Main Menu

Taitz makes amends

So we all remember Orly Taitz’ lawsuit in California, Grinols v. Electoral College, where she, several minor party candidates and one Democratic presidential candidate in one state were suing to prevent Barack Obama from becoming President, by stopping California from sending its electoral votes to the Senate, stopping the Congress from counting the electoral votes, and preventing Obama from taking the oath of office. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California didn’t stay any of those things and they all took place, making a hash of what Taitz was trying to do in her lawsuit.

The State of California moved to dismiss as to them on the grounds of mootness, but before the Court could rule on that, Taitz has filed her First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11). Given the significant change in the landscape between her original complaint and the subsequent inauguration of Barack Obama for his second term as President, one would expect that the Amended Complaint (embedded below) would take this into account.

First Taitz emphasizes (using boldface type) that Barack Obama is being sued in his individual capacity, as a candidate for office, not as President. Tait should have learned from the loss of her appeal of Barnett v. Obama that after the election persons are no longer candidates. Taitz claims Obama is in default as to the original complaint. Of course the court doesn’t give special consideration for boldfaced type. Taitz doesn’t understand that once she files the amended complaint, the original complaint goes away and the court isn’t going to declare Obama in default under it, even if she had served him with that original complaint (which she did not). She should know that about the amended complaint, since she lost an appeal in Liberi v. Taitz for that very reason (or she should know it because she went to law school).

The first novelty in the case is the expanded list of aliases for the President:

  • Barack (Barry) Soetoro
  • Barack Hussein Soebarkah
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Barack A. Obama
  • Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel
  • S. A. Dunham (?)

Other defendants are:

  • The Governor of California
  • The Electoral College
  • The Congress

Taitz recounts her fantasies about Obama as if they were fact, but I guess the meat of the matter is what relief Taitz is now seeking. She is seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, Taitz is asking the Court to declare that President Obama fraudulently applied to be a candidate in California. I always thought (but then I am not a lawyer) that declaratory relief was something to prevent an imminent future controversy and that what Taitz is trying to do is moot. But she clearly demonstrates that it is not with the bald faced bold faced declaration: “Declaratory relief in this case is not moot.” The actual discussion of this point doesn’t seem to have any further legal argument, but is only a narrative of what happened from Taitz’ point of view. Nowhere does Taitz lay out how the Plaintiffs have standing to request a declaratory judgment.

The other prong of her lawsuit, and this is where the Governor of California comes in, is an unrelated matter concerning the voter rolls in California. Public records show that large number of California voter registration records are incomplete in one way or another, for example lacking valid birth dates of the registrants. Taitz requests injunctive relief to “clean up the rolls” and the entire description of this injunctive relief is inserted in the following hypothetical:

Unless there is a declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to clean up California roles and having a special election, the same invalid and/or fraudulent voter registrations will be used in further elections.

Taitz never details what the special election is for. I am further at a loss as to why the Electoral College (which is not an entity that can be sued) nor the Congress are parties. Taitz herself has no standing to sue Barack Obama, but she tags on anyway.

I won’t go into the punctuation and grammar, which is bad. The whole thing is in insult to the Court, so sloppily it is constructed and argued. It’s pathetic.

Read the First Amended Complaint:

EDCA ECF 69 2013-02-11 – Grinols v Electoral College – First Amended Complaint Part 1 by Jack Ryan

Print Friendly

, , ,

63 Responses to Taitz makes amends

  1. avatar
    donna February 22, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    2/19 from orly: Dear Mr. Olsen and Mr. Waters,

    – As you know, I filed the first amended complaint, which makes the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. I am asking you to stipulate to withdraw the motion to dismiss the original complaint and vacate the hearing scheduled for 03.21.2013

    If you refuse to stipulate, I will be filing a motion to vacate the hearing and deny the motions to dismiss as moot and will be seeking the fees.

    In the interest of the Judicial economy and ethical considerations I believe you should stipulate and avoid an unnecessary hearing

    2/21: from George Waters, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice

    Ms. Taitz,

    On behalf of the state defendants, no stipulation to dismiss will be necessary. Later today I will file a notice of withdrawal as to the state defendants’ motion to dismiss scheduled for March 7, 2013.

    You should know that I anticipate filing a motion to dismiss directed to the amended complaint.

