Main Menu

Pretty please

US Supreme Court

Repeating the kind of behavior that got her sanctioned in the first place, Orly Taitz just refuses to take no for an answer, even from the United States Supreme Court. According to Taitz’s web site, she has filed a motion to have her rejected emergency request to stay the sanctions imposed on her by a federal district court “reconsifered”. Why? She can’t spell. New evidence.

The “new evidence” consists of the old evidence plus a new claim that President Barry Soebarkacha’s [sic] passport, shown in a recently-released White House video, is forged! Taitz is also accusing the President of “uttering.”

Exactly what the President’s passport, genuine or forged, has to do with Orly’s sanctions, I cannot fathom.

More information and the complete text of Orly’s motion:

  1. Huffington Post
  2. Science Blogs
  3. OC Weekly
  4. Courthouse New Service
  5. TPM Muckraker

Orly Taitz’s Motion To Reconsider by davidtaintor

65 Responses to Pretty please

  1. avatar
    realist August 19, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    Setting aside the fact this is a mish-mash of disorganized lunatic ranting, there is no rule at SCOTUS that allows for a Motion to Reconsider (or even ReconsiFeration as she calls it)…typical Orly “practicing” Orlylaw.

  2. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    I’ve already seen comments that SCOTUS rules make no provision for the filing of a Motion For Reconsideration of a SCOTUS decision. Just when you thought that Orly couldn’t do anything crazier!

    And she has sent copies of it to everyone except Judge Judy.

  3. avatar
    Domokun August 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Maybe The Hague can reconsifer this whole matter for her. And let her fineesh.

  4. avatar
    Scientist August 19, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    Assuming she gets turned down at the Hague, how does one go about petitioning the Inter-Galactic Court of the Entire Universe?

  5. avatar
    misha August 19, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    I’d love to see her go to the Hague. Popcorn.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    realist: Setting aside the fact this is a mish-mash of disorganized lunatic ranting, there is no rule at SCOTUS that allows for a Motion to Reconsider (or even ReconsiFeration as she calls it)…typical Orly “practicing” Orlylaw.

    Well, speaking of OrlyLaw, she goes on to ask the court to:

    use this court inherent powers to hold a criminal hearing and prosecution of Barack Hussein Obama for forgery, uttering, fraud on the court and obstruction of justice

  7. avatar
    Ellid August 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Y’know, I’m wondering how much longer the Supremes are going to tolerate this idiot before THEY sanction her.

  8. avatar
    ASK Esq August 19, 2010 at 5:15 pm #

    It took me a while, but I think I’ve finally figured Orly out. I finally know why she’s doing all this.

    She didn’t become a lawyer in the first place to save money defending herself from frequent dental malpractice claims, as many have suggested. She didn’t go after Obama because she actually believes the nonsense that she spews. But, most importantly, she doesn’t keep losing causes alive because she believes in them.

    All this is simply because it is the only way she can ever read the phrase “Orly Taitz appealing” written anywhere. Kind of sad, really.

  9. avatar
    Sef August 19, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    ASK Esq: All this is simply because it is the only way she can ever read the phrase “Orly Taitz appealing” written anywhere. Kind of sad, really.

    Now that you have sussed it out Orly’s world will instantly disappear & be replaced with something even more bizarrely inexplicable.

  10. avatar
    Jules August 19, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, speaking of OrlyLaw, she goes on to ask the court to:

    use this court inherent powers to hold a criminal hearing and prosecution of Barack Hussein Obama for forgery, uttering, fraud on the court and obstruction of justice

    I am trying to decide whether this is more or less insane than her motion to send in her investigators to check whether Justice Thomas actually rejected her stay application.

    ASK Esq: All this is simply because it is the only way she can ever read the phrase “Orly Taitz appealing” written anywhere.

    Her dental practice is called “Appealing Dentistry”.

  11. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP August 19, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Taitz is on a path of self destruction, but you know darnn well who she’s going to blame it on.

  12. avatar
    AnotherBird August 19, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    I think that she missed the point about her sanction.

    Scientist: Assuming she gets turned down at the Hague, how does one go about petitioning the Inter-Galactic Court of the Entire Universe?

    Maybe she should try some alternate reality.

