Main Menu

Attorney Taitz appeals for UN protection

According to an article yesterday in the Washington Independent, Birther attorney Orly Taitz has appealed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for protection.

A letter from her attorney, Jonathan Levy, says:

Taitz has “been the victim of death threats, vandalism, false complaints, and a suspected assassination attempt” in the course of her efforts to expose Obama as a fraud, adding that “her reports to law enforcement and the judiciary have been ignored.”

ORLY TAITZ APPEALS TO UN FOR PROTECTION FROM PERSECUTION IN U.S. – 27277636 Immediate Release February 22 2… by Jack Ryan

65 Responses to Attorney Taitz appeals for UN protection

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    One cannot help but look at his web address and wonder if Mr. Levy is the “attorney from hell.”

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    Major followup article from Spencer Kornhaber at OC Weekly:

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-asks-united-nations/

  3. avatar
    Scientist February 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    So when the black helicopters bring African troops in UN blue helmets in to overthrow the African Usurper, which side will Sven, Slamdunk, ksdb, butterdezillion and other of our birther “friends” be on? Or will their neural circuits just shut down from an excess of excitatory neurotransmitters and leave them curled up on the beach in the fetal position?

  4. avatar
    Lawrence February 23, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Does the UN offer protection from stupid?

  5. avatar
    richCares February 23, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    This must be a hoax masterminded by an Obot to ridicule Orly and Little Levy, because no one would be that stupid (incuding john). Great hoax, Orly’s followers will believe it just as they believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

  6. avatar
    racosta February 23, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    does levy work for the UN, his letter has the UN logo, curious. I checked the UN logs and no “Levy” is listed. Maybe he is a volunteer, or maybe it’s the typical rightwing argument from authority. Yah, that’s it!

  7. avatar
    Ima Obot February 24, 2010 at 8:17 am #

    Scientist: So when the black helicopters bring African troops in UN blue helmets in to overthrow the African Usurper, which side will Sven, Slamdunk, ksdb, butterdezillion and other of our birther “friends” be on?Or will their neural circuits just shut down from an excess of excitatory neurotransmitters and leave them curled up on the beach in the fetal position?

    Levy indicates on his website he has practiced before the International Criminal Court.

    What are you afraid of? I thought Obama and his mother were “citizens of the world.” Suddenly, that’s a problem. Why is that?

  8. avatar
    Arthur February 24, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    That Ms. Taitz and those in the birther community continue to passionately believe in the truth of their assertions, despite the fact that, 1) their evidence has been shown to be fallacious, 2) their legal arguments have been dismantled as inconsistent with the Constitution, state law, and over a century of federal court rulings, and 3) their lawsuits have been dismissed by the dozens, demonstrates that human beings are willing to accept as true a falsehood that corresponds to or reinforces strongly held beliefs or values. Their example is a powerful reminder that one can earn an advanced degree and enjoy professional success without learning to objectively evaluate evidence or critically examine ideas.

  9. avatar
    Black Lion February 24, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    Sven, it is not a problem. We are laughing at the irony of it all. Orly a few months ago was calling the UN a force of Obama and that their force would be Obama’s occupying army. But now she supposedly goes to them for protection? From what? If I was Obama it is great that Orly is still out there. She is so stupid she dismantles any possible argument by just talking. She is the one of the biggest jokes of the movement, only surpassed by Joseph Farah and John Charlton…

    Let’s see. Orly has never won a case. She has been fined by the Court. She is being investigated by the CA bar for her egregious conduct. Why again would anyone be afraid of her? And Levy is just a publicity whore.

  10. avatar
    Lupin February 24, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    If you think we’re “afraid” you’re seriously tone-deaf.

    We’re laughing.

    Sort of like watching Mr. Bean, but with less sympathy.

  11. avatar
    BatGuano February 24, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    was the assassination attempt when a hose came loose on her car ? if that’s the case then i survived weekly assassination attempts when i drove a ’72 VW bug.

  12. avatar
    richCares February 24, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    That’s Projection, common among Birthers and right wingers (i.e. afraid of Palin). Main cause is IGNORANCE!

