I’m rather proud that I learned how to spell “subpoena” and can do it repeatedly, without error and without consulting a dictionary. If I ever needed to have a subpoena issued, I would probably consult a lawyer, and if I did consult a lawyer, one lawyer in particular stands at the very top of the list of ones that I would not consult: Orly Taitz.
Except for “friendlies,” I am not aware that Orly Taitz ever actually got anything in response to a subpoena except the occasional rejection letter, such as the one she got from the Maricopa County Attorney on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio once.
I am one of the adherents of the “shiny object” theory of Orly Law, believing that Orly Taitz uses legal methods that sound impressive, that use Latin phrases, that other lawyers use and that have some tangentially similar shape to real legal methods. Certainly one of the more frequent methods employed by Taitz is the subpoena, most recently directed at members of Congress in the Grinols v. Electoral College case where the docket is becoming clogged with them. Taitz is suing the 535 members of Congress (among others) and seems to think that the US Attorney who has responded on behalf of federal defendants in the case should have individually notified each member of the suit. Taitz is demanding that a list of members she contacted answer a questionnaire about the representation.
The Office of the General Counsel of the US House of Representatives on behalf of 22 members of Congress has sent a letter to Taitz explaining to her 5 reasons why her subpoena is worthless, and why the members of Congress will not be responding.
Read the letter: