This just in from Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.:
My first hearing in Keyes et all[sic] v Obama et all[sic] is this Monday at 8:30 in the Morning in Santa Ana Fed. Court, here in CA
First Hearing in Cook v Good, MacDonald, Gates and Obama is this Thursday at 9 am in the morning in Columbus GA. There will be a lot of traveling. Bastille day is smack in the middle on the 14th. I think there will be a lot of rage and rebellion if none of the judges order discovery of Obama’s vital records.
Sorry, Orly, this isn’t the Soviet Union.
OK, was I like the only person in the world who didn’t know that Charles Kerchner is “Mountain Goat” (aka E. Publius Goat)?
Man, there’s a part of me that wishes he could be in Cali this morning just to see this Judge deal with Orly. Especially since the outcome really isn’t in doubt.
As for the Thursday hearing, I’m reading that she hasn’t even paid the filing fee for that suit yet so I’ve got to wonder if it’s really going forward
OK, was I like the only person in the world who didn’t know that Charles Kerchner is “Mountain Goat” (aka E. Publius Goat)?
How did you learn that? (I don’t follow Goat, so, no, you weren’t the only person.)
Bonus fun: For once, I find myself in agreement with the JAG Hunter:
“For Dr. Taitz: You are a fool.”
(Oh: Taitz is already managing expectations: ” If Judge Carter rules in our favor, it will be great. If not, it is not the end of the world, and there will be more hearings.”)
Charles Kerchner sent an email to a number of folks and media outlets. Orly hit “reply all” with this:
What Mr. Kerchner probably doesn’t realize is that if he ever gets into court, he’s not allowed to “moderate comments” from the other side. That’s a fatal flaw (among many) in his case.
I see a business opportunity. Obots will need a lot Cryin’ Towels, soon.
Catchy phrases for towels …
1) No BC is PC!
2) Why just us, why?
3) I [heart] Barack Obama or whatever his name is.
4) Hell no, he won’t show
5) How DARE we question Barry?
6) Bringin’ da hood to da ‘House!
Sure, any time soon now. Did you not say this several months ago?
Still nothing…
I see a business opportunity. Obots will need a lot Cryin’ Towels, soon.
hey deluded one, why does Orly’s failure require Cryin’ Towels
Not only did she fail to properly serve President Obama, now she is once again asking for default based on FOIA and other ‘arguments’. She’s all over the map…
The ones who will need Cryin’ Towels my friends are the Orly-bot birthers.
Orly will lose today’s motion.
Her request for at TRO in the Cook v. Good case will be denied.
Count on it.
That’s what happens when you get your law degree from “Joe’s Law School and Oil & Lube”
That’s what happens when you get your law degree from “Joe’s Law School and Oil & Lube”
but the lube was free!
I did not know either, but it explains a lot.
the cockroach: returns:
remember the cockroach queried “Liar? Idiot? Really? What is your proof?”. When shown he was quoting complete nonsense he slithered back into the woodwork only to return on another thread with another phony line. He has earned the name “cockroach”, want to see the cockroach slither back into the woodwork, shine a light on it.
My predictions:
1. Motion for default judgment denied
2.a Either Orly gets a ‘do-over’
2.b Or the suit is thrown out, which given the specious claims it should
3. In GA, Cook will find out that these are political questions and that he has failed to exhaust the military courts. TRO denied
I didn’t know either. Where did you find this out??
*Chuckle* Well, it looks like she’s getting the help now of Charles Lincoln, who actually graduated from a real law school.
We’ll ignore the fact he’s a convicted felon who has been disbarred in two states and gave up his law license in a third. Still, it explains the increase in the grammar and spelling of her more recent stuff.
Actually, its looking like Lincoln was disbarred in three states — Texas, California, and Florida.
Do we know if he really is admitted to practice in Georgia ? Reciprocity should’ve resulted in disbarrment there too.
FWIW,
I just checked here:
http://bit.ly/Muc75
and there is no listing for a Charles Lincoln being admitted to practice in GA
Neither for Orly. In fact, check Texas, Florida and California for Charles Lincoln. You’d be surprised what you find…
Never mind, you seem to have found the information already. I wonder what the rules are…
California and Florida. He gave up his law license in Texas in exchange for no disiplinary action being taken against him
Indeed, something to do with a social security number I believe.
You really should post that e-mail in the main body of this posting.
What is really funny is that a simple “God speed and all the luck to Mario and you Charles” conveyed everything that Taitz was trying to say. The goat parenthetical was gratuitous.
Well, I found the Cook v. Good pleading in Scribd and the only attorney signature on there is Orly’s. Lincoln’s name isn’t even mentioned.
Which just leads to a whole host of other questions…….