  2. avatar
    Thinker February 22, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    She filed two parts to this amended complaint, but they were identical except for the last sentence. What she calls Part II ends with this sentence, which is not included in Part I, “On the other hand Defendant Obama was seeking to usurp the position of the U.S. President by virtue of fraud and forgery. By representing both Candidate Obama and the Ele”

    Yep. It ends mid-word.

    What’s really funny though is that despite the fact that she has apparently filed only half of her complaint, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and didn’t even mention that part of the complaint appears to be missing. LOL!

  3. avatar
    John Reilly February 22, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

    I thought she promised to go away.

  4. avatar
    Bob February 23, 2013 at 12:13 am #

    She demands “relief seeking to clean up California roles.” Stamp out those smutty California roles!

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 23, 2013 at 1:00 am #

    I really wish someone would amend her upside the head with sanctions so heavy, she’ll have to file for chapter 11.

  6. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 23, 2013 at 3:14 am #

    S. A. Dunham (?)

    I think Taitz has been listening to a few too many weird songs…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXU-ZdmzNmo

    I’m my own grandpa!

  7. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2013 at 3:25 am #

    Frankly, all this is entirely the fault of the California legal establishment for not disbarring that lunatic earlier. The remedy was clear and easy. Instead they choose to spend hours and hours dealing with the poo she flings at them.

  8. avatar
    roadburner February 23, 2013 at 4:51 am #

    Lupin:
    Frankly, all this is entirely the fault of the California legal establishment for not disbarring that lunatic earlier. The remedy was clear and easy. Instead they choose to spend hours and hours dealing with the poo she flings at them.

    maybe thats exactly what shes hoping for.

    i mean, shes an obviously crap lawyer, so what would be better than getting disbarred and sitting back, playing the martyr and letting the paypal clicky donations come rolling in with no work involved.

    im sure shed make more than lakin, but as the birther pool (and gene pool) appears to be limited, it might not count for a lot.

    still, itd be more than she ever made from being a lawyer :D

  9. avatar
    realist February 23, 2013 at 6:26 am #

    While being disbarred would remove her license to practice law (and I use that term very loosely in Orly’s case) it would not prevent her from doing the very same things she’s been doing for 4+ years. The only difference is she could not represent anyone and would continue to file her crap suits pro se (many of which are pro se anyway).

    The only thing that would stop (or even slow her down) are very much deserved heavy sanctions and/or being declared a vexatious litigant in several of the jurisdictions where she’s concentrated her efforts, such as CA and DC, where she’s filed multiple, almost identical lawsuits over the years.

  10. avatar
    Reddant February 23, 2013 at 7:42 am #

    I wonder when Orly Taitz will become tired of all this.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2013 at 8:45 am #

    While I agree, Larry, with that, I still think losing her license would be a crippling blow to her self image–no longer the crusading civil rights attorney, she becomes now just another birther. Without a way to be special, she might withdraw.

    realist: While being disbarred would remove her license to practice law (and I use that term very loosely in Orly’s case) it would not prevent her from doing the very same things she’s been doing for 4+ years.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check February 23, 2013 at 9:02 am #

    Taitz has said in at least one radio interview that even if she is disbarred she will continue to file suits pro se. realist is correct the best outcome would be for the courts to start naming her as a vex lit and slapping sanctions on her. This appears to be working with Chris Strunk who now can’t file anything in NY and is left with appealing his sanctions there, which if rumors are true, could put a serious dent in his saving.

  13. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 23, 2013 at 9:08 am #

    Part of the problem is that she tends to cut-and-paste, so. being very careless (and lazy) she often carries over incomplete and badly-edited material from other documents.

    Another part of the problem is that she’s a VERY incompetent lawyer. She’s currently also trying to get reconsideration of the dismissal of her default judgement motion against the (now retired) Social Security Commissioner. So she starts with a long litany of cases involving failure to serve. Not all of them actually help her even in theory – it looks as if she just printed them out of Lexis – but (a) she clearly misunderstands what judges mean when they talk about technicalities and more important (b) none of these cases address service on public officials, which is an entirely different and very specific aspect of service.

    Then she almost acknowledges her incompetence by pleading that as she’s a pro se plaintiff in that case and not acting as an attorney, she should be held to a lower standard of adherence to the rules. In a way, it would be nice if the judge agreed, but I suspect this is going the same way as every other case she’s ever brought.