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    You know, something seems awry in the stories I have heard. First, Levy supposedly graduated from the same mail-order law school as Taitz in California. I have further heard that only California accepts mail-order law school graduates at bar, and no other state would license them. Levy practices out of Hilton Head, South Carolina. One wonders exactly what he does as a lawyer and where he does it.

    Ah, answered my own question:

    Jonathan Levy is a member of International Criminal Bar – Barreau Penal in The Hague and has practiced extensively before the UN organizations, the African Union, international tribunals, and in the courts of several countries. Dr. Levy is an attorney, advocate, barrister and solicitor in leading jurisdictions and is a senior adjunct faculty member at a well know North American university and law school where he instructs graduate students in counter terrorism, anti money laundering, law and diplomacy. He is an attorney member of the District of Columbia and California Bars, United States Supreme Court Bar, US International Court of Trade Bar, Supreme Court of England & Wales and many others.

  14. avatar
    Vince Treacy February 25, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    Very sadly, the District of Columbia Bar, established by Congress itself in 1970, has a gaping loophole in its membership standards under its Rule 46, Admission to the Bar.

    http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule46c3_admission_on_motion-without_exam.pdf

    In brief, any person who has been a member of the bar of any state for five years, “upon proof of good moral character as it relates to the practice of law,” can be admitted to the D.C. Bar upon motion, without taking the exam and without graduating from an accredited law school.

    So, graduate from an unaccredited online or correspondence school in California. Then take and pass the California Bar exam, even if the score is the lowest possible passing grade. Wait five years. Do not even practice law or live in California during that time. Apply and be admitted to the DC Bar.

    This is a guarantee that a licensed lawyer will wind up filing a frivolous action like the letter sent by the Right Honorable Doctor Jonathan Levy to the UN.

  15. avatar
    Ima Obot February 25, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    If Orly’s Quo Warranto case is dismissed, I believe she will move the ICC to try BHO II for usurpation and war crimes by usurper.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 1998 to serve as a forum in which to try persons who are “accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” The UN Security Council, national governments, non-governmental organizations, and even individuals can bring lawsuits before the Court. The ICC defines itself as “a court of last resort,” meaning that it “will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system …

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6984

    An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

    And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126137#

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy February 25, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    And that motion would be as successful as all her other filings as well…in part for very similar reasons…the court doesn’t have jurisdiction. First off, what war crimes? Name one? Secondly, “usurpation” is not within the competency of the ICC. One of the basic tenants of international law is that it claims no competency on the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Our elections, rules of who is eligible for what office, and how we enforce those rules and resolve any questions are beyond the reach of any international body. It is strictly a domestic matter. Finally, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC, thus, the ICC has no power over US citizens. You see, another thing about international law is that it can only be enforced against a soveriegn nation, when that nation gives it permission to.

    Amazing who these birfers as so quick to hand over all US sovereign powers to international bodies. I thought they were the ones who were so upset when we would enter into treaties like Kyoto and were “selling out our national sovereignty”, and now they’re so quick to hand our sovereignty in how our citizenship is defined, and even now give the power for an international body to rule on how our laws are to be enforced, and have power to stand in judgment over not only a citizen of our country, but the leader of our country. The level of hypocracy is only matched by the level of disrespect for our nation.

  17. avatar
    Ima Obot February 25, 2010 at 10:51 am #

    JoZeppy: And that motion would be as successful as all her other filings as well…in part for very similar reasons…the court doesn’t have jurisdiction.First off, what war crimes?Name one?Secondly, “usurpation” is not within the competency of the ICC.One of the basic tenants of international law is that it claims no competency on the internal affairs of a sovereign state.Our elections, rules of who is eligible for what office, and how we enforce those rules and resolve any questions are beyond the reach of any international body.It is strictly a domestic matter.Finally, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC, thus, the ICC has no power over US citizens.You see, another thing about international law is that it can only be enforced against a soveriegn nation, when that nation gives it permission to.Amazing who these birfers as so quick to hand over all US sovereign powers to international bodies.I thought they were the ones who were so upset when we would enter into treaties like Kyoto and were “selling out our national sovereignty”, and now they’re so quick to hand our sovereignty in how our citizenship is defined, and even now give the power for an international body to rule on how our laws are to be enforced, and have power to stand in judgment over not only a citizen of our country, but the leader of our country.The level of hypocracy is only matched by the level of disrespect for our nation.

