Main Menu

Archive | October, 2009

Herbert v Obama, et al (updated)

Long time visitors may remember that I had an article here on Susan Herbert who brought suit against Barack Obama in Florida. Herbert claimed that she was “the only legal acting President not placed on the ballot and who never voluntarily withdrew [her] name.”

I had some email correspondence with Ms Herbert and decided to remove the article, which included some unkind remarks from the court. I’ve had another email just this week  from her suggesting that she was not pleased that this site lacks coverage of her case. So let me include what she wrote me here (with some minimal typo correction):

This is Susan Herbert of Herbert V Obama, Roberts, Hull and the US. I’m on the case conference list and so I am now four for four with SCOTUS as on paper I have won each time I engaged them. Thus what is up with removing an article about my case as if you do that you have just removed the declaration and constitution as that is what a pro se case of authority and o.j. [original jurisdiction] is: our original government as the founders wrote it and as the founders lived it.

If you deny the truth of my lawsuit you then are denying the truth or the actual reality known as the Declaration and Constitution which is what the federal bench now does. Continue Reading →


Profile of a victim

The following article is opinion. It is slim on facts and heavy on speculation. It is an attempt to connect the dots to make one possible picture of Orly Taitz.

Orly Taitz fancies herself the leader of the movement to unseat Obama. Her web site declares itself the: “World’s Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site.” But is Orly Taitz the leader of the birther movement, or is she its number one victim?

Whenever you see Orly Taitz, in court or on TV, she is talking about President Obama having 39 Social Security numbers and his having committed fraud because of it. Did Orly Taitz discover those numbers? No, they came from private investigators (Sankey and Daniels) who I presume sold this raw, unverified, information to her.

An unscrupulous disbarred lawyer and felon Charles Lincoln has found and ingratiated himself (some say to the extreme) with Orly. You may recall that Orly was asking for donations of furniture, transportation and living space for Lincoln. I assume she’s giving him money from web site donations, or her own bank account for expenses. If the Lucas Smith declaration is to be believed, Charles Lincoln may be quite the gigolo. Lucas Smith, con man and multiple felon himself has either obtained, or likely tried to obtain money from Taitz for his fake Kenyan birth certificate (he tried to sell it on eBay, so it makes sense he tried to sell it to her when eBay canceled his auctions). It looks to me that these two nefarious characters are living off Orly or have tried to collect money from her. Smith’s little declaration to the court may be payback for a failed blackmail scheme–who knows? Continue Reading →


Halloween Batshirt Award

Batshirt winner

Batshirt winner

And in California, the winner is…

Orly Taitz accuses all newspapers of Criminal Conspiracy and Election Fraud for not covering her cases. Threatens RICO suit.

Here is the citation with context:

I currently don’t have time to research and therefor [sic] need help from my supporters. I remember there are specific statutes in [sic] Federal Communications Act and Federal Elections Committee [sic], where members of the media that are defrauding the public in relation to the elections,  can be held liable. I need quotes of the specific statutes. I will be reporting the names of the editors and reporters,who refuse to report on eligibility cases and January 26 trial. It might be necessary to join these members of the media as additional defendants in RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) action

By “join … as additional defendants”, I assume Orly refers to her oft mentioned, but never filed RICO suit against Barack Obama for his alleged criminal social security and election fraud scam. (My new article RICO starts a discussion of this statute.) In general, RICO is considered “complex litigation” but that never stopped Orly for barging ahead.

If Orly continues unchecked in the same trajectory that we’ve seen over the past months, I think Orly may well fall into the position of a RICO defendant herself.



While the word “Rico” will forever remind me of the character from the book Starship Troopers, it is also the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act of 1970. Designed to take a bite of organized crime, world-famous birther leader and anti-Obama crusader Orly Taitz has stated that RICO should be used against “All Newspapers” for their willful denial of coverage of her lawsuits.

While this web site has documented significant coverage of Orly Taitz and her antics in the media, any objective tabulation of the number of mentions for “Orly Taitz” and “Barack Obama” will show that Orly is not getting equal time. So what is this RICO statute and what does it have do with the anti-Obama movement?

While primarily a criminal prosecution tool, there is a civil lawsuit provision. If an individual can demonstrate that they were harmed by a RICO, they can collect treble (three times) damages. RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. For a civil lawsuit, there must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise:

  1. Most courts have ruled that the only injury compensable under § 1962(a) is that resulting from a defendant’s investment of racketeering income.
  2. Most courts have required that the alleged injury to the plaintiff proximately result from the defendant’s acquisition of an interest in, or control over, an enterprise.
  3. Most civil RICO claims are filed under § 1962(c), which makes it unlawful to “conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct” of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The key word here is “racketeering” which refers to an “illegal business”.
  4. Conspiracy to commit one of the previous 3.

[Thanks to for research information for this article.]

OK, now where exactly does “newspapers not covering Orly’s cases” fit? Generally, newspapers may print what the want, and it is not illegal for them to print one thing and not another. I think Orly would say that that the crime is “fraud”, but we would have the same problem relating “criminal fraud” to the newspapers as we do RICO. Unless Orly has  bought a newspaper company, I don’t think she gets in the door with a RICO suit.

And so as usual, birthers do not know what they are talking about.

Caution: I am not a lawyer.


The USA is not the CCCP

(CCCP is what USSR looks like in the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet).

It was a telling moment when Birther movement leader Orly Taitz told a Federal District Court in Santa Ana, California on October 5, 2009 (as reported in OC Weekly): “Have you ever heard of a lawyer being able to challenge Stalin?” She described the repressive Soviet regime from personal experience. This explains a great deal of Orly Taitz’s bizarre-seeming view of the Obama administration and the American justice system, her belief in pervasive corruption at all levels of government, and her confidence that the only truth to be had is in private rumors.

What Orly Taitz is trying to do through her lawsuits, public appearances and most of all on her web site is nothing less than the Sovietization of her followers. She wants Americans to believe that their government is essentially corrupt and the newspapers are all in on the conspiracy–basically imposing the milleu of the former Soviet Union on her fans’ perception of the 21st  century United States.

Judge Carter said in response to Taitz: “That’s not the America I grew up in.” (Transcript Page 95). It’s not the America I grew up in either. While our government goes awry from time to time, the people are empowered to say “we’re fed up” and vote in the other guys. Corruption is not always dealt with quickly, but it is dealt with. We have term limits on our president.

This is not the Soviet Union, Ms Taitz.

In this country, elections mean something. Our Constitution doesn’t allow for “new elections” every time some lunatic fringe hatches a conspiracy theory. It doesn’t allow the courts to toss out presidents. In this country, unlike the former Soviet Union, there is a commitment to the rule of law at all levels of our society. When something happens we don’t agree with, we don’t “storm the White House” and lynch the President. (If there were ever needed proof of that, consider the Bush v. Gore lawsuit.) The Birthers think that the law is nothing more them “having it their way” and the Constitution is nothing more than a rallying point for mob rule.

That’s not the America I grew up in.


Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed

Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless. …

There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Judge Carter

You can read the rest along with me:

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD by GeorgetownJD