  13. avatar
    Sef August 19, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    Scientist: Assuming she gets turned down at the Hague, how does one go about petitioning the Inter-Galactic Court of the Entire Universe?

    If she does that she’ll complain about the terribly unfair speed of light which hampers her communication to the Inter-Galactic Court.

  14. avatar
    Preston August 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    Poor little Birthers (still in denial about their losses), but our Judges will continue to smack down the crazies .

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories.

    You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.
    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I wonder if Orly Taitz, is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme, unlike a our US courts of law. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, WOW I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.

    I heard that Orly Taitz, now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC), she wants to re-establish a family values party, good luck with that.

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew their hate with lies.

  15. avatar
    sfjeff August 19, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    I am still trying to figure out what action made the Ursurper guilty of ‘uttering’- though I believe that we all can agree that ‘uttering’ does make someone ineligible to be President

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy August 19, 2010 at 6:56 pm #

    I saw that piece of garbage she posted on her website. I’ve seen pro se plaintiffs file a better motion. So besides not know that you don’t cite to the rules of civil procedure for a SCOTUS motion, and besides not knowing how to hit the spell check button, and not even knowing how to format text that she cuts and pastes into a document so it looks like the rest of the document, she doesn’t even know what she’s appealing. None of her mad rantings have anything to do with her sanctions (well, except showing that perhaps they were too small). She filing frivolous documents. Documents she should have known were frivolous because the same judge told her earlier she didn’t have standing in a prior case. And when he told her that if she files another frivolous document he will sanction her, and she responds by filing the same damn rant over again…and when he gives her a show cause order, rather than saying “woops sorry…my bad” she calls the judge a traitor and accuses him of being paid off or threatened by Holder, who happened to be on the other side of the country at the time. That, my guano crazy birther queen is why you were sanctioned…..again, what do all her mad rantings have to do what nay of that again?

  17. avatar
    G August 19, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    So, with such over-the-top frivolity such as this, can the Supreme Court revoke Orly’s permit or license or whatever it is to bring cases before them?

  18. avatar
    JoZeppy August 19, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    and what do the idiots that follow her have to say (how stupid do you have to be to think this garbage is “a winner”? although it certain is “up to her normal standards”):

    Toto Tew
    August 19th, 2010 @ 7:11 am
    Splendid! A winner,

    D. Oltieri
    August 19th, 2010 @ 8:31 am
    Dear Dr Orly!

    That is great work and well up to your normal standards!

    I can’t find the article about the forged passport on the web…is it expert testimony you yourself have paid for? You have sacrificed so much already, both financially and physically!!!

    Keep up the good work, Lady Liberty. The world is waiting with baited breath.

  19. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    JoZeppy The world is waiting with baited breath.

    The world does not eat earthworms. Only birthers are that stupid.

  20. avatar
    misha August 19, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    JoZeppy: The world is waiting with baited breath.

    It’s “bated breath.”

    http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm

  21. avatar
    AnotherBird August 19, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    D. Oltieri
    August 19th, 2010 @ 8:31 am
    Dear Dr Orly!

    That is great work and well up to your normal standards!

    … The world is waiting with baited breath.

    Yes, some are just waiting for when she pays her $20,000 sanction, other for when she stop all these childlike legal filings.

  22. avatar
    G August 19, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    AnotherBird: Yes, some are just waiting for when she pays her $20,000 sanction, other for when she stop all these childlike legal filings.

    And some of us are waiting for both….

    Well, throw in waiting for the day for her to be deservedly fitted for a straitjacket and removed from the general populace to a safe place with padded walls, plastic spoons and proper medication…

    Yeah, I’d say that would cap off the trifecta I’m looking for.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Majority Will:
    The world does not eat earthworms. Only birthers are that stupid.

    And I edited that badly. No offense intended to JoZeppy. The comment was for:

    D. Oltieri
    August 19th, 2010 @ 8:31 am
    Dear Dr Orly!

    That is great work and well up to your normal standards!

    I can’t find the article about the forged passport on the web…is it expert testimony you yourself have paid for? You have sacrificed so much already, both financially and physically!!!

