Main Menu

Taitz v. Kobach

It’s hard to come up with anything interesting to say about yet another Orly Taitz lawsuit, this time in Kansas. Secretary of State Kobach told her “no” so she’s sued. The saying goes, “when all you have is a hammer, ever problem looks like a nail.” In Orly’s every problem gets a lawsuit, perhaps because in a lawsuit sometimes people have to listen to you.

Here’s the “Application for an Emergency Stay/Motion for an Emergency Preliminary Injunction of the Ruling by the Secretary of State of Kansas and the ‘Objections Board’”(PDF) [link to Taitz web site]. She has a hearing before judge Larry Hendricks in Kansas District Court on October 3 according to the court docket, case number 12C 001027.

At this point in an article about a Taitz lawsuit, I usually give a brief summary of the main ideas of the suit, but I’m having a hard time justifying the trouble to read it. Nevertheless a sense of guilt has motivated me to at least look at it, and immediately one curious thing emerged. Not only is Taitz suing, but a Kansas birther named Roger Walters is the other named plaintiff. Walters is listed as a plaintiff, but not as a signer of the petition, and Orly is not admitted as a lawyer in Kansas, and can’t represent him. Orly did sign it herself, at least she typed it as “Orlv Taitz.”

Much of what we see in the document looks a lot like what she used as a complaint in Farrar v. Obama in Georgia, same basic affidavits and “evidence.” In an odd statement, Orly Taitz accuses Dr. Alvin Onaka, Hawaii State Registrar, of releasing a forged birth certificate for Barack Obama.

The board decided to accept as a valid document a letter from the registrar of the Health Department of Hawaii Alvin T. Onaka, in spite of the fact that Onaka is the one, who is a person of interest in the ongoing criminal investigation of forgery in Obama’s IDs, in spite of the fact that Onaka is the one who released the forgery in the first place and who is refusing to provide for examination the original birth certificate and original microfilm of Obama’s birth certificate, he claims to have. Onaka repeatedly refused to produce aforementioned original documents in spite of federal and state subpoenas and demands from law enforcement.

I don’t get how you can have a valid subpoena after your lawsuit is dismissed, but then Orly is a lawyer and I’m not.

, ,

50 Responses to Taitz v. Kobach

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

    Its Kansas. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll feed her to the children of the corn.

  2. avatar
    gorefan September 22, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    There is one thing. Apparently, and I assume it is for legal reasons, Dr. Onaka does not like to use the word ‘identical”, he preferrs “matches”.

    In the lastest verification, SoS Kobach ask Dr. Onaka to verifiy that the information on the White House pdf “is identical to the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barach Hussein Obama, II”.

    And Dr. Onaka responds that the information “matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barach Hussein Obama, II”.

    Needless to say this will fuel the conspiracy buffs.

  3. avatar
    Sudoku September 22, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    Yes, I noticed that, too, and thought the same thing.

    gorefan: Needless to say this will fuel the conspiracy buffs.

  4. avatar
    roadburner September 22, 2012 at 3:14 am #

    gorefan:
    There is one thing. Apparently, and I assume it is for legal reasons, Dr. Onaka does not like to use the word ‘identical”, he preferrs “matches”.

    In the lastest verification, SoS Kobach ask Dr. Onaka to verifiy that the information on the White House pdf “is identical to the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barach Hussein Obama, II”.

    And Dr. Onaka responds that the information “matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barach Hussein Obama, II”.

    Needless to say this will fuel the conspiracy buffs.

    if the LFBC has had part of the page containing medical information covered (for legal reasons), he cannot say it is identical. i’d say he’s making sure he cannot be made to look like he’s lying if the birfoons manage to get him on the stand in front of a competent birfoon lawer (on the same day as satan skis to work)

    but he can in all honesty say the info matches

  5. avatar
    bovril September 22, 2012 at 5:13 am #

    Yawn……yep BitterDelusional is all over that piece of irrelevant wording at Freak Republic…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2934384/posts?q=1&;page=1

    Along of course with the rest of her Alice in Wonderland insanity where the HDoH by saying they are providing a legally sufficient verification are in FACT confirming it is leggal non valid.

