She is a very nice lady but wants more than the “heresay” she can get off the internet. She needs the real deal. Her boss, Sen. Inhofe, is a tuff customer. IF Sen. Inhofe decides he is for something… man, is he ever the tiger for justice! Please mail all factual documents to Susan Brown at Sen. Inhofe’s office in Washington, D.C.Specifically, she wants the State Department document number for Pakistan being a “no go” zone for American Citizens in 1981 when B.O. traveled there. She wants real documentation from Pakistan barring Americans from traveling there in 1981. She wants real documentation from Indonesea allowing only Indonesian citizens to attend schools there when B.O. was a student there.

    She has an open mind to all this. She just wants hard evidence she can take to her boss!

    sfitzgerald”

    Imagine somebody wanting hard evidence!Reference numbers for the State Dept “Travel Warning”? asking for “real information”? This appears to be a comment from someone who called Inhofe’s office and then commented asking Orly for the documentation. Instead, Orly posted it as a new thread like she does when she’s asking her readers to look something up or find information for her. Oddly, she didn’t answer the fellow that, yes, she has all this documentation as part of the evidence in her lawsuits and she’ll shoot copies to Sen Infofe’s office right away. Can’t wait to see how long it takes her to admit she doesn’t have any real State Dept warnings, or documentation of Indonesian laws. You know. “The real deal.” And if she doesn’t, who does? And how long before the birthers figure out nobody actually has the real deal, just “hearsay”? So refreshing to know that someone who knows little about the issue asked immediately for more than hearsay, stuff you can get from the internet! Delicious! 🙂

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    I think Susan Brown was playing with the caller, probably knowing full well that such documents do not exist.

  18. avatar
    kimba May 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    Sorry Dr C, we were OT on Liberi v Taitz with the question about Orly filing her response late. Thanks for the link to the rules.

    Back OT, That reminds me, I thought I read that she is saying she gets default judgement on Keyes v Obama because Obama didn’t respond. Wasn’t monumental incompetence #428 that she never properly served Obama? I gets my birther court stuff mixed up.

  19. avatar
    Rita May 30, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    Kimba – looks like, according to the docket, she might have the case dismissed against her – she had 3 months from the date of filing her complaint to serve Obama, under Rule 4(m) that Dr. C noted, and she didn’t serve him until 5 months after filing. Even if that was somehow excused, however, Obama would have 20 days from the day he was served, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(A)(1)(a)(i), to answer her complaint and that time hasn’t run yet. Also, the Order to Show Cause on the docket looks like it’s requiring PLAINTIFF (Orly) to give an excuse why her complaint shouldn’t be dismissed for not timely serving Obama. Don’t know where she came up with the idea that he didn’t properly respond in the Keyes case – he doesn’t HAVE to if she didn’t serve him on time.

  20. avatar
    Rita May 30, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Oops – I mistyped – she had 4 months – she might have missed it by a day or so. But in any case, Obama’s 20 days hasn’t run yet.

  21. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 30, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    Rita, as far as I can tell, Obama still hasn’t been served. So the 20 days hasn’t started to run.

    Rule 4 says that the complaint must be dismissed if the complaint hasn’t been served within 120 days, unless the plaintiff shows “good cause”.

    The complaint was filed January 20; therefore the 120 days ran on May 20.

    The return of service, filed May 18th – is NOT good legal service. It’s a step above filing a document attesting to have flushed the complaint down the toilet, but barely. See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/keyes-obama-service.pdf (process server goes to wrong place, leaves document with unidentified person on February 10th — leaving 99 days to fix the problem).

  22. avatar
    Rita May 30, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    Oh yeah, sorry, you are right, Expelliarmus, a mail clerk would probably not be the proper substitute person for service of papers.

  23. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 30, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    I’d note that Orly has not made any attempt to show “good cause” for failure to serve. Instead she filed a motion to enter default, based on the faulty affidavit of service.

    The court stated in its OSC that it would determine matters on the pleadings, without entertaining oral argument. The fact that the proof of service is inadequate is essentially a clerical function to determine — that is, the first step is a clerk’s entry of default on the record (as has happened in Berg’s case) — and in most cases, in my experience, the clerk will bounce back the papers when the proof of service isn’t 100% in order. (Clerks tend to be pretty good at those sort of things).