    Keep up the good work, Lady Liberty. The world is waiting with baited breath.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    G:
    And some of us are waiting for both….Well, throw in waiting for the day for her to be deservedly fitted for a straitjacket and removed from the general populace to a safe place with padded walls, plastic spoons and proper medication…Yeah, I’d say that would cap off the trifecta I’m looking for.

    I wonder if she could lose her U.S. citizenship for violating the Naturalization Oath with repeated calls for an armed insurrection and sedition.

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

  25. avatar
    Dave August 19, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: and what do the idiots that follow her have to say (how stupid do you have to be to think this garbage is “a winner”? although it certain is “up to her normal standards”):

    I’m pretty sure the comment by D. Oltieri is mocking Taitz. There’s just too many typos that conveniently turn into insults, like “baited breath.”

    As a comment said elsewhere on Taitz’s blog, it’s like Poe’s law come to life.

  26. avatar
    Passerby August 19, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    I’m really confused about the “uttering.” Someone help me out here. What does she mean? Or what does she *think* she means?

  27. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    Passerby: uttering

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering_a_forged_document

    In the USA, Uttering is the act of offering a forged document to another when the offeror has knowledge that the document is forged.[1] Uttering does not require that the person who presented the document actually forged or altered the document. For example, forging a log for personal profit might be considered uttering and publishing. Another example would be the forging of a university diploma. As an example of the law itself, the State of Michigan defines the offense (MCL 750.249): “Any person who utters and publishes as true any false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed, instrument or other writing specified, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to injure or defraud is guilty of uttering and publishing.”[2]

    Forging or illegal “publishing” of an official or unofficial document is not the essence of uttering. Uttering is the actual presentation of forged or official documentation as one’s own. So, for example, an underage teen attempting to get into a bar with an ID that is either fake or not theirs is guilty of uttering, though they may have had nothing to do with the actual making, or “publishing” of the ID.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    “This video represented forgery and uttering . . .”

    And with no credible evidence whatsoever, Oily is accusing the President of forgery and knowingly using a forged passport (uttering).

    Guano psychosis.

  29. avatar
    Passerby August 19, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    Majority Will: Thank you. I’d never heard it before. I guess I should have googled it myself, but to be honest, since it’s Orly I was assuming it was a made-up word!

  30. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Passerby: Majority Will: Thank you. I’d never heard it before. I guess I should have googled it myself, but to be honest, since it’s Orly I was assuming it was a made-up word!

    No problem! I’ve learned to question everything coming out of that disgusting liar’s mouth.

  31. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    Oily the Deranged:
    “I know that sooner or later the truth will be out and my legal efforts will be vindicated and probably will be part of history books,” said Taitz earlier this summer. “I know that the moment one judge order discovery or reverses prior ruling, the hounded will end and many will have an egg on their faces.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/orly-taitz-appealing-supr_n_687995.html

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Majority Will: I wonder if she could lose her U.S. citizenship for violating the Naturalization Oath with repeated calls for an armed insurrection and sedition.

    I am not a lawyer, but from my reading on the topic of citizenship, the answer is “no.”

  33. avatar
    Majority Will August 19, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I am not a lawyer, but from my reading on the topic of citizenship, the answer is “no.”

    But you can be prosecuted for inciting violence and an armed rebellion if there is sufficient evidence. Right?

  34. avatar
    Keith August 19, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Majority Will:
    But you can be prosecuted for inciting violence and an armed rebellion if there is sufficient evidence. Right?

    Yes, but it isn’t easy. There is too much political angst to overcome.

    Wikipedia: Sedition: United States

  35. avatar
    Jules August 20, 2010 at 4:36 am #

    I am sure that the State Bar of California will get a copy of Taitz’s brief. In my humble opinion, it is strong evidence that Taitz is not competent to practise law.

    Taitz is repeating her earlier errors in not realising that stay applications are only appropriate to seek interim relief and that the only issue in dispute on appeal deals with the sanctions order.

    The request for the Supreme Court to launch a criminal investigation seemed pretty crazy to me. Criminal proceedings are first issued at the district court level, not in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the rules of the federal court system do not provide for issuance of criminal proceedings by private parties.