    The links are posted for you to click and read.

    The United States signed the Statute on December 31, 2000, during the final days of the Clinton administration. But on May 2, 2003, the Bush administration — fearing that American soldiers and government officials could be subjected to politicized prosecutions by ambitious prosecutors and judges — informed the UN Secretary General that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty” and thus “has no legal obligations arising from its signature.” The United Nations, however, has not removed the name of the United States from the official list of signatories.

  18. avatar
    BatGuano February 25, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    JoZeppyFinally, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC, thus, the ICC has no power over US citizens.

    what about the Super Friends at the League of Justice ? we’re signed up with those guys, right ?

    worth a shot.

  19. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    Well, of course, the real International Criminal Court would laugh at Taitz and any accusation that Obama has committed genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. However, we know the birthers would then have a pretend ICC trial, as they are good at pretend trials. Does anyone else think that some of the birthers posting on these sites are sock puppets just putting us on?

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy February 25, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    What I surprise, another birther with no idea how the law works. Being a signatory to a treaty does not make it binding on a nation. It requires ratification. The US Senate has never ratified the treaty, and is not a member of the ICC. Simple as that. Go ahead. Check out the list of members. You won’t see the US.

    That, and again, you didn’t address the point, that US domestic law is not a subject of ICC competency.

  21. avatar
    Ima Obot February 25, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    JoZeppy: What I surprise, another birther with no idea how the law works.Being a signatory to a treaty does not make it binding on a nation.It requires ratification.The US Senate has never ratified the treaty, and is not a member of the ICC.Simple as that.Go ahead.Check out the list of members.You won’t see the US.That, and again, you didn’t address the point, that US domestic law is not a subject of ICC competency.

    You can whine and stamp your little feet all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact President Clinton placed the United States as a signatory of the ICC and the ICC has accepted.

    As far as subjugation of US sovereignty, I believe Obama’s EO 12425 did the trick. Or do you not read the conspiracy blogs?

  22. avatar
    SFJeff February 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    “You can whine and stamp your little feet all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact President Clinton placed the United States as a signatory of the ICC and the ICC has accepted.”

    How quick the staunch defenders of the Constitution are ready to ignore it when it serves their purposes.

    Section 2,Clause 2: He(the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

    Note an OP Ed piece in that left wing rag said:
    “[Clinton] also signed the Rome Treaty of 1998 that established an International Criminal Court, which would subject American soldiers and officials to unaccountable international prosecutors and judges for alleged war crimes (including, potentially, the undefined crime of “aggression”). Mr. Clinton did not even send this agreement to the Senate. Mr. Bush “unsigned” it.

    So, per the Constitution- no Treaty- by executive order(G. Bushs)- no Treaty. But that won’t stop the Birthers from crying foul I am sure.

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy February 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    You’re right, I was sloppy in my language. The treaty has never been ratified, and therefore the US is not a member of the ICC, so the ICC has no jurisidiction over the US.

    And, I notice, you completely ignored the fact that domestic US election law is entirely beyond the scope of the ICC. They have no business deciding who is a usurper in any country.

  24. avatar
    Ima Obot February 25, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    JoZeppy: Obama’s EO 12425

    Obama made the offices and records of Interpol sovereign and exempt from American law enforcement and it’s judiciary. Interpol is the investigative arm of the ICC.

    And you’re sure Obama doesn’t think or want the US subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC? Come on, let’s be honest.

    The Republicans are criticizing Orly more than the Democrats. They know this is a backdoor opportunity to put the Bush Administration on trial. The Republicans have a chance to stop Obama with Quo Warranto but they aren’t supportive. Why is that?

  25. avatar
    Mike February 25, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    Interpol is the investigative arm of the ICC

    In what universe, Sven?