Here in Virginia, especially the Eastern District, the Federal Court Clerk’s won’t even accept a pleading for filing unless it’s signed by an attorney admitted to practice before that Court.
How is she even getting away with this ?
Funny how Orly is so sloppy
the hearing is probably over by now, anybody have any word on it was denied?
NOTHING was “Shown” except a bunch of moaning, richy. I asked for proof of an accusation and all that I got crying from you sick fools.
I would say check the docket in a couple hours, unless Judge Carter decides to take the time to issue a written opinion.
According to the State Bar of Georgia – he is not licensed to practice here.
Neither is Taitz. Is there a Georgia lawyer on her filings??
http://www.gabar.org/directories/member_directory_search/
State Bar of Georgia
Middle District Local Rules
I wonder who her local attorney of record is? Did she follow the proper procedures? If not this case will be booted just like her others because she can’t even read the rules.
LOCAL RULE 83.1
ATTORNEYS
83.1.1 ADMISSIONS
a. ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. The bar of this Court shall consist of those persons heretofore admitted to practice in this court and those who may hereafter be admitted in accordance with this rule.
b. ELIGIBILITY. To be eligible to practice in this court an attorney must have been admitted to practice in the trial courts of the State of Georgia and be an active member in good standing of the State Bar of Georgia. Only attorneys who are admitted to practice in this Court, or who have otherwise obtained permission under Rule 83.1.2c, may appear as counsel.
c. PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION.
1. Each applicant for admission to the bar of this Court shall file with the clerk a written petition on the form provided by the clerk setting forth his state bar number and reciting the fact that he is now a member in good standing of the State Bar of Georgia. Each applicant shall also sign an Oath of Admission.
2. The applicant for admission, after completing the petition and signing the oath, shall submit the same to the clerk of the court with the prescribed enrollment fee. If the petition and oath are in proper form, the Clerk for the judges of this court or a judge will sign an order admitting petitioner to practice in this court. A certificate will issue from the clerk’s office. Unless requested by the court, petitioner will not be required to make a personal appearance before the court.
83.1.2 DUTIES
a. DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL. In civil cases only, counsel shall designate the name, address, and telephone number of the attorney who shall act as lead counsel in the case on the signature page of the first pleading filed in every action. In the absence of such designation, the first name appearing on the pleading shall be designated lead counsel. Any subsequent change in lead counsel shall be noted by the filing of a notice.
b. BAR NUMBERS. All counsel are required to designate their State Bar of Georgia Number on the signature page of each pleading filed.
c. PERMISSION TO PRACTICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. Any member in good standing of the bar of any other district court of the United States who is not a member of the State Bar of Georgia and who does not reside in or maintain an office in this state for the practice of law, will be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case, civil or criminal, in this court subject to the following provisions:
1. In a civil case in which a party is represented only by counsel not a member of the bar of this court, such counsel must designate in writing some willing member of the local bar of this court upon whom motions and papers may be served and who will be designated as local counsel. That designation shall not become effective until such local counsel has entered a written appearance therein.
In addition, in any case in which an attorney makes an appearance in any action or case pending in this court and said attorney is not a member of the bar of this court, he shall certify that he is a member in good standing of a district court of the United States and shall file a certificate of good standing from that court with the clerk of this court.
2. Any attorney representing the United States government, or any agency thereof, and any attorney employed by the Community Defender Organization of this district may appear and participate in particular actions or proceedings in his official capacity without a petition for admission or certificate of good standing, provided he is a member in good standing of a bar of a district court of the United States.
83.1.3 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE. No attorney shall appear in that capacity before this court until he has entered an appearance by filing a signed entry of appearance form or by filing a signed pleading in a pending action. An entry of appearance shall state (1) the style and number, (2) the identity of the party for whom the appearance is made, and (3) the name and current office address and telephone number of the attorney. The filing of any pleading, unless otherwise specified by the court, shall constitute an appearance by the person(s) signing such pleading.
83.1.4 WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEYS IN CIVIL CASES. It is the longstanding policy of this court that attorneys will investigate claims before filing a complaint and, if a complaint is filed, that the attorney will remain with the case until its conclusion. Nevertheless, if there is a compelling reason to withdraw, the attorney must comply with the following procedure.
