Orly writes [Link to Taitz web site]:
After originally refusing to hear the case under the original jurisdiction, Supreme Court of California was persuaded by Attorney and Candidate for the U.S. Senate Dr. Orly Taitz to take on a case Noonan, Judd, MacLaren, Taitz v Bowen under the provisions of the California Constitution, which allow Supreme Court of California to hear special cases under the Original Jurisdiction.
I doubt that the California Supreme Court has actually agreed to hear the case. Orly appears to base her statement on the appearance of the case on the Court docket and the assignment of a case number (S207078). The docket entry shows the status of the case as “case initiated.” I looked at some other recent cases were accepted according to the Weekly Case Summaries and the docket case status for those was “review granted.” I also made up several case numbers numerically higher than Orly’s case and those cases (dated this week) also said “case initiated,” and there were far more of them than the number of cases the California Supreme Court usually accepts.
Orly’s complaint says that there was massive voter fraud in California (there wasn’t) and that Obama is not eligible to be President (he is). Both of those allegation require evidence to prove, and as far as I know, appellate courts don’t try facts. Even if the Court decided to accept the case, they would have to send it to a Superior Court to try the facts, and a lower court has already heard the same allegations and dismissed them (Taitz v. Obama Orange County Superior Court case 30-2012-00582135) saying that stuff copied from the Internet is not evidence. Orly filed a Notice of Appeal in that case also.
Orly certainly has an optimistic headline to that story:
Breaking news! Supreme Court of CA to rule whether Obama should be declared illegitimate for theU.S. Presidency due to his use of forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number. Loss of 55 CA electoral votes will certainly mean new elections in the U.S.
One of her supporters said “Checkmate!” New elections? I can’t even begin to imagine what Constitutional justification could exist for something like that.
In the mean time, Taitz racks up frequent filer points.
As of today, the California Supreme Court web site indicates that the case is “closed.”