Main Menu

Taitz proves to court she served Obama wrong

If you’ve read the excellent “Boots on the Ground” ™ coverage at the Fogbow, you know that Orly Taitz argued before Judge England yesterday and stated upon her oath as an officer of the court that Barack Obama had been served by a professional process server in his personal capacity, and that the US Attorney could not represent him.

Orly Taitz provided proof to the court today of service by the professional process server, who served Barack Obama as a “government agency” at the same time as all of the other federal defendants. This is all rather confusing because the papers were delivered to the “Same Day Process Service” on December 22, but the affidavit seems to say that they were served only today. In any case, they clearly show Barack Obama being served as a government entity, and not in his personal capacity. I guess Judge England’s assessment of the word of Orly Taitz was fully justified.

Legal documents received by Same Day Process Service, Inc. on 12/22/2012 at 10:00 AM to be served upon Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack (Barry) Soetoro, a/k/a Barack (Barry) Obama Soebarkah; Joseph Biden in his Capacity as President of the Senate; The Electoral College; United States Congress; by serving U.S. Department of Justice, at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW , Washington; DC, 20530

I, Daniel Williams, swear and affirm that on January 04, 2013 at 3:59 PM, I did the following:

Served Government Agency by delivering a conformed copy of this Attachment; Notice of Electronic Filing; Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint; Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; TRO Checklist; Notice of Electronic Filing; Exhibits to DAVID BURROUGHS as Authorized Agent at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW , Washington, DC 20530 of the government agency and informing that person of the contents of the documents.

Perhaps there was more to the Judge’s direct question to Taitz: “Who is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?” than I first thought.

Print Friendly

, , ,

24 Responses to Taitz proves to court she served Obama wrong

  1. avatar
    Rickey January 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm #

    Say what? The TRO hearing was yesterday, but the process server didn’t get around to serving the defendants until today?

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    The comments on the dorky video were moved to the open thread.

  3. avatar
    mimi January 4, 2013 at 11:20 pm #

    “I, Daniel Williams, swear and affirm that on January 04,12013 at 3:59 PM, I did the following:”

    Sounds like he served it on January 4 at 3:59.

  4. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

    mimi:
    “I, Daniel Williams, swear and affirm that on January 04,12013 at 3:59 PM, I did the following:”

    Sounds like he served it on January 4 at 3:59.

    I have to concur. That’s what it sounds like to me.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 5, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    It confuses the heck out of me. If the “Same Day” company got papers on Dec. 22, why are they serving them today on the 4th? So is Orly admitting that the professional process server DIDN’T serve the papers she said they did?

    mimi: Sounds like he served it on January 4 at 3:59.

  6. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 5, 2013 at 1:14 am #

    Perhaps various offices were closed for the holidays. 12/22 was Saturday before Christmas. Many companies were closed 12-22 – 1/2. (It’s been wonderfully quiet at the office.) Congress is out of session. President on vacation. Why not the attorneys too?

    “Who is residing at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue?”

    1600 Penn … ?

  7. avatar
    realist January 5, 2013 at 6:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It confuses the heck out of me. If the “Same Day” company got papers on Dec. 22, why are they serving them today on the 4th? So is Orly admitting that the professional process server DIDN’T serve the papers she said they did?

    That is exactly what she’s doing, providing proof that she was, shall we say, less than candid with the Court.

    And now on her blog she’s stating she received a call from an aid to some congressman that they knew nothing about the lawsuit and she believes this entitles her to a rehearing. She’s asking her flying monkeys to contact them all… and I suppose provide more proof that she never properly served them until after the hearing.

    Her thought processes (oxymoron?) boggle the mind.

  8. avatar
    Reality Check January 5, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    Orly has a habit of being, shall we say, less than candid with the courts. Remember this one?

    BREAKING – Did Orly Taitz Commit Perjury in a Hawaiian Court Filing or Is She Just That Incompetent?

  9. avatar
    mimi January 5, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    Raicha commented at Fogbow: “So here’s the thing: where on that proof of service does it say that the process server received a document called “Notice of Hearing” for the January 3rd party? He received and served a summons, complaint, a motion for TRO that didn’t specify a hearing date, a couple of notices of electronic filing and a pile of exhibits.