An attorney (other than a government attorney) appearing of record in any action pending in this district, who wishes to withdraw as counsel for any party therein, shall submit a written motion for an order of court permitting such withdrawal. Such motion shall state that the attorney has given due written notice to his client respecting such intention to withdraw ten (10) days (or such lesser time as the court may permit in any specific instance) prior to submitting the request to the court and/or that such withdrawal is with the client’s consent. Such request may be granted unless in the judge’s discretion to do so would delay the trial of the action or otherwise interrupt the orderly operation of the court or be manifestly unfair to the client. The attorney requesting an order permitting withdrawal shall give notice to opposing counsel and shall file with the clerk in each such action and serve upon his client personally or at his last known address, a notice which shall contain at least the following information:
(A) that the attorney wishes to withdraw;
(B) that the court retains jurisdiction of the action;
(C) that the client has the burden of keeping the court informed respecting where notices, pleadings or other papers may be served;
(D) that the client has the obligation to prepare for trial or hire other counsel to prepare for trial when the trial date has been set;
(E) that if the client fails or refuses to meet these burdens, the client may suffer adverse consequences, including, in criminal cases, bond forfeiture and arrest;
(F) the dates of any scheduled proceedings, including trial, and that holding of such proceedings will not be affected by the withdrawal of counsel;
(G) that services of notices may be made upon the client at his last known address; and,
(H) unless the withdrawal is with the client’s consent, the client’s right to object within ten (10) days of the date of the notice.
The client shall have ten (10) days from the date of the notice to file objections to the withdrawal. If the court enters an order permitting withdrawal, the client shall be notified at his last know address by the Clerk’s Office of the effective date of the withdrawal; thereafter all notices or other papers may be served on the party directly by mail at the last known address of the party until new counsel enters an appearance. Ordinarily, the court will expect the filing of a Notice of Appearance by substitute counsel contemporaneous with the filing of the Motion to Withdraw.
83.1.5 LEAVES OF ABSENCE. Formal applications by attorneys for leaves of absence should not be filed and will not be acted upon unless the attorney has been notified by the court to appear during the time he wishes to be absent.
>>>OK, was I like the only person in the world who didn’t know that Charles Kerchner is “Mountain Goat” (aka E. Publius Goat)?
Where did you hear this?
Check the pleading for yourself:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17273800/Application-for-TRO-Cook-v-Good
Orly signs it herself and does not name a local counsel
And if the federal judge is feeling mean, the judge could also:
1. Hold the case in abeyence until the filing fee is paid (or IFP motion is filed).
2. Defer on Taitz’s (presumed) pro hac vice motion until local counsel is associated in; leaving Cook to represent himself.
…but I doubt the judge will; maybe just issue an OSC to resolve these issue.
Ghostwriting is a common-enough practice in the biz. And assuming Charles Lincoln did write the TRO, he would not be the first disbarred attorney to have written under someone else’s name.
4)From hope to hostility
5)Too much change
6)Citizen of the world. President of the Universe
Is she incapable of understanding rules of law??
Like I’ve said, this is what happens when you get your J.D. from Joe’s Law School and Oil & Lube
It was in an E-mail from Orly Taitz to Charles Kerchner that was forwarded to about a hundred media outlets (including this blog).
Orly’s motion for default was thrown out and she and the Assistant District Attorney were ordered to finally correctly serve. The US now has 60 days to respond.
Given the lack of merit of the suit which is based on Bush’s executive order, I foresee a dismissal.
The US Attorney showed up to Court; the Judge directed that Orly immediately complete service on the US Attorney and gave the US Attorney 60 days to respond.
What this means is that sometime within the next 60 days the US Attorney will file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in this case (echoing Doc C’s explanations of the inapplicability of the Bush executive order) — and thereafter the case will be dismissed.
The US Attorney showed up to Court; the Judge directed that Orly immediately complete service on the US Attorney and gave the US Attorney 60 days to respond.
Thus proving that no good deed goes unpunished.
I predict Taitz will tout this as a great victory, despite the court not granting her default, or buying her 4(e) argument.
Is the judge giving her the benefit of the doubt? Every chance to not be able to appeal on a technicality? Enough rope to hang herself?
Here’s what Molly Pitcher says at Plains Radio:
“Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.
Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.
This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.
Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.
Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.”
If the judge had dismissed, Taitz simply could have refiled and attempted service again. (Or Taitz could have appealed the dismissal.)
This route gets the case back on track (to a motion to dismiss!), but denies Taitz the opportunity to make the 4(e) argument. (If she really cares about it, she’ll have to take it up with the 9th Circuit after the motion to dismiss is granted.)
If the court had dismissed, and Taitz refiled, the case would have come back to Judge Carter. This way, the judge may have “helped” Taitz with the service, but in the long run, it’ll make the case go away that much quicker.
Bob, please see my post at the end about the Orly interpretation of today’s events. Sounds like her interpretation of her conversation with Chief Justice Roberts?
Given Taitz’s track record of interpreting conversations (see: the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia), I can’t imagine the size of the grain of salt required.
I had a subordinate once who would hear what she wanted to hear in one on one, typically performance-related, meetings. It got so bad I had to start inviting a P&O rep to every meeting so someone else heard the conversation. Orly reminds me of her.