  14. avatar
    alg February 23, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    Orly is pretty much all that’s left of the birther movement. Others, like Arpaio and Trump, having been thoroughly embarrassed by their dancing in this nonsense factory, have walked away with their tails tucked between their legs.

    In the same way the universe will someday, billions of years from now, reach heat death, so too has the birther movement evaporated to a small almost undetectable perturbation in the cosmic background radiation.

    There are probably lots of other rich cosmological analogies that could be made here, but I leave that to others.

  15. avatar
    Greenfinches February 23, 2013 at 9:40 am #

    This complaint is a work of (shoddy) fiction…does she think that if she says X enough times, it will become true? If she speculates enough times about a person’s motives, she will get it right? Why???????

    I gave up on this latest oeuvre when she talks of the President losing his US citizenship and that being the motive for coming off his mother’s US passport. She has no brain, no common sense, no understanding of reality…………a strange sort of existence to lead.

  16. avatar
    bgansel9 February 23, 2013 at 10:09 am #

    “She should know that about the amended complaint, since she lost an appeal in Liberi v. Taitz for that very reason (or she should know it because she went to law school).”

    Apparently Taitz didn’t learn much in law school. How she managed to pass the bar on her own is beyond me.

  17. avatar
    gorefan February 23, 2013 at 10:12 am #

    She is basing the •Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel on that 1940 census entry.

    One problem that entry says Harry L. Bounel or maybe Harry S. Bounel or maybe Harry L./S. Bormel.

  18. avatar
    dch February 23, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    “…so too has the birther movement evaporated to a small almost undetectable perturbation in the cosmic background radiation.”

    Well said. Orly really is about the last of the original vanguard (Berg, Orly, Mario, Latkin, Klayman,..) that still emits a detectable signal. She has been at this for five years with not a single favorable outcome that was not a figment of her imagination. She makes the others Birther lawyers look like tourists. My favorite event was the Berg v. Orly case, its just so bad you have to watch.

  19. avatar
    John Reilly February 23, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    The 1940 census entry says Harry Bounel. No middle initial. No “Harrison.” He was born in Russia (a big place) about 1890. He was a lodger in the apartment of Louis & Blanche Julius, immigrants from Austria, and their teenaged son David. Mr. Bounel was a helper in a fruit store, so Dr. Taitz has decided that it must be in the fruit store that Mr. Cohen, the next door neighbor, owned. She has also decided that he must be Jewish, although the census does not report that.

    The 1910 census shows a Harry Bounel born in 1860 living in Connecticut.

    The 1920 and 1930 census shows a Harry Bonnel living with his wife, Anna, in Baltimore. This Harry was born about 1894 or 1895. An Ancestry.com member has placed a note indicating an alternate spelling of Harry Bounel. This Harry had a bunch of children. (Any member amy place any alternate spelling, to assist future researchers.)

    An 1881 census shows a Harry T. Bounel, age 5, living with his parents, in the Jersey Islands.

    Ancestry.com returns no matches out of 10 billion records for Harrison Bounel.

  20. avatar
    Birther Weary February 23, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    “I am further at a loss as to why the Electoral College (which is not an entity that can be sued) nor the Congress are parties.”

    Taitz would sue the sun for fading her carpet if she could figure out where to file the suit.

  21. avatar
    Jemcanada February 23, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    I wonder why Orly didn’t put Judd’s current address in the amended complaint like she did for some of the other plaintiffs. Also, how many promotions is Tim Adams going to get before he becomes the Chief Election Officer in Hawaii. There are many more questions, but those are a good start.

  22. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    I believe that she had someone sit her law school and Bar exams, especially any that were taken online. She cannot have done anything handwritten, especially as courts are rejecting some of her motions as being illegible. But with online, getting someone to write the papers for you is all too easy. And you simply cannot churn out the drivel she does if you actually attended law school. I think that Taft and the CA Bar need to investigate. Perhaps some of Orly’s handwriting and PDF specialists could help.

  23. avatar
    roadburner February 23, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    Andrew Morris: Perhaps some of Orly’s handwriting and PDF specialists could help.

    `paging mara zebest!

    :D :D

  24. avatar
    Rickey February 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    gorefan:
    She is basing the •Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel on that 1940 census entry.

    One problem that entry says Harry L. Bounel or maybe Harry S. Bounel or maybe Harry L./S. Bormel.

    I believe that it is probably Bonnel, which is a much more common spelling than Bounel.