    Oh and her family needs Gods helps to fix their cars….

  6. avatar
    Thinker September 22, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    I hope politicians are paying attention to this. Flirting with birfers is a very stupid thing to do. There is no upside. If Kobach had done his job at the initial objections hearing and told Montgomery that his claim was utter nonsense and that there is nothing in Kansas law that allows him to keep Obama off the ballot based on the logically ridiculous and legally frivolous claims of bigoted conspiracy theorists, he could have saved himself a lot of ridicule and saved the people of Kansas the cost of adjudicating another Orly Taitz legal clusterf#ck.

    Shame, shame, shame on you Kris Kobach.

  7. avatar
    PaulBiler September 22, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Its Kansas. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll feed her to the children of the corn.

    Sorry, Outlander. We Nebraskans are the Children of the Corn. (Wait — why am I saying “we Nebraskans?” I was born in Toledo.)

  8. avatar
    RuhRoh September 22, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Orly’s been strangely quiet about Monday’s hearing in MS. She’s losing what little was left of her mind over IN and KS, but she’s totally silent about MS. Odd.

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 22, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    No matter how many times she is told no, shown where she went wrong, she keeps at it.
    There is a line between determination, and having a damaged mind. She did a flying triple back-flip over that line a long time ago.

  10. avatar
    Northland10 September 22, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Its Kansas. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll feed her to the children of the corn.

    In Kansas, they would need to feed her to the whippersnappers of the wheat.

  11. avatar
    misha September 22, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    RuhRoh: Orly’s been strangely quiet about Monday’s hearing in MS.She’s losing what little was left of her mind over IN and KS, but she’s totally silent about MS. Odd.

    She’s on the verge of a crack-up. When Obama is re-elected, I hope the TV cameras are there to record the full blown breakdown.

  12. avatar
    misha September 22, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    RuhRoh: She’s losing what little was left of her mind over IN and KS

    A Woman Under the Influence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Woman_Under_the_Influence

  13. avatar
    J.D. Reed September 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    Doc, you should always put lawyer in quotes when referring to Orly Taitz.

  14. avatar
    gorefan September 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    Sudoku:

    roadburner:

    bovril:

    There is actually a mundane explanation. Assuming the verification document sits on Dr. Onaka’s computer as a Word document. Here is what he wrote for the MDEC verification:

    Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following:

    1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

    2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

    ====================================================================

    And here is what he wrote for the Kansas verification,

    Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following:

    1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

    2. The file number for the Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II is 151 61 10641.

    3. . The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health.

    ====================================================================

    The MDEC asked him if the information “matched”. He may have just open the MDEC document and added item 2 cert number. And he may consider “identical” and “matches” to be the same thing.

  15. avatar
    G September 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Because for the purposes of what was requested, they DO mean the same thing.

    gorefan: The MDEC asked him if the information “matched”. He may have just open the MDEC document and added item 2 cert number. And he may consider “identical” and “matches” to be the same thing.

  16. avatar
    jayHG September 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    G:
    Because for the purposes of what was requested, they DO mean the same thing.

    Exactly…thank you.

  17. avatar
    Sudoku September 22, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    I understand that, but the birthistani who deny what a Verification even is according to Hawaiian law, will take a flying leap at that, leaving reality far behind.

    G: Because for the purposes of what was requested, they DO mean the same thing.

  18. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 22, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    “I don’t get how you can have a valid subpoena after your lawsuit is dismissed, but then Orly is a lawyer and I’m not.”

    Orly (one wonders when she finds the time to sleep) has just filed a motion to stay in Judd vs Obama AND her senatorial case asking for both a stay and an epedited ex-parte decision. I kid you not. The argument she advances for an ex party decision in Judd vs Obama is that her plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm but Obama will not

  19. avatar
    jayHG September 23, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    Sudoku:
    I understand that, but the birthistani who deny what a Verification even is according to Hawaiian law, will take a flying leap at that, leaving reality far behind.