    I now see from looking at the full brief that Taitz is attempting to bring a civil action for damages in the form of a stay application in Taitz v. McDonald. This is despite the fact that Obama is not and has never been a party to that action. This is despite the fact that you can’t get a civil judgment for damages via a stay application.

  36. avatar
    US Citizen August 20, 2010 at 6:31 am #

    Appealing? Nada.
    But Charles Lincoln III can testify that he has also thrown Orly’s briefs on the floor at least once.
    I think Orly holds the dubious distinction of being one of the few lawyers who ever lost more money than they made practicing law.
    Now THAT takes work.

  37. avatar
    Jules August 20, 2010 at 6:52 am #

    Taitz’s exhibit alleges that the image of Obama’s passport is a fraud because we see, at 1:52 in the White House YoutTube video, part of his picture on what must be page 6 of the passport, opposite the various passport stamps on page 7. The exhibit assumes that the image on page 6 must be a fraudulent passport data page that does not match the data page seen earlier in the video. It fails to consider that page 6 of the passport is taken up by a visa that contains Obama’s photo.

    Though we only see a small portion of page 6 of the passport, the hologram above Obama’s head appears to be like the hologram that is in the upper-left corner of the UK residence permit in my current passport, the old UK residence permit in my last passport, and an old Spanish student visa in my last passport. Images of European visas that contain such a hologram can be found here, here, and here.

  38. avatar
    Jules August 20, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    Further to my most recent post above, I have noticed that the portion of the visa that I have circled in green on this screenshot appears to contain the word “ETATS”. Anything to the right of this not visible on screen because the passport is slanted relative to the camera.

    As seen in the images of Schengen visas issued by Austria and Switzerland in 2007 and 2010, respectively, at this link, the space that appears to include the word “ETATS” is that which clarifies the place for which the visa is valid. Based upon this, I think that if we could see the entire visa, we would see that it is valid for Etats Schengen, meaning Schengen States. If a diplomatic Schengen visa is on page 6 of Obama’s diplomatic passport, then it makes perfect sense that the Schengen entry and exit stamps placed in Obama’s passport by the French and Czech officials, respectively, were stamped onto page 7.

  39. avatar
    Lupin August 20, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    Maybe she meant “ottering”? I’m sure I’ve seen a picture of Obama with those cute seal-like creatures before.

  40. avatar
    AnotherBird August 20, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    Jules, Taitz seems overly obsessed with proving the president isn’t a citizen of America, let alone a person who was born in the country. Everything in her premise follows from that position. You are correct that what is on “page 6” is a visa and not opposite to the “cover page.”

    We can thank Orly Taitz for debunking her own argument. She didn’t take time to compare the images in her fillings to determine that they suit her argument.

    Jan Baughman wrote about that page of the American passport on February 22, 2010. The only notable entry was that about Daniel Webster (1782–1852).

    The Important Information pages 6 and 7 are headed with “The principle of free governments adheres to the American soil. It is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains.”

    I don’t see Taitz getting disbarred anytime soon. I do beleive that the State Bar of California or some other entity is collection Taitz legal filings. “Give someone enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.”

  41. avatar
    Marc August 20, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    WND (not a reliable source) claims that the Orly vs Dunn lawsuit (about the Calf Sec of State election) has been moved to Federal Court

  42. avatar
    Dave August 20, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Marc: WND (not a reliable source) claims that the Orly vs Dunn lawsuit (about the Calf Sec of State election) has been moved to Federal Court

    The article I found was about Barnett v. Dunn, which is oddly a different case from Taitz v. Dunn, and stated that the feds filed transferred the case to federal court. One of the defendants is the US Election Assistance Commission, hence the feds are involved.

  43. avatar
    AnotherBird August 20, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Dave:
    The article I found was about Barnett v. Dunn, which is oddly a different case from Taitz v. Dunn, and stated that the feds filed transferred the case to federal court. One of the defendants is the US Election Assistance Commission, hence the feds are involved.

    It is the same issue. Barnett is trying to dispute Dunn eligibility and victory over Taitz. It seems that Barnett wants to remove Dunn from the ballot. Not being a legal scholar; I see to merit to the case and predict the demurrer (motion to dismiss) will be granted.

  44. avatar
    Nobody August 20, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Sef:
    Now that you have sussed it out Orly’s world will instantly disappear & be replaced with something even more bizarrely inexplicable.