    I found my maternal grandparents in the 1940 census. The census says that they lived on Union Hill Road in Tuckahoe, N.Y. However, they actually lived on Winter Hill Road – there is no Union Hill Road anywhere in Westchester County.

    Similarly, the census taker got the “Bounel” address wrong. The address is recorded as 915 Daly Avenue in the Bronx, but no such address exists. In fact, the lowest number on Daly Avenue is 1899. The “Bounel” address is actually 915 E. Tremont Avenue, which is located at the corner of E. Tremont Avenue and Daly Avenue. It is one of the oddities which are often seen in New York City – the address is E. Tremont Avenue but the entrance for tenants is on Daly Avenue (the ground floor is businesses).

    The point is that errors happen.

  25. avatar
    justlw February 23, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    I think people are misinterpreting this. Clearly, she’s trying to lend a hand to California’s key industry, show business, perhaps by reviving the Hayes Code:

    declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to clean up California roles

  26. avatar
    Rickey February 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm #

    John Reilly:
    The 1940 census entry says Harry Bounel.No middle initial.No “Harrison.”He was born in Russia (a big place) about 1890.

    Yes, Orly is assuming that Harry was born in 1890 because he was 50 years old at the time the census was done. However, the census takers didn’t ask for date of birth, only age. The census was completed in April, so it actually is more likely that Harry was born in 1889 and that he would have turned 51 later in 1940.

    People who do census searches often are frustrated by this because they try to search by name and year of birth. My father was born in May, 1912 but the census search engine thinks that he was born in 1913, He was 27 when the census was done but he turned 28 a month later.

  27. avatar
    Kiwiwriter February 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm #

    Well, if she’ll file cases pro se after being disbarred, she’ll truly have a fool for a client, but I still don’t see why the judges don’t order sanctions on her.

  28. avatar
    Keith February 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While I agree, Larry, with that, I still think losing her license would be a crippling blow to her self image–no longer the crusading civil rights attorney, she becomes now just another birther.Without a way to be special, she might withdraw.

    She’ll sue the State bar for treason.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will February 23, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    Keith: She’ll sue the State bar for treason.

    Safe bet.

  30. avatar
    richCares February 23, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    I asked Orly what’s her problem with Obama’s SSN
    she replied
    “if you are not a citizen, your SSN will state that and will state that you are not eligible to work in the U.S.”
    .
    that is totally wrong, my Japanese wife got SSN, got US job, retired and getting SS payments, after 4 years of retirement she applied for and got US Citizenship.

  31. avatar
    Kiwiwriter February 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

    richCares:
    I asked Orly what’s her problem with Obama’s SSN
    she replied
    “if you are not a citizen, your SSN will state that and will state that you are not eligible to work in the U.S.”
    .
    that is totally wrong, my Japanese wife got SSN, got US job, retired and getting SS payments, after 4 years of retirement she applied for and got US Citizenship.

    Did you point that out to her? How does she treat you?

    I stay away from debating them in their boards, for a variety of principles.

  32. avatar
    ObiWanCannoli February 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    I am looking for one honest judge to declare Orly a vexatious litigant and slap her with heavy sanction.

  33. avatar
    Birther Weary February 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    I believe that she had someone sit her law school and Bar exams, especially any that were taken online. She cannot have done anything handwritten, especially as courts are rejecting some of her motions as being illegible. But with online, getting someone to write the papers for you is all too easy. And you simply cannot churn out the drivel she does if you actually attended law school. I think that Taft and the CA Bar need to investigate. Perhaps some of Orly’s handwriting and PDF specialists could help.

    Someone has the same idea as you.

    I need your help, fellow Genealogists!!! I need people who speak Russian/Moldavian to research the veracity of Taitz’ background story.

    Svetlena/Sveta (Orly) AVERBUKH/AVERBUKHA b. August 30, 1960, Kishinev, Moldova
    educated in Kishinev, Moldova where she attended a Pharmacy School.
    Need Hebrew/Russian speakers to verify that she did indeed graduated with a DDS or equivalent from Hebrew University, as Sveta/Svetlena/Lena Averbuch/Orly Averbuch. I need photos of her on campus with classmates who can verify that the woman claiming to be “Orly Taitz” is indeed the same woman. I also need documentation of when she changed her given name from “Svetlena” or “Sveta” to “Orly”.