    Again, exactly.

  20. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 23, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Somehow my edit (I accidentally hid submit too early)did not get through.

    The argument she advances for an ex party decision in Judd vs Obama is that her plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm but Obama will not

    … because he already ignored my valley soup pinners in Georgia and Indiana.

  21. avatar
    G September 23, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    There is nothing you can do about people who will willingly leave reality far behind, except to leave them behind as a result…

    Sudoku: I understand that, but the birthistani who deny what a Verification even is according to Hawaiian law, will take a flying leap at that, leaving reality far behind.

  22. avatar
    gorefan September 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    There is an update to the docket:

    http://public.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?caseNumber=12C+001027&location=internet

    Motion to dismiss and motion to stay hearing. And some kind of telephone conference on Thursday, the 28th.

    It would be interesting to see the motion to dismiss.

  23. avatar
    RuhRoh September 27, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    Here’s an article that briefly describes the MTD: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/27/kobachs-office-seeks-dismiss-birther-lawsuit/

    And slash2K at the Fogbow has also provided a brief summary after reading the motions: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=423356#p423356

    Slash2K will forward scanned copies to JackRyan in the next day or two.

  24. avatar
    ydroustan September 27, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    This is the case we should be following: Supreme Court of the United States Petition for a writ of Certiorary to review whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be President of the United States asking the court: “Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens.” regardless of the citizenship of their parents? Case No. 12-5 Title: David P. Weldon, et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States.

    This petition is pending and will be ruled probably in 4 days by next Monday October 1, 2012. The Supreme Court was supposed to rule last Monday September 24, 2012 but delayed the ruling to study the case and prepare it in more detail. Even though the petition is extremely well argued and well researched, in my opinion it is almost certain that the Supreme Court will avoid deciding and most likely will deny it without any explanation.

    Elsewhere I explained why I think the Supreme Court is not likely to rule in favor of this case:

    1. The Supreme Court is afraid of the consequences both to themselves and to the country if they take the case and apply the Constitution and rule the first black Marxist president ineligible.

    2 The Supreme Court is an old elite group that, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, believes the People are uneducated. I am referring to the progressive wing of the Supreme Court that does not respect the Constitution such as Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg..

    3. This so called progressive wing believes generally that Truth has no meaning, that might makes right, that the founding fathers are irrelevant and that collectivism, not constitutional Republicanism is the correct form of government and consequently they undermine the Constitution. The progressive judges are: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    This is the link to the Supreme Court of the United States:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5.htm,

  25. avatar
    misha September 27, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    ydroustan: asking the court: “Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens.” regardless of the citizenship of their parents

    Doesn’t matter. Obama was born in Kenya. Here’s his Kenya BC:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

  26. avatar
    ydroustan September 27, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    This is a different issue that is addressed in the companion case of Cody Robert Judy that presents 3 questions on the Petition for writ of ceretiorari to the Supreme Court. This case has merit for different reasons and its exhibits refer to the findings of Sheriff Arpaio. The petitioner Cody Robert Judy is also a democratic candidate and his standing is very strong. If the Court accepts this case and consolidates it with the Weldon case cited above the so called birthers will be vindicated and I believe that Mr. Obama will be finished politically. The two cases are pure political dynamite with implications even bigger than Obamacare, err I mean Obamatax, but as I stated before I don’t believe that the Supreme Court will grant the writ. for the reasons I detailed above. Keep an eye on these 2 cases.

    The second question is reproduced here and although it is not artfully stated I believe its meaning is clear:

    Question – Is Respondent candidate Mr. Barack Obama eligible for the Office of President according to the United States Constitution’s demands for a ‘natural born citizen’, with self revealed documented foreign allegiances of natural identity on his released long form birth certificate, (last page exhibit appendix) also reported as constituting probable cause for fraud and forgery by Sheriff law enforcement agencies Cold Case Posse to the Superior Court, by F.E.C. 2012 Registered Democratic Candidate for President Cody Robert Judy, whom also disputed candidate R.-AZ. Sen. McCain’s and D. Ill. Sen. Obama’s qualifications in 2008, asserting the harm of constitutional unfairness through campaign expenditures, and contributions to the unqualified candidate(s) in the publics’ trust of the State Primaries and General Elections of 2012?