    Some will contend that this has already happened.

    Twice

  45. avatar
    Jules August 20, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    AnotherBird: Jan Baughman wrote about that page of the American passport on February 22, 2010. The only notable entry was that about Daniel Webster (1782–1852).

    The Important Information pages 6 and 7 are headed with “The principle of free governments adheres to the American soil. It is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains.”

    I suppose that Taitz will make an issue of the fact that pages 6 and 7 of Obama’s diplomatic passport are visa pages whereas ordinary US passports have these pages filled with “Important Information” about taking care to obey foreign laws, arranging health insurance coverage abroad, and registering with the relevant US embassy whilst abroad, etc.

    My guess is that diplomatic passports do not contain the usual information pages because a diplomat’s situation is rather different from that of an ordinary citizen going abroad. Those with diplomatic immunity would normally have health federal employee health insurance that applies abroad. They would be immune from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The federal government would be very much aware of their travel already, as such travel would have been arranged by the government.

  46. avatar
    Arthur August 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Two things:

    First, props to U.S. Citizen for the line, “Charles Lincoln III can testify that he has also thrown Orly’s briefs on the floor at least once.” Very LOLish.

    Second, I’d love to know what’s going through the mind of Orly’s husband. Any guesses?

  47. avatar
    Majority Will August 20, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Arthur: Two things:
    First, props to U.S. Citizen for the line, “Charles Lincoln III can testify that he has also thrown Orly’s briefs on the floor at least once.” Very LOLish.
    Second, I’d love to know what’s going through the mind of Orly’s husband. Any guesses?

    A slow breeze?

  48. avatar
    AnotherBird August 20, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Jules:
    I suppose that Taitz will make an issue of the fact that pages 6 and 7 of Obama’s diplomatic passport are visa pages whereas ordinary US passports have these pages filled with “Important Information” about taking care to obey foreign laws, arranging health insurance coverage abroad, and registering with the relevant US embassy whilst abroad, etc.

    My guess is that diplomatic passports do not contain the usual information pages because a diplomat’s situation is rather different from that of an ordinary citizen going abroad. Those with diplomatic immunity would normally have health federal employee health insurance that applies abroad. They would be immune from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The federal government would be very much aware of their travel already, as such travel would have been arranged by the government.

    Jules, Taitz is crazy. Here is a simple example of her argument.

    You honor he gave me a fake $100 bill. See this is a $100 bill. It has Ben Franklin’s face on it. He though that he could give 10 fake $100 bills, and fool me. Who is this man on these fake $100 bills? it sure isn’t Franklin. I was shocked when I noticed instead of two 0’s after the 1, there was only one. He said that he would give me $100, and he didn’t.

    She is comparing apples to oranges. She wants apples, but see oranges also. She picks up one apple and an orange. Then she complains to the store manager that the orange things aren’t apples.

  49. avatar
    Daniel August 21, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    I don’t know if Oily will make it into the history books, but I’m pretty sure she’s eligible for a mention in Guiness for “most ridiculous and obvious typo in the first dozen lines of a SCOTUS submission”.

    I mean, really, a typo buried in the small print buried on page 682 of a treatise one could understand…. but when you can’t even spell the word you’re using to tell the judges what you’re asking for? Is this the Supreme Court, or a presentation for nomination for high school class president?

    I can hear the peals of laughter from chambers as we speak.

  50. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    Dave:
    The article I found was about Barnett v. Dunn, which is oddly a different case from Taitz v. Dunn, and stated that the feds filed transferred the case to federal court. One of the defendants is the US Election Assistance Commission, hence the feds are involved.

    Barnett supposedly is Orly’s campaign manager. She filed Barnett v. Dunn pro se, but we all know that Orly’s fingerprints are all over it. Leave it to Orly not to realize that state court is an improper venue for suing a Federal agency.

  51. avatar
    US Citizen August 21, 2010 at 4:30 am #

    Thanks for the props. 🙂

    I wonder what Oily’s opinion of supposedly being “a US Supreme court admitted constitutional attorney” is now?
    She previously dropped that line in various ways and now it would seem that this illusionistic friendship is over now.