    I need people to investigate her attendance at Howard Taft Law School, specifically ANYONE who can verify that she wrote her entrance essay, took classes, and passed all exams. These same investigators should also contact the California Bar and seek to verify that “Orly Taitz” is indeed the “Orly Taitz” that was fingerprinted and then sat for the Bar.

    I require boots on the ground, and hard copies of documents, and video testimony where possible. Your reward will be the thanks of the American People who are sick and tired of this Seditious creature.

    Thanks

    Link

    I hope this idea gets some legs.

  34. avatar
    justlw February 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    “Averbukh” is Moldovan for “Soebarkah” .

  35. avatar
    richCares February 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    “Did you point that out to her? How does she treat you?”
    proof of my statement disappeared from her site!

  36. avatar
    misha marinsky February 24, 2013 at 2:12 am #

    Birther Weary: verify that she did indeed graduated with a DDS or equivalent from Hebrew University, as Sveta/Svetlena/Lena Averbuch/Orly Averbuch.

    I hope this idea gets some legs.

    The truth about Orly Taitz’ name: http://spreadingtaitz.tumblr.com/

  37. avatar
    RC GRAMMAR! February 24, 2013 at 10:17 am #

    Is this stuff below written by a someone sitting in a corner with a cone hat on its head? BTW! the cone hat has “dunce” printed on it.

    Reality Check February 23, 2013 at 9:02 am (Quote) #

    Taitz has said in at least one radio interview that even if she is disbarred she will continue to file suits pro se. realist is correct the best outcome would be for the courts to start naming her as a vex lit and slapping sanctions on her. This appears to be working with Chris Strunk who now can’t file anything in NY and is left with appealing his sanctions there, which if rumors are true, could put a serious dent in his saving.

  38. avatar
    bgansel9 February 24, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    richCares: I asked Orly what’s her problem with Obama’s SSN
    she replied
    “if you are not a citizen, your SSN will state that and will state that you are not eligible to work in the U.S.”
    .
    that is totally wrong, my Japanese wife got SSN, got US job, retired and getting SS payments, after 4 years of retirement she applied for and got US Citizenship.

    You are absolutely correct. Payroll payments via U.S. employers automatically make one eligible for SS (with retirement benefits) and Medicare. Payroll taxes are automatically taken from the check too, thereby making anyone who received a payroll taxed paycheck eligible for taxpayer status (despite what the far right believes). Any foreigner who has a work visa/permit and pays payroll taxes is eligible for SS and Medicare.

  39. avatar
    Kiwiwriter February 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    richCares:
    “Did you point that out to her? How does she treat you?”
    proof of my statement disappeared from her site!

    Which is to be expected, I guess.

  40. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 24, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

    While researching her background, we also need to verify her year of birth. On her site, she says 1962, but elsewhere (Wikipedia et al) it’s given as 1960. So all original long-form birth documents are needed, no copies or computer-generated forgeries and they must have the personal signature of the attending physician.

  41. avatar
    ObjectiveDoubter February 25, 2013 at 12:16 am #

    This one drives me nuts. One of the few times Orly deigned to exchange comments with me — since she rarely lets critical thinking through — I explained to her in detail that she was misinterpreting what is an invalid registration to vote. Not only did I go into detail, I also suggested that consulting an elections law attorney, she would learn what dictates in the end, a valid or invalid registration to vote.

    As we know, Orly does not want real experts because they yield answers that she doesn’t like or aren’t useful to her jihad. In this case, she looked around for the closest person who knew a bit about computers — the brother or husband or cousin or whatever, but somehow related to the part-time, untrained paralegal, Yulia Yun. This person, it turns out, is a computer tech, a grad from a national vocational school. No known training in election law or databases.

    Mr. Yun apparently calculated the number of instances of incorrect or missing birthplaces and birth dates in the list provided to her on disk to candidate for Senate Orly by the CA SoS. This is so overly simplistic and wrong-headed, it’s comical. I, for example, am a valid California voter — old enough, lived here long enough and a citizen. There is no birth date for me in the database and never has been, I discovered when working on a campaign years ago. I could well be in the 1-1/2 million registrations Orly decided — again, without consulting either a database or a California election law attorney — are invalid.

    It’s that stoooopid. It’s not the database that validates the voter; it’s the underlying validity. Any “invalid” registered voter identified by Orly, who has sworn to being qualified to vote and is, indeed, qualified on all grounds (citizen, 18+, Cal. resident, etc.) — is a valid, registered voter.