    The whole petition and other pleading can be found at http://obamaballotchallenge.com/still-more-on-judy-v-

  27. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 27, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    Ydroustan: You are completely unhinged. You need medication. Nothing you say relates to actual reality. Your blinding hate has made you believe utter nonsense. I pity your family.

  28. avatar
    gorefan September 27, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    ydroustan: This petition is pending and will be ruled probably in 4 days by next Monday October 1, 2012. The Supreme Court was supposed to rule last Monday September 24, 2012 but delayed the ruling to study the case and prepare it in more detail.

    No, that is wrong, the conference was on Monday the 24th. On Tuesday the 25th, they announced the cases which will be heard. Welden and Judy did not make it. On Monday morning, they will publish the orders list both will be on the denied list

    Have a good weekend.

  29. avatar
    G September 28, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Agreed.

    Thomas Brown:
    Ydroustan:You are completely unhinged.You need medication.Nothing you say relates to actual reality.Your blinding hate has made you believe utter nonsense.I pity your family.

  30. avatar
    misha September 28, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    ydroustan: Registered Democratic Candidate for President Cody Robert Judy

    ydroustan: The petitioner Cody Robert Judy is also a democratic candidate and his standing is very strong.

    Cody Judy is clinically insane:

    While preparing to speak at a CES fireside being held at Brigham Young University’s Marriott Center on February 7, 1993, Hunter was confronted by Cody Judy, who rushed onto the rostrum and threatened Hunter and the audience of 15,000–17,000. Judy carried a briefcase that he claimed contained a bomb and held what appeared to be a detonator-like device. Judy demanded that Hunter read a three-page document that supposedly detailed God’s plan for Judy to lead the church, which Hunter refused to do. The audience spontaneously sang “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”, during which students from the audience and then security personnel overtook Judy. After Judy was taken away, Hunter delivered his prepared remarks…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_W._Hunter

  31. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    As of today Friday September 28, 2012 at 8:43 am central time this is the current situation checked directly with the Supreme Court docket below:

    The docket has NOT reflected any decision and the Court has not yet decided. Expect a decision any day now probably Monday.

    If you would like to check the status of the petition yourself – please visit at:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5.htm

    You may also check with the office of attorney for Petitioner Welden, Mr. Van R. Irion, Liberty Legal Foundation, at 423-208-9953.

    The moment I have an update I will be happy to let you know. I like this blog. I feel good when I read such intelligent comments and we may laugh together Monday.. LOL (Laughing Out Loud)

  32. avatar
    misha September 28, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    ydroustan: LOL (Laughing Out Loud)

    Thank you for explaining. I thought LOL meant “lots of luck.”

  33. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    It also means “lots of luck.”

    By the way I read the brief of the Welden case and it is excellent. I don’t know honestly if Cody is certifiably insane or not, I read the Cody brief on the petition for writ of certiorari and it is not well drafted. On the other hand the Welden brief is superbly and professionally done.

    Both cases however are still pending. In the past, the decision was made within a day or two after the conference of September 24, 2012. since it does not take long to deny or grant them. The other cases on the docket on September 24, 2012 were decided that same day, however the Welden and Cody cases are still pending and there is no official Supreme Court notification on the Supreme Court docket which is anomalous. I’ll like to speculate that there is a split in the Supreme Court but your guess is as good as mine. We’ll probably find out on Monday.

    I am probably unhinged like somebody said above but I handled one petition for a writ of certiorati on a reverse discrimination case that was granted and prepared the brief so I have a good idea of the amount of work that needs to be done.

    I place these comments on this forum as a joke as a result of a bet with a friend. I predicted the responses and I just won. These comments however appear in other relevant forums and not as jokes. Have fun. LOL (Laughing Out Loud)

  34. avatar
    RuhRoh September 28, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    ydroustan: Please consider posting about Welden and Judy in the thread already designated for that topic, instead of cluttering up this one.