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy February 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Wow, how many different ways can you be wrong? First of all, did you even look up what those sections listed were, did you? I didn’t think so. It doesn’t make them exempt from American Law enforcement and its judiciary, it makes their records, exempt, and the money they make exempt from taxes and social security, and exempt from DC property tax.

    And even if Obama did want the US subject to the juridiction of the ICC, he can’t do it. It has to be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. That’s the way our Constitution works. And even if the Senate did approve, the ICC is not interested, nor do they have jurisdiction, EVEN OVER MEMBER STATE’s internal elections.

  27. avatar
    Dave February 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    I’m pretty sure that you don’t have to be a member of any bar to send a complaint to the UN OHCHR. It’s not any kind of court or tribunal.

  28. avatar
    Dave February 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    I have a great idea. How about if Taitz goes ahead and files a criminal complaint with the ICC, so you can see for yourself how it doesn’t work.

    Better yet, why are you making her do all the work while you sit on your hands. Why don’t you go file it?

  29. avatar
    Dave February 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Here’s a few points.

    1. Interpol has nothing whatsoever to do with the ICC or the UN. And it actually employs no investigators (in Hollywood movies it does, but in reality it doesn’t).

    2. For all I know Obama may want the US to join the ICC. But in fact, the US hasn’t.

    3. You started all this by suggesting that Obama be tried for war crimes. I am unaware of any war crimes Obama has committed — please enlighten me.

    4. You ask why the GOP isn’t supporting birthers. I keep asking birthers the same question, but haven’t gotten an answer yet. Why do you think this is? I think it’s because supporting birthers will make them look like idiots.

  30. avatar
    Scientist February 25, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    If what Orly says is true, it is far too dangerous for her to remain in the US a moment longer. She needs to immediately flee the country and request political asylum somewhere; Canada or Sweden are 2 possibilities. She should definitely NOT stay here though.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    The birthers have declared war on Obama, so his ignoring them is a “war crime.”

  32. avatar
    Bovril February 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    Yesssss Ima Muppet, the wicked Interpol….

    Those changes actually put it on the same level as the office of the Vatican in DC…..OH NO, Illuminati at work….

    Actually one of th main reaosn this was finally done was that Interpol takes its local support from local law enforcement, seconded to them on short term contracts.

    Now these employees, like all P grade UN employees are paid tax free (actually for the US citizens, they pay their taxes and get it re-imbursed)

    EXCEPT for Interpolly folks who frequently ended up with a nasty tax liability that could take 2 years to sort out.

  33. avatar
    Rickey February 25, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Ima Obot says:

    And you’re sure Obama doesn’t think or want the US subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC?

    If you had any personal integrity you would be embarrassed to make claims which are so easily debunked.

    Not only doesn’t Obama think that the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, neither does the ICC. Here is the ICC’s list of signatories to the treaty – the United States is not on the list.

    http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/The+States+Parties+to+the+Rome+Statute.htm

  34. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 26, 2010 at 1:02 am #

    Its just another part of Sven’s fantasy novel. I think we’re up to chapter 45: How The International House Of Pancakes Brought Down The Usurper.

  35. avatar
    Ima Obot February 26, 2010 at 3:21 am #

    Rickey: Ima Obot says:
    And you’re sure Obama doesn’t think or want the US subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC?If you had any personal integrity you would be embarrassed to make claims which are so easily debunked.Not only doesn’t Obama think that the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, neither does the ICC. Here is the ICC’s list of signatories to the treaty – the United States is not on the list.http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/The+States+Parties+to+the+Rome+Statute.htm

    Someone needs to contact the ICC immediately. They seem to think the US is a signatory to the Rome Statute.

    http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=country&iduct=185

    Updated Feb. 24, 2010

    Obviously, they read Obama Conspiracy Theories and rushed out an update. Congratulations Doc.

  36. avatar
    Vince Treacy February 26, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    That principle applies to persons who file on their own behalf, that is, pro se.