    Her husband? He likely has left her in her own world.
    I would imagine there’s a rule in their house that she not bring up Obama.
    Maybe just when she’s on TV and they both watch together.
    There’s just no other way her husband could stand to live with her.
    It’s likely it’s “that’s nice dear” all the way.

    But in getting back to Lincoln III, I can’t imagine he (Josef) knows and / or believes those encounters to be real.
    That or HE has some nice little concubine on the side.
    Given that he’s the one with the money and the crazy wife that’s all-consumed with herself, that…. to me… is the most logical assumption:
    Her husband doesn’t care because he’s got something hotter and wetter than Oily.
    Anyone else agree?

  52. avatar
    Majority Will August 21, 2010 at 4:43 am #

    US Citizen: Thanks for the props.
    I wonder what Oily’s opinion of supposedly being “a US Supreme court admitted constitutional attorney” is now?
    She previously dropped that line in various ways and now it would seem that this illusionistic friendship is over now.
    Her husband? He likely has left her in her own world.
    I would imagine there’s a rule in their house that she not bring up Obama.
    Maybe just when she’s on TV and they both watch together.
    There’s just no other way her husband could stand to live with her.
    It’s likely it’s “that’s nice dear” all the way.But in getting back to Lincoln III, I can’t imagine he (Josef) knows and / or believes those encounters to be real.
    That or HE has some nice little concubine on the side.
    Given that he’s the one with the money and the crazy wife that’s all-consumed with herself, that…. to me… is the most logical assumption:
    Her husband doesn’t care because he’s got something hotter and wetter than Oily.
    Anyone else agree?

    No, it’s just a guess but Yosef is a successful businessman and also a submissive with his own issues.

  53. avatar
    Arthur August 21, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    Regarding Yosef:

    Maybe he treats Orly’s effort’s as a form of charity work. Some wives help at hospitals; Orly helps keep us in stitches.

    But I agree with U.S. Citizen that Yosef is probably in his own world. After all, can you imagine having to listen to that breaking-glass voice of hers, shatter on and on about utterings while you’re trying to enjoy your morning rugelach and coffee? Maddening. Yosef is probably putting in a lot of overtime these days–and lovin’ it.

  54. avatar
    BatGuano August 21, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    Arthur: Second, I’d love to know what’s going through the mind of Orly’s husband. Any guesses?

    regret most likely.

    the taitz i’m curious about is ben. i saw a video of a student government convention from 2008 (?) where ben taitz says he’s excited about the prospect of obama being president. family dinners must be awkward .

    i can’t find the video now but will keep looking.

  55. avatar
    Arthur August 21, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    Ah yes, the children. I forgot about them . . . mostly because Orly seems like someone who would eat her kind.

  56. avatar
    squee August 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    BatGuano:
    regret most likely.the taitz i’m curious about is ben. i saw a video of a student government convention from 2008 (?) where ben taitz says he’s excited about the prospect of obama being president. family dinners must be awkward .i can’t find the video now but will keep looking.

    I believe the video you’re looking for can be found here: Speaking To Democratic Youth

  57. avatar
    Northland10 August 21, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    And now, she makes a comment on the Wall Street Journal Blog (or at least somebody using her name) suggesting the WSJ come with her to the White House to ask Gibbs or the President about is SSN:

    *
    o 4:20 pm August 21, 2010

    o Dr.Orly Taitz ESQ wrote:

    I presented Judge Land not only with the argument on the birth certifricate, but also affidavits from investigators and a senior deportation officer of the department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that the SS number 042-68-4425 Obama is using in the White House, was issued to another individual in CT. Any other US citizen would have been criminally prosecuted for SS fraud and would be sitting in prison for what Obama is pulling. It is a sign of a dictatorial regime, when a judge sanctions a civil rights attorney $20, 000 for bringing to court evidence of criminal activity.
    I would like to know if Wall street Journal would allow me to come to the White House with their reporters and ask Gibbs or Obama, why is Obama sitting in the White House with a stolen SS number/ Why doesn’t he have a valid SS number of his own?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/16/its-official-birther-dds-esq-orly-taitz-will-be-20k-poorer/tab/comment

    The earlier comments included her wonderful fellow travelers such as Neil S. and Robert Laity.

