Main Menu

Scanning Orly

Photo of Orly Tatz looking cluelessOrly Taitz, if she’s still going to try to be a lawyer, really ought to invest a few dollars and get herself a decent scanner. Her scans are barely readable, and sometimes not readable at all. An example is the cover pages she posted to her latest filings in Mississippi, one embedded along with clear parts at the end of this article.

It seems to me that there’s not a chance that Judge Wingate will fail to dismiss defendants Onaka and Fuddy at or soon after the hearing this Friday in Jackson. Their brief was masterfully written with iron-clad argument. A Mississippi federal court has no jurisdiction over defendants in Hawaii who have no presence or interests in Mississippi—no jurisdiction, no case. Nevertheless Taitz has filed an opposition brief to the motion to dismiss the Hawaii Defendants. Taitz inexplicably writes:

They availed themselves to the jurisdiction of the state1 of MS.

Taitz rants (“argues” is too kind a word) that by verifying Obama’s birth in Hawaii, they placed themselves under Mississippi jurisdiction.

Taitz also rejects the argument of the Hawaii defendants that appearing in Mississippi would be burdensome to them, saying “Defendants availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this court by certifying a forgery…” So that gets them free airline tickets or something? No, but Orly offers to fly to Hawaii to take depositions. The problem here, and in a later section about nationwide process of service, ignores the fact that Orly isn’t just trying to depose the Hawaii Defendants, she is suing them!

In response to the Hawaii Defendants statement that they have no agents in Mississippi, Taitz says the the Mississippi Democratic Party and Barack Obama are their agents in Mississippi. I won’t even try to explain how she gets there.

I was a little confused by what Orly meant when she said “There is no argument that RICO extends to Defendants Democrat Party of Mississippi and Secretary of State of Mississippi.” There is no argument on which side? Orly argues BOTH sides as to the Secretary of State. In her RICO statement  (page 1) filed in this case Orly says:

Secretary of State and Democratic Party of Ms took part in RICO enterprise by covering up Obama’s forged IDs and all evidence provided to them by Plaintiffs in 2008 in Thomas v Hosemann and in 2012 by Taitz.

But earlier when she was objecting to the Secretary of State removing the case to federal court because of the RICO action, she wrote in a Letter to the Court (page 2):

Federal causes of action, namely RICO, cited by the Defendant [Secretary of State] in his notice of removal, does not even relate to this particular defendant and he has no standing to even raise this as a reason for removal. First Amended complaint clearly states2 that RICO cause of action does not relate to the Secretary of State.

It may not be apparent to the reader that at this point I have already spent over an hour on this article. It’s not that I have written all that much, but I had, for example, to find that letter to the court I just cited, and that took a while to find which document had what I needed. I had to review the First amended complaint, and at this point I have only looked at only about 11% of Orly’s total brief, and I haven’t done any research as to why a couple of cases Orly cited so far are distinguished from the present case. If I don’t want to comment on something, I just skip it. If the attorney for the Hawaii Defendants actually answers this thing point by point it will literally take days, and this money is coming (I think) of the pockets of Drs. Onaka and Fuddy, who as civil servants don’t make huge salaries. They deserve these costs reimbursed to them by Taitz because Taitz’ bringing them into this case is at best frivolous and at worse malicious.

You can read all 45 pages of Taitz’s brief below if you like. Taitz also moved for an emergency evidentiary hearing (41 more pages).

ECF 62x – 2012-11-09 – TvDPMS – Taitz Opposition to HI Motion to Dismiss


1The annotation “(sic)” is hereby included by reference to everything Taitz says.

2It actually states the opposite.

Print Friendly

, , ,

28 Responses to Scanning Orly

  1. avatar
    Bob November 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    I take it that her lawyering (such as it is) is operating under some sort of limited liability separate from her personal finances and that she assumes she can just file bankruptcy when/if she’s hit with crippling sanctions.

    What I don’t understand about her is that apparently operates on such a shoestring budget. Couldn’t she go out and get a $100,000 loan to pay for things like a scanner, a webmaster, filing fees, hair conditioner, etc.?

  2. avatar
    DP November 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    How would you like to be the loan examiner on that one?

    No, no, no, a thousand times no if you value your job.

  3. avatar
    US Citizen November 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    You’re just being mean now.
    Orly only has a few hundred thousand in her retirement account.
    How is she supposed to afford a new $50 scanner?

  4. avatar
    bgansel9 November 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    My money is on Malicious.

  5. avatar
    BillTheCat November 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    She has no clue just how bad things are about to get for her.

    Financial ruin, just around the corner, toots!

  6. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    “Her scans are barely readable, and sometimes not readable at all.”

    Too many layers. [bada-bing]

  7. avatar
    Dave B. November 12, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    She also needs to learn which way is up.

  8. avatar
    Thomas Brown November 12, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    If that picture is Orly when she started this short-bus jihad, the last 4 years have aged her ten.

    Entropy is accelerated by venom.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Speaking of lawyering and layering, there is an odd sentence in her other motion for the emergency evidentiary hearing:

    Also, the statement in the alleged [Hawaii] verification was heavily lawyered and used to mislead the court and further obstruct justice.

    That came after a discussion of layers in the PDF containing the Hawaii verification. So she says it was both layered and lawyered.

    misha marinsky: Too many layers. [bada-bing]

    Bob: I take it that her lawyering (such as it is) is operating under some sort of limited liability separate from her personal finances

  10. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Scanning Orly?
    So you’re saying I should use my mental ability to make people’s heads explode, on her?
    Its very tempting…

  11. avatar
    John Reilly November 13, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    So the goal is to keep the case alive, so that some years hence some court will rule that Pres. Obama can’t have the Mississippi electoral votes he doesn’t have. And that’s the best result she can get.