    Here’s the thread dedicated to your topic: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/judy-and-welden-at-scotus-conference-yesterday/

  35. avatar
    misha September 28, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    ydroustan: It also means “lots of luck.” Have fun. LOL (Laughing Out Loud)

    What does “POS” mean?

  36. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    P(iss) O(n) S(otero)

  37. avatar
    JoZeppy September 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    ydroustan: This is the case we should be following: Supreme Court of the United States Petition for a writ of Certiorary to review whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be President of the United States asking the court: “Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens.” regardless of the citizenship of their parents? Case No. 12-5 Title: David P. Weldon, et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States.
    This petition is pending and will be ruled probably in 4 days by next Monday October 1, 2012. The Supreme Court was supposed to rule last Monday September 24, 2012 but delayed the ruling to study the case and prepare it in more detail. Even though the petition is extremely well argued and well researched, in my opinion it is almost certain that the Supreme Court will avoid deciding and most likely will deny it without any explanation

    No… the Suprmes aren’t studying it and prepare it in more detail It will be included with the thousands of “cert denied” without further comment….I could have told you that well before the court announced the caes it will take. Just look at the docket:

    Jun 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2012)
    Jul 25 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.
    Aug 8 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.

    The court NEVER grants cert without a respondent brief. When a respondent waives the right to file a brief, it’s their way of saying this is so obviously silly, you don’t even need to hear form us to reject it. If the court was seriously considering it, they would have requested a respondent brief. It takes only a single justice to make the respondent file a brief. No one asked. Not only was it not nearly as good as you seem to think it, it was so horribly unsupported by law that every single justice was willing to dismiss it on its face.

  38. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    You may be right although the attorney for petitioner simply stated that the case is pending and Cody himself on his web page says he got info that they are studying.they don’t take normally a week to deny and they can still order the respondent to respond. I believe they will deny for the reasons I stated abov however. In my experience in the Sup. Court they granted me and denied me the same day as the conference.

  39. avatar
    LW September 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    Ah, memories of the Great Birferstan Awakening of 2008. “No, really, THIS TIME! Prepare the frogs!” on each conference day, with the frenzy lasting until the following Monday. Then, the quiet sobbing.

  40. avatar
    gorefan September 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    ydroustan: In my experience in the Sup. Court they granted me and denied me the same day as the conference.

    The cases were disposed of on Monday the 24th. They published the list of granted certs on the 25th. The entire list will be published on the Oct 1st.

  41. avatar
    JoZeppy September 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    ydroustan: You may be right although the attorney for petitioner simply stated that the case is pending and Cody himself on his web page says he got info that they are studying.

    The attorney for the petitioner is full of it, and is trying to string you birthers along for a longer ride. It’s long since dead. They aren’t studing it. In fact they haven’t given it a second thought.

    ydroustan: .they don’t take normally a week to deny and they can still order the respondent to respond.

    No…it is far too late for them to order the respondent to respond. How exactly are they going to, order the respondent to respond, get the response, then a reply from the petitioner, and then review it all, and decide before the first Monday in October? And it’s not so much that they take a week to deny. It’s just that it takes a while for the reporter’s office to process some 1000 cert denials. It wasn’t among those they granted cert. They’re not going to suddenly grant cert now. Anyone who has had any experience with Supreme Court practice can tell you it’s beyond dead.

    ydroustan: I believe they will deny for the reasons I stated abov however.

    I believe they denied it because it was frivolous an its face, evidenced by the lack of a respondent brief.

  42. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    October 1st! See u then!

  43. avatar
    ydroustan September 28, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    Marvelous! What a great insight. Your wisdom humbles me. LOL

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy September 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    ydroustan: Marvelous! What a great insight. Your wisdom humbles me. LOL

    It doesn’t take any insight or wisdom…just a rudimentary knowledge about the workings of our Supreme Court…which is clearly sorely lacking in Birfistan.