    But she chose to have a lawyer act. He is subject to the standards at OHCHR for lawyers:
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/lawyers.htm

    This was flagged over at Oh!For Goodness Sake. http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7754

    Levy is licensed in D.C. only because of a gaping void in standards.

  37. avatar
    richCares February 26, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    the link you provided states:
    “Agreement on Privileges and Immunities”
    United States has not signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.

  38. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    Ima Obot says:

    Someone needs to contact the ICC immediately. They seem to think the US is a signatory to the Rome Statute.

    Flaunting your ignorance again, I see.

    There is a difference between SIGNING a treaty and RATIFYING a treaty. A signed treat has no effect unless and until it is ratified by the Senate. The Rome Statute was never ratified by the Senate, so it is not binding on the United States. Indeed, although Clinton signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, he specifically recommended that the Senate not ratify it because it contained “significant flaws” as written.

    http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=newsdetail&news=347

    So much for your theory that the ICC will prosecute Obama.

  39. avatar
    racosta February 26, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Ima Obat points us to an ICC link that says “United States has not signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities”

    what’s up with that, he didn’t read his own link?

  40. avatar
    nbC February 26, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    Another bites the dust. Orly forgot to file a timely appeal and the Court, despite her request to reopen, denied her request…

    Cook v Good appeal:

    02/26/2010 Appellant’s “motion for Leave of Court” to reinstate appeal is DENIED. JLE/SFB

    FAIL

  41. avatar
    Dave February 26, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    Vince: the link you provided is suggested standards for UN member states to impose on lawyers within their borders. It makes no requirement on lawyers filing complaints with the OHCHR, which as I mentioned, is not any kind of a court.

  42. avatar
    Saint James February 26, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Orly lied again!

    “Interview with Russia Today English edition re complaint to the UN human rights commission. It was transmitted to billions of viewers on all 6 continents. Link below”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6M7o3ruNdU

    The last time I checked, the video only had 344 views not BILLIONS

  43. avatar
    racosta February 26, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    if you go to Ima Obot’s link it says
    “Agreement on Privileges and Immunities – United States has not signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities”
    http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=country&iduct=185

    What does “not signed” mean?

  44. avatar
    Ima Obot February 26, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    richCares: the link you provided states:
    “Agreement on Privileges and Immunities”
    United States has not signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities.

    The Agreement on Privileges and Immunities is for principles conducting ICC procedures and activities, i.e. a signatory grants immunities and privileges to a prosecutor or a Judge.

    BHO II only recently granted immunity to the investigative arm of the ICC, Interpol. Once there is a case to be presented, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities may be signed. If BHO II is the target for prosecution, then the ICC will have to prosecute in a country other than the U.S.

  45. avatar
    nbC February 26, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    The ICC has no case to prosecute our President. Simple really

  46. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    Ima Obot says:

    Once there is a case to be presented, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities may be signed. If BHO II is the target for prosecution, then the ICC will have to prosecute in a country other than the U.S.

    Lots of luck with that. I have an idea for you – why don’t you have the Super American Grand Jury makes its presentments to the ICC? That should be good for a few laughs.

  47. avatar
    richCares February 27, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    Ima Obot must have a lrge rear end, the way he keeps pulling stuff out of it.

  48. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 27, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Sven has an amazing imagination, I’ll grant him that.

  49. avatar
    Dave February 27, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    You may have missed the half-dozen comments above pointing out that Interpol has no relationship whatsoever to the ICC. Interpol is a cooperative effort of the countries of Europe, and is unrelated to the UN.

    And you may have also missed the several messages asking you what you imagine is the war crime that Obama could be charged with.

  50. avatar
    Ima Obot February 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Dave: You may have missed the half-dozen comments above pointing out that Interpol has no relationship whatsoever to the ICC. Interpol is a cooperative effort of the countries of Europe, and is unrelated to the UN.And you may have also missed the several messages asking you what you imagine is the war crime that Obama could be charged with.

    Are you trying to manipulate me into making your point? Why don’t assert yourself by posting statements of fact and let your audience decide for themselves what is true and not true?