  58. avatar
    AnotherBird August 21, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    Northland10: And now, she makes a comment on the Wall Street Journal Blog (or at least somebody using her name) suggesting the WSJ come with her to the White House to ask Gibbs or the President about is SSN:

    Yeah, that look like Orly Taitz’s writing. Same “Fallacious Arguments” and strange logic. At least we know what newspapers that she reads.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will August 21, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Northland10: And now, she makes a comment on the Wall Street Journal Blog (or at least somebody using her name) suggesting the WSJ come with her to the White House to ask Gibbs or the President about is SSN:
    The earlier comments included her wonderful fellow travelers such as Neil S. and Robert Laity.

    Funny thing. It’s almost as if she’s unaware that Obama holds the highest public office in the U.S. which would be over State (passports) and Treasury (SSNs).

    There is an insane disconnect here in her paranoia.

  60. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Majority Will:
    There is an insane disconnect here in her paranoia.

    Plus the WSJ couldn’t allow her to accompany a reporter to the White House in any event.

  61. avatar
    Bovril August 22, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    AnotherBird: Yeah, that look like Orly Taitz’s writing. Same “Fallacious Arguments” and strange logic. At least we know what newspapers that she reads.

    Naaaah, not our Mad Ole Orly that.

    There is punctuation, grammar, no spelling errors, lack of overt CAPS and it’s not all one sentence. Compare to her masterpieces on her web site or her legal briefs.

    Now, was it an Orly supporter…..possibly…. wouldn’t be suprised if she has a few fellow travellers penning stuff under her name. I mean she is Konstititional Hooman Rigghts Lawyer, fighting USURPER with 1000 SS numbers and is MOSLEM MANCHURAINN CANDIDATE, Give me STANDINg or yiu go against shooting wall as trtaitors all. Hit PayPal button, Hit PayPaypal button, illegal fine, Obama, conspiracy, extortion on fine lawyer, illigittimate Kenyan, ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Etc etc etc.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 22, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    Northland10: And now, she makes a comment on the Wall Street Journal Blog (or at least somebody using her name) suggesting the WSJ come with her to the White House to ask Gibbs or the President about is SSN

    That’s either Orly Taitz or a very good imitator. So now she calls herself a “civil rights attorney” to add to “political dissident.”

  63. avatar
    US Citizen August 23, 2010 at 5:07 am #

    “So now she calls herself a ‘civil rights attorney’…”

    Not civil.
    Not right.
    Not an attorney. (at least not a successful one.)
    That’s Orly for you. Always 100% wrong.

  64. avatar
    Black Lion August 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Speaking of Oily, the Post and Fail has posted an article rife with inaccuracies, innuendo, and defamation of character. Amazing. I guess they need the donations to keep flowing….

    Some lowlights….

    “The original case was filed on January 20, 2009 on behalf of over 40 plaintiffs, including many retired officers and enlisted members of the U.S. military, Ambassador Alan Keyes (2008 presidential candidate of the American Independent Party), and Gail Lightfoot (a Libertarian Party member and write-in candidate for vice president). The plaintiffs were seeking “a judicial review and declaratory relief on the issue of legitimacy for the U.S. presidency and (the) position of Commander-in-Chief by Barack Hussein Obama.”

    The brief goes on to assert that “there is ample evidence of his (Obama’s) illegitimacy to (the) U.S. presidency due to his use of another person’s Social Security number…; due to the lack of his long-form birth certificate with the names of a doctor and a hospital; due to the fact that his mother’s passport records show a different last name for him (Obama); and other records and national data-bases show(ing) him (Obama) using multiple Social Security numbers, several different names, different birthdates, and different countries of origin.”

    …..

    “When the plaintiffs and their attorneys learned that the district court judge assigned to the case was Judge David O. Carter, they were elated and greatly encouraged. Judge Carter is a graduate of both UCLA and the UCLA School of Law, and a highly experienced and respected jurist. Judge Carter has a background as a criminal prosecutor and as a professor at several institutions, including the University of California at Irvine, where he has received the school’s Distinguished Professor Award three times. He also lectures frequently at judicial conferences worldwide, and at the California Judges College, the Judicial Criminal Law Institute, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

    In addition to his excellent legal background, Judge Carter is a war hero. He served as a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, with combat duty in the Vietnam War, where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sanh in early 1968 when the Marine Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) was under siege for 77 days.”