    If you guys can’t even get something this basic, I suppose no one should be surprised that you’re still clining to that 2 parent thing after how many courts shot that puppy down (not to mention no court in has EVER cited Minor for establishing a 2 parent rule).

    But hey…it’s a free country….continue to bask in your delusions.

  45. avatar
    G September 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Agreed!

    JoZeppy: It doesn’t take any insight or wisdom…just a rudimentary knowledge about the workings of our Supreme Court…which is clearly sorely lacking in Birfistan.

    If you guys can’t even get something this basic, I suppose no one should be surprised that you’re still clining to that 2 parent thing after how many courts shot that puppy down (not to mention no court in has EVER cited Minor for establishing a 2 parent rule).

    But hey…it’s a free country….continue to bask in your delusions.

  46. avatar
    Majority Will September 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    ydroustan: any day now

    This is the only part of that slimy, insane, bigoted dreck posted by the troll that was truly entertaining and insightful.

  47. avatar
    RuhRoh September 28, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    If anyone still interested in Taitz v. Kobach? If so, there is no longer a hearing next week.

    From the docket:

    09/28/2012 – Reporter:Liebe Franges & Digital. Plaintiff,Orly Taitz appears in person pro se. Plaintiff, Roger Walters appears in person pro se. Defendant, Kris Kobach, Secretary of State appears by Ryan Kriegshauser, Erick Rucker & B.J.Harden. Court addresses case management and status issues.Parties argue their positions concerning response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.Court offers a reduced time in which to file a response and reply. Plaintiff, Taitz rejects and states she will reply in statutorily alloted time. Court continues injunctive hearing from October 3,2012,indefinitly to wait on determination of standing/LDH

  48. avatar
    Northland10 September 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    JoZeppy: No…it is far too late for them to order the respondent to respond. How exactly are they going to, order the respondent to respond, get the response, then a reply from the petitioner, and then review it all, and decide before the first Monday in October?

    Yes this one is confused or lying through his teeth (if it is whom I think it is). Normally, it is Conference on Friday and Order list on Monday. However, the first conference is normally on a Monday but the order list is still on the the following Monday. The Summer Lists must be just great fun to add to the order list (for the record, last year conference was on 26 September and the first Order list was 3 October).

    As for requesting a response, for an example we can look to Defoe v. Spiva, 10-1513 or Barr v. Lafon 08-1325 (perhaps ydroustan may have heard of these). In both of these, the respondents waived the right to respond, and they were distributed for conference. Very soon after a response was requested and eventually the conference changed to provide time for the reply of the petitioners (and then were denied). It should be noted that, at least last I heard, Justice Alito does not participate in the Clerk pool so there is less chance that the “clerks suppressed the case.”

    Enjoy Monday, ydroustan. You may find that the decision ends up on the docket earlier. Sometimes Monday orders pop up on the docket on Saturday. I suspect this may be from a normal, automatic upload to the website from their docket server.

  49. avatar
    donna October 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    “We’d Be Happy to Make Him Prove His Citizenship”

    I got into this area at 6:45 local time on Sunday. The car radio went on. I flipped through my options. Suddenly I heard the familiar voice of “Kris,” taking calls about voter ID laws. Was it Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach? Indeed, it was. Kobach, the Bush DHS veteran who has helped Arizona and Alabama write strict immigration laws, has a two-hour radio show in which constituents can call in and vent.

    And boy, do they vent.

    it ends with:

    Near the end of the show, a caller asked Kobach for an update. What was happening with those challenges of Barack Obama’s eligibility for office? Could the president pass the Kansas citizenship test?

    “He presumably could,” said Kobach. “I assume he’s got a passport. We’ve seen his birth certificate on the web, so he’s got one of those. Yeah, he could certainly qualify as a U.S. citizen. I don’t think he’d be coming to Kansas any time soon to vote, but we’d be happy to make him prove his citizenship to register.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/01/kris_kobach_author_of_arizona_immigration_law_has_radio_show.html

  50. avatar
    Northland10 October 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Hello van ydroustan… we await your wisdom on 1 October on the proper topic:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/judy-and-welden-at-scotus-conference-yesterday/