    No indication that the process server even knew there was a hearing, much less that he would need to serve documents prior to it.”

    I’m not going to pretend that I understand all that. I’m not a legal expert, like the birfers, and I’ve never had any experience with being served for anything.

  10. avatar
    Thinker January 5, 2013 at 9:54 am #

    Yes. Remember also her recent claim in Mississippi court that she is suing Onaka and Fuddy as private individuals, not as state officials. And her claim to Judge Carter that her first Judd case was not a removal from state court.

    Reality Check:
    Orly has a habit of being, shall we say, less than candid with the courts.

  11. avatar
    Rickey January 5, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    mimi:
    Raicha commented at Fogbow:“So here’s the thing: where on that proof of service does it say that the process server received a document called “Notice of Hearing” for the January 3rd party? He received and served a summons, complaint, a motion for TRO that didn’t specify a hearing date, a couple of notices of electronic filing and a pile of exhibits.

    No indication that the process server even knew there was a hearing, much less that he would need to serve documents prior to it.”

    I’m not going to pretend that I understand all that.I’m not a legal expert, like the birfers, and I’ve never had any experience with being served for anything.

    I am not a professional process server per se, but I have served my share of subpoenas, Summonses and Complaints, etc. in the course of my business.

    I am certain that Same Day Process Service does not guarantee same day service on every job they get. I have no doubt that service on the same day legal papers are received is a premium service for which the company charges premium rates.

    In this case, I strongly suspect that Orly never told the company that immediate service, or even rapid service, was required. In my experience “same day service” is rarely necessary other than in cases where the statute of limitations is about to run or a case is about to come to trial. If there is a deadline to effect service, it is the responsibility of the attorney to so inform the process server.

    I also doubt that the process server bothered to read the papers he was serving. Process servers don’t need to know the contents of the documents they serve. They only need to know the rules for service and where to effect service.

    In this case, Orly probably paid for regular service (it wouldn’t surprise me if Orly noted the name of the company and ASSUMED that they always serve papers the same day they receive them). The papers were received by the process server on Saturday, December 22, so they weren’t going to be served that day or on Sunday. Monday was Christmas Eve, Tuesday was a holiday, and effecting service between Christmas and New Year’s is always a problem. The process server probably put Orly’s papers in his regular stack of work and the papers didn’t rise to the top until this week (or, more likely, after Orly made a panicked call to the process server on Friday morning and the process server rushed out to serve the papers Friday afternoon).

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 5, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Sounds very plausible to me. It certainly must have been a profound embarrassment to Taitz to have made such a big deal, and on her word as an officer of the court, to the Court that Obama had been served, only to find out that he had not the next day.

    Rickey: The process server probably put Orly’s papers in his regular stack of work and the papers didn’t rise to the top until this week (or, more likely, after Orly made a panicked call to the process server on Friday morning and the process server rushed out to serve the papers Friday afternoon).

  13. avatar
    Rickey January 5, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It certainly must have been a profound embarrassment to Taitz to have made such a big deal, and on her word as an officer of the court, to the Court that Obama had been served, only to find out that he had not the next day.

    And it explains why no judge would ever accept an attorney’s word that proper service was effected. An Affidavit of Service from the process server is always required,

    Also, if it was Orly’s intention to serve President Obama as an individual, it was her responsibility to advise the process server. A reputable process server would never have served the papers upon DOJ if he had been told that Obama was being sued in his individual capacity.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 6, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

    I’ve been thinking about this. Judge England heard some pretty egregious comments from Taitz at the hearing, so I have read. She basically said her lawsuits were dismissed because she couldn’t find an honest judge. He didn’t sanction her, or hold her in contempt for that. She got his attention with the “treason” word. Still no sanctions.

    However, I am wondering about this issue with service. She gave her word as an officer of the court that Barack Obama had been served, and now it looks like he was not served. I would think that lying to the Court is a pretty serious thing. Even if she believed he had been served, she lied to the Court by saying that she knew he had.