    …..

    “To the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, Judge David O. Carter seemed like an answer to their prayers. How could they ask for a more perfect judge? In a case which required a combination of an extraordinary judicial temperament, demonstrated courage, and unquestioned loyalty to the United States Constitution, Judge Carter seemed to have all of these qualities in abundance. Moreover, since there were strong indications of serious criminal acts of election fraud in the events leading up to the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election, it was felt that Judge Carter (given his prosecutorial background) was likely to share the plaintiffs’ desire to see the case heard on its merits, and that he would insure that an appropriate judicial environment was maintained to insure that would happen.”

    …..

    “When the hearing ended, the plaintiffs and their attorneys felt confident that there would be no dismissal of this case on the technicality of “standing” (as had occurred in several other prominent eligibility cases), and that it would finally be heard on its merits by Judge Carter. Further, the plaintiffs felt that those merits would be very strong, probably even conclusive, once the fruits of the discovery phase of the trial became available.

    Then, in early October, word came out that something very strange had happened. Judge Carter had hired a new law clerk, but not just any law clerk.

    Judge Carter could have hired a law clerk from among the recent graduates of any one of a number of fine law schools (including his alma mater, the UCLA School of Law) or from any one of hundreds of elite law firms in California and across the country. Instead he hired Siddharth Velamoor, from the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, the firm which represented the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and the firm where Obama’s White House Counsel Robert Bauer was formerly a partner. Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, former White House Director of Communications, who is infamous for her publicly-expressed deep admiration for the political philosophy of Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in the history of mankind according to author and former Red Guard Jung Chang in her masterpiece biography of Mao entitled Mao: The Unknown Story.”

    ……

    “To the Barnett plaintiffs and their attorneys, it seemed that Barack Obama had literally stepped into Judge Carter’s court room and sneered at us, telling us literally that “I have so much power that you cannot touch me! I am untouchable and I will do as I please.”

    ……

    “Once the hearing commenced, a change in tone became immediately apparent. It seemed that Judge Carter was much more skeptical of the plaintiff’s case, and noticeably more adversarial in his exchanges with Attorney Taitz. In an affidavit regarding this hearing which I provided in connection with the August 11 appeal, I stated that “I thought (the) change in Judge Carter’s demeanor from one hearing to the (October 5) hearing…was striking and quite surprising.” Another affiant made a similar statement in her affidavit: “After the hearing a large group of people met outside and declared that we couldn’t believe the change in the judge’s demeanor. One of the gentlemen, who said that he had known Judge Carter for a long time, stated that he had never seen him like that before.”

    On October 29, 2009, a not unexpected but nevertheless extremely disappointing favorable ruling on Obama’s Motion for Dismissal was released by Judge Carter in the Barnett case…..”

    …..

    “Do those words sound like the words of Judge David O. Carter as we heard him on July 13, 2009? Or do those words sound eerily similar to the words of so many uttered against the so-called “birthers” which have appeared in the mainstream media? Is it possible that those words could have come from one Robert Bauer?”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/22/the-strange-case-of-judge-david-o-carter/

    And the comments, which shows us how funny the birthers really are….

    A pen says:
    Monday, August 23, 2010 at 7:48 AM
    After a little digging I can only find one other marine like Carter, Lee Harvey Oswald.

    A pen says:
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM
    There is one word which describes his conduct, treason.

    12thGenerationAMERICAN says:
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM
    “WHAT TURNED THIS DECORATED WAR HERO INTO A PUPPET FOR THE OBAMA REGIME?”

    Simple answer: Either money or threats?!!?!

    kittycat says:
    Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:51 PM
    Maybe Carter wasn’t bought off, maybe he and his family were threatened. This is a possibility also. I know he’s a war hero, etc., but he’s also older and most likely has children and a family. This is a firm possibility.

  65. avatar
    sfjeff August 23, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    Once again- up and until the moment the judge goes against Birthers he is a hero and widely respected- but the moment he goes against Birther demands clearly he is a treasonous coward being bought off or coerced.