    I won’t be affirming your theories, but I will continue to post my theories as long as I am allowed to. You are free to agree or disagree.

  51. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Ima Obot says:

    I won’t be affirming your theories, but I will continue to post my theories as long as I am allowed to.

    It would be more interesting if your theories were based upon facts rather than sheer fantasy. Your theory that Obama could be tried by the ICC fails because of two indisputable facts:

    1. The United States never ratified the Rome Treaty, so the U.S. is not subject to the ICC.

    2. Even if the U.S. ratified the Rome Treaty, the ICC would not have jurisdiction to decide if Obama is a usurper, because that is a political issue which can only be addressed by the United States.

    And once again: exactly what “war crimes” has Obama committed?

  52. avatar
    Mike February 27, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    Rickey: And let’s not forget that even if, by the magical powers of some magical fantasy unicorn that grants wishes, Interpol suddenly became the ICC’s investigative arm and the ICC gained jurisdiction over the USA, it still would not have cause to investigate, because INterpol only acts where crimes overlap several countries.

    The fact is that Interpol is really only a contact broker between police forces working outside their own countries – it links them with local, municipal and national police in other countries.

  53. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    The government has filed a cogent Motion to Dismiss the quo warranto action filed by Orly.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27536148/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-10-2010-02-26-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

  54. avatar
    Dave February 27, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Ima Obot:
    Are you trying to manipulate me into making your point? Why don’t assert yourself by posting statements of fact and let your audience decide for themselves what is true and not true?I won’t be affirming your theories, but I will continue to post my theories as long as I am allowed to. You are free to agree or disagree.

    How very odd. I was under the impression that I had stated the fact that Interpol is not the investigative arm of the ICC, as you have alleged. That certainly looks like a statement of fact to me, what does it look like to you?

    I was also attempting to elicit a clarification from you of what your theory is. You have suggested that the President should be tried for war crimes, but you have given no hint of what war crime you’re talking about. I mean, you can keep it a secret if you want, it’s a free country, but you’re hardly going to persuade anybody like that.

  55. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 1:54 am #

    Orly is a KGB agent. She should not need the UN to protect her.
    .

  56. avatar
    Lupin February 28, 2010 at 3:17 am #

    Has Orly been disbarred yet?

    The topic of war crimes may be a sensitive one, plus it really is off topic.

    Briefly, there are many learned advocates and judges in various European countries who do believe that a number of past US officials are guilty of “war crimes.”

    (Insert debate about Nuremberg definitions here.)

    More here:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/29-6
    http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fandy-worthington%2Fspanish-judge-resumes-tor_b_279451.html&date=2009-09-08

    Whatever your feelings on the matter may be, this is certainly a complex and mostly theoretical issue at the present, unless Dick Cheney decides to suddenly go and vacation in Spain or Germany.

    The potential “guilt” of your current administration is even more debatable, and involves primarily the cover-up of the previous administration’s alleged offenses, and even more debatably, some of the current military policies in Afghanistan involving the killing of civilians.

    None of this bears any relevance on the obvious legitimacy of President Obama, but let me just say that I would advise some US officials, past and present, to NOT travel abroad ever.

  57. avatar
    Ima Obot February 28, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    Dave:
    How very odd. I was under the impression that I had stated the fact that Interpol is not the investigative arm of the ICC, as you have alleged. That certainly looks like a statement of fact to me, what does it look like to you?I was also attempting to elicit a clarification from you of what your theory is. You have suggested that the President should be tried for war crimes, but you have given no hint of what war crime you’re talking about. I mean, you can keep it a secret if you want, it’s a free country, but you’re hardly going to persuade anybody like that.

    Is this the message your referring to …

    If Orly’s Quo Warranto case is dismissed, I believe she will move the ICC to try BHO II for usurpation and war crimes by usurper.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 1998 to serve as a forum in which to try persons who are “accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” The UN Security Council, national governments, non-governmental organizations, and even individuals can bring lawsuits before the Court. The ICC defines itself as “a court of last resort,” meaning that it “will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system …

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6984

    An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

    And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126137#

    Let me be clear, I believe Orly will move the ICC to try Obama for war crimes because he is an usurper.