    As usual, the truth doesn’t suit OrLena, so she just ignores it. And then, if you post it to her site, she won’t let it through moderation. What an evil, vicious Narcissist.

    Because this has been explained to her, and she continues with this nonsense, she should be sanctioned. Now there’s a fantasy we’d all like to see come true!

  42. avatar
    Lupin February 25, 2013 at 2:34 am #

    IMHO the point in disbarring Orly is not to stop her from pursuing her lunatic crusade, but to wash away the stain on the honor of the CA bar that she represents.

    In other words: I can’t stop you from defecating in public, but I can make sure you don’t do it on my carpet

  43. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm #

    bgansel9: How she managed to pass the bar on her own is beyond me.

    There is obviously something wrong here. The woman who cannot write two paragraphs in English without resorting to Google Translate, is supposed to have written a short essay that made sense, in English?

    Could it be part of the reason why the California bar does not want to take action against Taitz? They know she used a ringer and do not want to open a can of worms?

    But there is always something good and compensating about everything bad. Orly lawyering means there are fewer people getting their teeth fixed by her. What do we know about her dental degree? All we know is that someone called Svetlana Averbukh got a four-year degree at a dental institute in Kishinev and no, that does not mean you are allowed to practise dentistry, neither then in the Soviet Union, nor now in the Ukraine or Russia. Oh, and someone called Orly Taitz got a dentistry degree from Jerusalem University. Of course, we can readily assume from the marriage papers that Svetlana Averbukh and Orly Taitz (and Lena Auerbuch, which may be the name on her new Moldavian birth certificate) are the same person, but how is it possible that she is not on a list of alumni from Jerusalem University, and that she once told a journalist that she had lived in Romania for a short time.

  44. avatar
    Horus February 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

    Reddant:
    I wonder when Orly Taitz will become tired of all this.

    Never!
    She is still going to be filing lawsuits even after Obama has finished his second term.
    She will try to have every Obama accomplishment overturned because, you see, she believes in her mind that Obama was never eligible to serve, so everything he did is moot.
    We can plainly see that she is completely ignorant about how government works.

  45. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Could it be part of the reason why the California bar does not want to take action against Taitz? They know she used a ringer and do not want to open a can of worms?

    Now there is a conspiracy conspiracy theory that might have legs. If Orly managed to cheat the system, how many more cheats are there out there?

  46. avatar
    The Magic M February 26, 2013 at 4:52 am #

    Keith: Now there is a conspiracy conspiracy theory that might have legs.

    Not really. If Orly really cheated and the California bar knows, they would be most interested in getting her out of the public before more people notice and some large newspaper starts to investigate.
    Your theory amounts to the “hiding in plain sight” meme birthers are so fond of.

  47. avatar
    The Magic M February 26, 2013 at 4:57 am #

    justlw: “Averbukh” is Moldovan for “Soebarkah”

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

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    This article has been updated to note that Taitz should know better than to sue Obama in his capacity as a candidate now that the election is over.

  49. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 27, 2013 at 4:28 am #

    The Magic M: Not really. If Orly really cheated and the California bar knows, they would be most interested in getting her out of the public before more people notice and some large newspaper starts to investigate.
    Your theory amounts to the “hiding in plain sight” meme birthers are so fond of.

    In the film “Educating Rita”, Rita is asked to write an essay on the problems of staging Peer Gynt in modern times. She answers with “Do it on the radio.” Interesting answer but bad essay. Every Obot, and every journalist who ever faced Orly would know that Orly’s answer to the Peer Gynt question would be 17 pages of idiotic Runglish full of unsound commas and furious absurdities proving that William Shakespeare never wrote those plays of his and that every historical inaccuracy in them is to be blamed on Othello, I mean Obama.

    There is more sound legal logic in the telephone directory than in Orly’s filings. Rita’s main fear at the beginning of the film is of being treated as the court jester in educated company. Orly has proudly been the court jester of the birfer movement for four years now and she wants to remain so for years to come.

    The newspapers actually have no interest at all in killing the court jester. (NADT) The public at large thinks the average lawyer is an incompetent fool who just collects too much money. Having Orly around to prove that little factoid is far too convenient for journalists. Come on, it is not like she will ever win a case against Obama, right?