    Or, more likely, the case is dismissed. Maybe the Judge will show some backbone and sanction Dr. Taitz and her fellow plaintiffs, or at least assess attorney’s fees.

  12. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Thomas Brown:
    If that picture is Orly when she started this short-bus jihad, the last 4 years have aged her ten.

    Entropy is accelerated by venom.

    And crystal meth! That is the face of someone who freebases the stuff in bulk!

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    “Her scans are barely readable, and sometimes not readable at all.”

    Her scans would be better if we had lower taxes.

  14. avatar
    The Magic M November 14, 2012 at 5:20 am #

    John Reilly: And that’s the best result she can get.

    Birther cases are shooting for propaganda value (moot now after the elections) and precedent – as in “if we win in one state, the others will follow”.

  15. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 7:37 am #

    Re: Bob’s comment on Liabilities related to Only’s practice of law:

    Only doesn’t even appear to carry malpractice insurance, as she has paid previous sanctions with her own personal checking account and was not defended against them by attorneys for any insurance company. I doubt she had the foresight to try to build some sort of firewall between her practice and the family assets. She doesn’t seem to seriously entertain the possibility that she might be hit with significant sanctions. Considering that nearly everything she does is sanctionable and she’s only been sanctioned twice in five years, she feels that sanctions are idle threats.

  16. avatar
    The Magic M November 14, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    And she probably thinks that in case of sanctions, her “millions of supporters” will bail her out.

  17. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    The Magic M:
    And she probably thinks that in case of sanctions, her “millions of supporters” will bail her out.

    I’m gonna savor the moment it dawns on her that she is utterly boned.

  18. avatar
    John Reilly November 14, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    In Misssissippi and other places Dr. Taitz is the party, not the lawyer. Thus, I would think she is personally liable, no matter what legal steps she may have taken to isolate her law practice liabilities from her personal assets. And the “sanctions” sought by the defendants are not a punishment, but a cost shifting, as the judge in California observed when he ordered Dr. Taitz to pay Occidental.

  19. avatar
    Woodrowfan November 14, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    I keep wondering about her husband. Is he also mentally ill?

  20. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Woodrowfan:
    I keep wondering about her husband. Is he also mentally ill?

    I don’t think he keeps close track of OrlyLaw. Whenever he himself is named in a suit, the Taitz’s get outside representation.

    I sincerely doubt he has any idea that Orly has put the family assets in harm’s way. He won’t be pleased when the bill arrives.

  21. avatar
    John Reilly November 14, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    But the family home was subject to a lien by the federal government over the sanctions from Georgia. Mr. Taitz must have noticed that.

    One suspects that dinner conversation does not revolve solely around scheduling soccer practice.

  22. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    I don’t think we know whether Mr. Taitz was aware of the lien, although he certainly might have been. If he became aware of the financial, risks of his wife’s seditious hobby and didn’t move to protect assets, he has no one but himself to blame.

    It’s worth noting that in the GA case, she was sanctioned as an attorney, rather than a pro se plaintiff, and the family assets were still in jeopardy.

  23. avatar
    G November 14, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Yeah, I wonder about “Yosef”…I suspect that he too suffers from ODS, but isn’t quite as crazy as his wife.

    He is a fool for not getting her the mental help she really needs and for letting her run wild like this. I suspect his ego and wealth make him blind to just how vulnerable his family legacy and assets are to being ruined by his mad wife’s actions…

    Woodrowfan: I don’t think he keeps close track of OrlyLaw. Whenever he himself is named in a suit, the Taitz’s get outside representation.
    I sincerely doubt he has any idea that Orly has put the family assets in harm’s way. He won’t be pleased when the bill arrives.

    Woodrowfan:
    I keep wondering about her husband. Is he also mentally ill?

  24. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Amos Brown, one of the defendants in Orly’s IN case, is reporting that IN is investigating just how a full audio recording of the October 22 hearing ended up on the internet, apparently in clear violation of IN local rules. http://praiseindy.com/1648542/exclusive-anti-obama-birthers-suspected-of-illegally-posting-audio-of-indy-court-hearing-on-internet/

    This has some bearing on the MS case, as Orly has forwarded a copy of that hearing to the MS federal court as part of her motion for an emergency evidentiary hearing. If Mr. Brown is correct that audio of the IN hearing was not to be made public, Orly’s decisions to post it on her website (November 1) and to then distribute it again in her motion might just cause her a few issues.

  25. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.17 does appear to prohibit broadcast of proceedings. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html#_Toc281379854

  26. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    As does the Indiana Public Access to Court Records Handbook.

    “In situations where the requested record results in provision of an audio
    and/or audiovisual copy of a court proceeding, the judge should issue an
    order specifically limiting its use and barring the recipient from
    broadcasting the received record in any manner. Public Access to Court
    Records Handbook, Indiana Supreme Court, July 2010, 49-50.
    (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/pubs-accesshandbook.pdf). “

  27. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Wow. Just wow. Orly’s latest filing in MS is simply breathtaking in its arrogance and stupidity.

    From the fine folks over at TFB: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113367865/MS-ECF-69-2012-11-14-TvDPM-Plaintiff-Opposition-to-Obama-Et-Al-Joinder-in-Motion-for-JoP

  28. avatar
    Kupuna November 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    99% of the time Birthers make me laugh but the thought that Dr Onaka & Loretta Fuddy have to spend their own funds on a lawyer really makes me angry. I seriously hope that MY state tax dollars are paying for their attorney. If not, I hope that Tepper & Co will make Orly pay every cent for this & more.