  15. avatar
    Reality Check January 6, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    It isn’t over yet. We still have hope.

    Dr. Conspiracy: He didn’t sanction her, or hold her in contempt for that. She got his attention with the “treason” word. Still no sanctions.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2013 at 12:10 am #

    Any day now ;)

    Reality Check: It isn’t over yet. We still have hope.

  17. avatar
    jtmunkus January 7, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    Well, I’m sure that Orly Taitz, as an officer of the court with a duty of candor, immediately contacted the court in writing to let them know of this innocent mistake.

    Like Scott Tepper did in Mississippi when he realized he’d made a minor factual error.

  18. avatar
    donna January 16, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

    60 B motion for reconsideration filed in Grinols et al v Electoral college et al

    Docket Text:

    MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of the TRO by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibits 1-4)(Taitz, Orly)

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=378517

  19. avatar
    Daniel January 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    donna:
    60 B motion for reconsideration filed in Grinols et al v Electoral college et al

    Docket Text:

    MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of the TRO by James Grinols, Keith Judd, Thomas Gregory MacLeran, Edward Noonan, Robert Odden. Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2013 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibits 1-4)(Taitz, Orly)

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=378517

    Orly likes her some dead horse flogging….

  20. avatar
    donna January 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    Daniel:

    just saw that she posted the motion – it is painful

    page 12

    This court ignored 21exhibits submitted by Taitz, among them affidavits of the Sheriff of Maricopa county AZ, Joseph Arpaio, who has 50 years of experience in the law enforcement, affidavit from Senior Deportation officer John Sampson, Investigator Mike Zullo and other members of law enforcement and experts.

    on page 17, she even mentions lance armstrong & an “honest judge”:

    Lance Armstrong was revered as an American hero and a role model as a 7 times winner of the Tour de France. A number of complaints of doping went unnoticed. After 12 years one honest judge heard the matter on the merits and it was found that that Armstrong stole the title by fraud and use of doping. Consequently he was stripped of all of his titles. Similarity between Armstrong and Obama in that Obama got in the White House and stole the Presidency by fraud and use of forged IDs.The difference between Armstrong and Obama that we have not seen one honest judge yet, who would grant a motion to compel production of Obama’s original IDs in order to hear the matter on the merits.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120698996/Grinols-60-B-motion-and-exhibits

  21. avatar
    gorefan January 16, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    donna: just saw that she posted the motion

    Judge England’s order is in.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120724143/Grinols-et-al-v-Electoral-college-ORDER-DENYING-TRO-Jan-16-2013

  22. avatar
    Daniel January 16, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

    Unconfirmed but reported that Orly motion du jour for reconsideration of TRO was answered the same day by the courtroom deputy. As usual, Orly diddit wrong.

    01/16/2013 53 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Plaintiffs attempted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) on January 16, 2013 and set a hearing on their Motion for January 17, 2013. However, Plaintiffs failed to properly file their Motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(b) and Local Rule 230 (j). As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion is defective and will not be set for a hearing. For future motions, Plaintiffs must comply with Local Rule 230.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)”

  23. avatar
    bobj January 16, 2013 at 11:26 pm #

    donna: (donna quoting from Orly’s website) Lance Armstrong was revered as an American hero and a role model as a 7 times winner of the Tour de France. A number of complaints of doping went unnoticed. After 12 years one honest judge heard the matter on the merits and it was found that that Armstrong stole the title by fraud and use of doping. Consequently he was stripped of all of his titles. Similarity between Armstrong and Obama in that Obama got in the White House and stole the Presidency by fraud and use of forged IDs.The difference between Armstrong and Obama that we have not seen one honest judge yet, who would grant a motion to compel production of Obama’s original IDs in order to hear the matter on the merits

    Wow, Orly Taitz really is the worst lawyer in the western hemisphere. It is nice to see her lying about cases not involving the President. It shows her true incompetence of law and disconnect from reality.

  24. avatar
    The Magic M January 17, 2013 at 3:35 am #

    I totally expect Orly to cite Lance’s confession to Oprah in her next cases, or even refer to the Armstrong doping case as “case law”.