    The California Bar knows that no one in their right mind is treating Orly seriously, so why bother removing the court jester who has no clients and cannot therefore be stealing their money?

    Hiding in plain sight? Where is the hiding?

  50. avatar
    The Magic M February 27, 2013 at 7:11 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Hiding in plain sight? Where is the hiding?

    I was referring to the theory that the CA bar doesn’t disbar Orly because that would prompt an investigation into how easy it is to cheat on their exam and made the claim that *if* cheating were easy and they allowed Orly to go on, they would hide that fact (that cheating is easy) in plain sight – since that theory would assume Orly’s behaviour is not *attracting* attention to whether the CA bar exam is flawed but actually *distracting* attention from that question (because Orly’s shenanigans are much more entertaining than the question how she passed the bar exam in the first place).

  51. avatar
    Greenfinches February 27, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: There is more sound legal logic in the telephone directory than in Orly’s filings.

    so so true!!! well said…..

  52. avatar
    donna February 27, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: There is more sound legal logic in the telephone directory than in Orly’s filings.

    AGREED and she dumps all comments adverse to he opinions

    she even dumped a link (without comments) to the recent mississippi decision denying her application

  53. avatar
    John Reilly February 28, 2013 at 3:13 am #

    Dr. Taitz has now filed something with the 9th Circuit seeking an order directing Judge England to enter Mr. Obama’s default. It’s a fair amount of whining. What I found most interesting is that her concept is that Mr. Obama did not file a timely response. Yet I saw nothing in her papers filed with the 9th Circuit in which she stated when Mr. Obama was served. One would think that service of the complaint is a necessary predicate to a default. (I know, she has never properly served anyone. I’m just suggesting that the argument ought to be (a) I served the papers on the defendant on X date, and attached is proof of that fact, and (b) no answer has been filed. I mean, how difficult can this be?

    She also identifies that the U. S. Attorney has made an appearance on behalf of President Obama, which sorely annoys her. (It takes so little.) IANAL, but it seems to me that if an attorney shows up on your behalf you have not defaulted.

    Maybe she ought to make a citizens arrest for treason on Judge England, as she is urging her supporters to do. Maybe that’s the ticket to finding one honest judge who can review her exhibits.

  54. avatar
    The Magic M February 28, 2013 at 3:59 am #

    John Reilly: Dr. Taitz has now filed something with the 9th Circuit seeking an order directing Judge England to enter Mr. Obama’s default. It’s a fair amount of whining.

    Not just that; it’s an attempt to sell another “OMG moment” to the blogosphere and twitterverse. Several birthers are already twittering this as “9th Circuit Appeals Court to hear emergency petition”, as if “to hear” were a proper synonym for “has received another procedurally meaningless heap of dung an”. Of course the intended propaganda meaning is “court has granted Orly a hearing on her ‘merits’ OMG this is it the frogs be a-marchin’”.

  55. avatar
    Lupin February 28, 2013 at 5:19 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: There is more sound legal logic in the telephone directory than in Orly’s filings.

    And a cast of conspiracy members just about as large.

  56. avatar
    Northland10 February 28, 2013 at 6:25 am #

    John Reilly:
    Dr. Taitz has now filed something with the 9th Circuit seeking an order directing Judge England to enter Mr. Obama’s default.It’s a fair amount of whining.What I found most interesting is that her concept is that Mr. Obama did not file a timely response.Yet I saw nothing in her papers filed with the 9th Circuit in which she stated when Mr. Obama was served.One would think that service of the complaint is a necessary predicate to a default.

    IANAL, but doesn’t a FAC reset the clock for a response since he would need a new response now? If she managed to finally get service correct, we are not even at 21 days yet. Another sign that she files to keep her notices by her suporters and for no other reason.

  57. avatar
    The Magic M February 28, 2013 at 9:51 am #

    Northland10: IANAL, but doesn’t a FAC reset the clock for a response since he would need a new response now?

    From what I’ve read so far, it does. Not that Orly knows or cares about such pesky details.

    And again I wonder: if Orly thinks the defendants might run into a default situation, why does she file an FAC instead of letting the clock run out first? I repeat, she does everything NOT to “win”, even in her own twisted version of reality where the prerequisites for a default would be met (i.e. even if Obama was actually in danger of defaulting, Orly has “saved” him by filing the FAC, thankyouverymuch).