    So I’d expect an order of dismissal by the end of next week.

    I’d note that as a practical matter, even if Orly tried to make a showing of “good cause”, the court would probably look at the underlying allegations of the complaint. Notions such as “interests of justice” do come into play, so “good cause” might be different for a pro se litigant with a bona fide cause of action than for a lawyer bringing a clearly frivolous action that is also obviously moot and barred by laches. If you go to the complaint, it has 3 causes of action – one for declaratory relief as to whether Obama is a natural born citizen, a 2nd for an injunction to stay the inauguration(which took place 6 hours before the complaint was filed), and mandamus compelling the production of documents from 3 other federal defendants, including Condoleeza Rice in her capacity as Secretary of State. So you have to also weigh in the fact that none of the OTHER defendants were served, and that it asks for equitable relief only — and technically doesn’t ask for any relief against Obama.

    At best it is a complaint for declaratory relief against Obama, over a political question, raised in an untimely fashion long past the time when any court arguably had jurisdiction — since Orly clearly has waived the causes of action against other defendants by failing to serve them.

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    a mail clerk would probably not be the proper substitute person for service of papers.

    The person would have to be identified. That is… when substitute service is made, the process server needs to get the NAME of the person accepting the papers and write it down.

    But in any case, under rule 4, a substitute service on Obama in his personal capacity would have to be made by “leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode” — or if Obama is sued in his official capacity, then service would have required delivery to the “United States attorney for the district where the action is brought” – in this case California, Central District – or via “registered or certified mail” to the US Attorney in Washington.

    Of course, since Orly was counsel of record in the Keyes v. Obama case, she also had actual knowledge of Obama’s lawyers and their respective phone & fax numbers, at least as of February 11th when they filed a motion to quash the subpoena issued in that case. So it would have been easy enough for her to send Bob Bauer & Michael Strumwasser copies of the Keyes v. Bowen case and ask them to waive service on Obama’s behalf.

  25. avatar
    Rita May 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    Expelliarmus – your wonderful response is exactly why it’s so great to have lawyers in on the discussin on this board – Once you do a review of the documents, you can see her service was inadequate and moreover it is a political question, but your answer was beautifully put – thanks for the information. I keep wondering when her “fans” will finally catch on, and if/when Keyes is dismissed, it will be another chink in her armor – but then again, her “fans” are very easily persuaded.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    Expelliarmus: So it would have been easy enough for her to send Bob Bauer & Michael Strumwasser copies of the Keyes v. Bowen case and ask them to waive service on Obama’s behalf.

    That sounds too sophisticated for an beginner like Orly.

  27. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 30, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    I noticed that I mistyped, however — I got the case names mixed up. I meant to say that when Orly received the motion to quash in Keyes v. Bowen, she could have asked the lawyers to waive service of the Keyes v. Obama complaint.

    Actually, a smart lawyer could have used the motion to quash as leverage. One of the grounds of the motion to quash in Keyes v Bowen is that the requisite notice to the consumer as required by the Calif. Code of Civil Procedure had not been given according to the times specified by law. As I recall, before the motion was filed, the lawyers called or wrote either Orly or Kreep to request that the subpoena be withdrawn, and threatened to seek sanctions if forced to bring their motion. So rather than force counsel to bring the motion to quash, Orly could have called the lawyers and agreed to concede the point about notice and withdraw the subpoena on that grounds alone, if they would agree to accept service in the other case. (Hard for them to say no, and puts them on the spot if they later follow up on the sanctions request)

    Of course, as you note, that would have required Orly to be minimally competent, or at least to have some semblance of common sense.

    She would not have run into any of these problems — on either case — if she had merely employed the service of a professional process server. There certainly are thousands to choose from in California, and their fees are trivial compared to the typical hourly billing rate of an attorney. They’ve got the experience to get things right.

  28. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 2:00 am #

    * NOTE: Apparently Dr. Orly Taitz has obtained a true fully certified copy of the 1964 divorce decree and corresponding documentation that proves Mr. OBAMA was in fact not born in the USA and will be presented to the Court on that day while all parties are legally served as well.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11