    What needs to be be clarified? Do you think I was misunderstood my theory concerning Orly’s motive or the direction I believe she is heading?

    Carefully read the links provided. Think about it and formulate your own opinion. Don’t ask others to decide for you. Decide for yourself.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    Lupin: Has Orly been disbarred yet?

    No, but it appears that she has received notice of one or more complaints from the California bar and a reply was required last Friday (February 26, 2010). I would love to read it.

  59. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    Ima Obot: Let me be clear, I believe Orly will move the ICC to try Obama for war crimes because he is an usurper.

    So what? Anyone can move anyone to do anything they like. She can ask the ICC to give her a pony too.

  60. avatar
    Ima Obot February 28, 2010 at 8:44 am #

    Scientist:
    So what?Anyone can move anyone to do anything they like.She can ask the ICC to give her a pony too.

    Doc’s article is about Orly applying to the UN for protection. I think Orly will expand her activity and move the ICC to prosecute Obama for war crimes.

    And Dave wants me to post an itemized list of charges Orly will present to the ICC.

  61. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    Sven: From the link you provided,

    “In 2003 the Greek Bar Association announced that it would seek to prosecute British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the ICC for his support of the Iraq War.”

    And how far did that go?

    What are Obama’s war crimes? Afghanistan? You would then also have to include Bush, Cheney, Blair, Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper, Sarkozy and the leaders of several other NATO countries. Iraq? How is winding down a war a war crime?

    The fact that you take seriously anything that incompetent clown Orly Taitz does says a lot about you.

  62. avatar
    Ima Obot February 28, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    Rickey: Ima Obot says:
    I won’t be affirming your theories, but I will continue to post my theories as long as I am allowed to.It would be more interesting if your theories were based upon facts rather than sheer fantasy. Your theory that Obama could be tried by the ICC fails because of two indisputable facts:1. The United States never ratified the Rome Treaty, so the U.S. is not subject to the ICC.2. Even if the U.S. ratified the Rome Treaty, the ICC would not have jurisdiction to decide if Obama is a usurper, because that is a political issue which can only be addressed by the United States.And once again: exactly what “war crimes” has Obama committed?

    I thought I was clear.

    My theory is Orly will move the ICC to prosecute Obama for war crimes if her Quo Warranto case is dismissed.

    Somehow, you’ve morphed it into my theory Obama should tried with war crimes and you’ve demanded an itemized list of war crimes I think he should be tried with.

  63. avatar
    Ima Obot February 28, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Scientist: Sven:From the link you provided,“In 2003 the Greek Bar Association announced that it would seek to prosecute British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the ICC for his support of the Iraq War.”And how far did that go?
    What are Obama’s war crimes?Afghanistan?You would then also have to include Bush, Cheney, Blair, Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper, Sarkozy and the leaders of several other NATO countries.Iraq?How is winding down a war a war crime?The fact that you take seriously anything that incompetent clown Orly Taitz does says a lot about you.

    It was only a few months ago that Obama extended the privileges and immunities previously granted to Interpol by Reagan and amended by Clinton.

    theory alert … I think Obama will grant privileges and immunities to the ICC if Orly’s Quo Warranto is not dismissed.
    end theory

    Now, come on Dave and Rickey, demand I prove my theory with facts.

  64. avatar
    richCares February 28, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    “Now, come on Dave and Rickey, demand I prove my theory with facts.”

    Wow, I can’t stop laughing. This certainly proves that hating Obama causes mental illness.

  65. avatar
    BlackLion February 28, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    Why would they? You have never provided facts for any of your other theories so why make this any different? I mean we are all amused by you and your wild theories…You are actually doing yourself a disservice by not being a fiction writer because your theories are so farfetched….I mean can you imagine a court trying to arrest the President of the United States? I guess you want to see us go to war again because that would be the only way that could occur. However here in the real world we all know that would never happen because not even the police could arrest the sitting President in the US…So what makes you think that some international agency without arrest powers could do it? Fantasy….Which is what the birthers are all about…