  58. avatar
    John Reilly February 28, 2013 at 10:42 am #

    IANAL, but doesn’t filing an amended complaint still require that you serve something on Mr. Obama? That is, you can file and file and file, but if you do not give proper notice the clock never begins to run on the 21 days.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    Taitz did let the clock run out so far as she was concerned; however since she never actually served him, the clock never started and is not going to start until she follows the rules.

    About the only legal thing I ever did was to file for a trademark. I didn’t quite get it right and it was rejected with an explanation as to why. I fixed the application, resubmitted, and got the trademark. This is called “learning from your mistakes.” It’s not quite as good as knowing what you are doing in the first place, but with it you can get by.

    The Magic M: And again I wonder: if Orly thinks the defendants might run into a default situation, why does she file an FAC instead of letting the clock run out first?

  60. avatar
    Kiwiwriter February 28, 2013 at 10:07 pm #

    This woman just has absolutely no conception of how to do what my lawyer pals call “lawyering.” From what I read here, a paralegal could do a better job of preparing and serving her paperwork.

    How did she pass the bar?

    I think the main reason she isn’t disbarred is because the California Bar Association doesn’t want to turn her into a martyr…she would get more money and attention if she did, and go on filing suits.

    The scariest thing about these people is how they blandly talk of violence, sedition, assassination, and second civil wars. They do seem to leave escape hatches for themselves, though…they keep expecting someone else to lead them or actually carry out the fight. They show a great reluctance to do more than whine and fulminate on the internet.

  61. avatar
    G March 1, 2013 at 1:46 am #

    Agreed. Although, let us all be thankful that they are primarily nothing more than blowhard chickenhawks…

    So yes, most of them are cowardly impotents, merely immaturely spewing venom in public forums. But the possibility of incitement to violent action from some unstable follower of their vile words remains, and therefore I consider their immature and sick tantrums to still be dangerously irresponsible, no matter how hollow their actual threats…

    Kiwiwriter: The scariest thing about these people is how they blandly talk of violence, sedition, assassination, and second civil wars. They do seem to leave escape hatches for themselves, though… they keep expecting someone else to lead them or actually carry out the fight. They show a great reluctance to do more than whine and fulminate on the internet.

  62. avatar
    The Magic M March 1, 2013 at 7:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: About the only legal thing I ever did was to file for a trademark. I didn’t quite get it right and it was rejected with an explanation as to why. I fixed the application, resubmitted, and got the trademark.

    Same here. I usually do the basic paperwork myself (cease and desist letters about filesharing etc.).
    I once went to court without a lawyer when my landlord sued me when I refused to agree to a rent increase (the legal process mandated by German law), but I thought I’d take the risk because I thought I had a good chance he would only get part of the increase granted, and not retroactively as he wanted to. The case ended with a settlement that saw only half the demanded increase non-retroactively granted (a big win from my perspective); I had to pay 50% of court costs which was less than what the increase amounted to in one month whereas my landlord had to pay his lawyer in full.
    There I also made a mistake in my reply brief (I listed an alternative relief which would’ve amounted to conceding the case), the judge advised me accordingly and I didn’t confirm that motion in court, so I didn’t lose anything from the mistake.

    The only other time I had to go to court, there was so much money at stake that I got a lawyer to do it (which is mandatory for court cases above 5,000 EUR in Germany anyway).

    I usually say that for anything under 500 EUR, I take the risk of going pro se, if only to see how I fare against a real lawyer (I have no problem writing motions that sound like they’re written by one ;)).
    Above that, I prefer to not lose by mistake and to get a professional assessment of my chances in advance.

  63. avatar
    Rickey March 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    About the only legal thing I ever did was to file for a trademark. I didn’t quite get it right and it was rejected with an explanation as to why. I fixed the application, resubmitted, and got the trademark. This is called “learning from your mistakes.” It’s not quite as good as knowing what you are doing in the first place, but with it you can get by.

    I was sued in Arizona 35 years ago over a disputed debt. I worked with legal files at the time so I was able to fashion an Answer and prepare some other filings on my own. The case was assigned to Sandra Day O’Connor, who at the time was a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge. I even attended a conference in her chambers – she was totally no-nonsense and pointed out one error I had made, and I was able to fix it. Collection attorneys aren’t used to spending a lot of time on their cases. Usually they file, take a default judgment and then garnish wages. When they saw that they had a fight on their hands they agreed to settle (the dispute was over the amount owed).