Native Born Citizen with some further reporting.
I take Judge Carter’s comments about wanting to rule “on the merits” was in reference to the dismissal. Not that there will (or must) be a trial, but rather the judge didn’t want to dismiss a case where both parties were right in front of him.
Thank you, Kimba. I appreciate the update.
Did you read Ex’s message earlier? Ex says the US Attorney was served by Orly.
I have only been able to find the US DOJ’s response and have not read Orly’s complaint.
Was Orly’s complaint filed on Jan 20, 2009?
Yes Sven, he was. And as I learned from the Attorneys here, that was what she was supposed to do and did not do. The judge made sure that Her Brilliance did it correctly this time. Now the Judge has given the US Attorney 60 days to respond. Not 60 days to a trial as I understand it. I assume, and correct me attorneys if I am wrong, that the Judge will then make ruling on the merits of her case before deciding whether a trial will occur.
If I were an Obot, then I would demand the US Attorney take this case to trial.
I know a trail doesn’t work like this, but I imagine the US Attorney with a few Perry Mason moments during trial.
Slam! Exhibit A – a certified copy of
Barack’s original birth certificate with testimony by the Hawaii Homelands Records Administrator swearing under oath the Court is examining an exact duplicate of the record produced for Barack a few days after he was born.
Bam! Exhibit B – an exact duplicate of Barack’s US passport data indicating he has always used a US passport to travel outside of the country. Followed by sworn testimony by a US State Department Passport Executive Director testifying under oath the Court is examining Barack’s US Passport record.
By now, Orly’s jaw has dropped to the floor and is insisting on a sidebar conference.
The US Attorney tells the Court he has one more witness. Everyone looks to the back of the court and sees an old man slumped over in a wheelchair.
“Bring forth the surprise witness,” commands the US Attorney. A rusted wheel on the witness’ wheelchair squeeks as he moves forward. It’s the Hawaiian doctor that delivered Barack.
Orly falls out of her chair and screams, “NO!”
Why would an Obot let this case be dismissed?
I would dearly love Orly to reap the fruits of her lies, in this case sanctions, and ultimately disbarment. But I don’t get to decide, and my anger is not good grounds for the court do to something.
However, in your dream scenario, Orly would just say: It doesn’t matter because his father was British.
Here’s the complaint:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/keyesvobamacomplaint.pdf
You can see from the file stamp that it was filed at 3:26 pm, Pacific time, on January 20, 2009.
Based on the court’s order, it apparently has been served as of July 13, 2009.
I had commented that I thought the motion in this case far too literate for Orly. Now, at least according to Internet rumor mill, we know who the ghost writer is: none other than disbarred attorney, Dr. Charles Lincoln. More here:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=1024
If I were an Obot, then I would demand the US Attorney take this case to trial.
If I were the Ass’t U.S. Attorney assigned to this dog of a case, I would file a motion to dismiss, get the case dismissed, and get it off my desk.
“Orly would just say: It doesn’t matter because his father was British.”
On YouTube, that is exactly what Orly says. She states Obama can never be NBC, because of his father.
These people will never give up.
Thanks
Orly reporting that Cook’s deployment order was rescinded.
Excuse me, revoked.
According to this article, it appears Cook had previously volunteered to go to Afganistan, and then unvolunteered himself.
In other words, it appears that as he was not obligated to deploy, the military can’t (presently) force him to go if he doesn’t want to.
“Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.
“A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.
She added that there is an administrative process to request revocation of orders. As of this afternoon, Cook had not asked for his orders to be revoked, Quon said.”
How odd. He asked to go in May and he had a process to take back his volunteering. People are funny.
So perhaps he volunteered so that he would be in a position to bring the lawsuit.
Funny indeed. Cook knew that he had a safe little “back door” available to him to ensure that he wouldn’t have to answer for refusing lawful orders. I wonder if he’d shared that fact with Orly…it completely undermines the “basis” for the lawsuit, i.e., that he needed relief from being forced to do something. Probably Orly doesn’t care – all publicity is good publicity and anything that keeps those little paypal cash registers “kachinging” is good!
Perhaps. But I think his story about not having to obey a deployment order from a CinC he thinks is ineligible crumbles with the knowledge that he’s a reserve, not full-time, he volunteered for the deployment and he could have un-volunteered any time. His Deployment Orders reflect what he requested, not what the Army decided for him to do. Why does he need a TRO for something he can undo himself? It’s bizarre.
I would find it hard to believe that Orly didn’t know he volunteered to go and had an out.
More proof that Chuck is Goat: Chuck writes an article referencing “Goat”‘s (wildly inaccurate) chart about the five kinds of citizenship.