I am not a lawyer, so when I see some novel phrase from Orly Taitz, I may not know whether it makes sense or not. I remember when she accused the President of “uttering,” which was the right word for what she was trying to say, even though it wasn’t true.
The Orly Law legal term du jour following last week’s “ex parte,” is “recuse.” Here’s a sample from Orly’s latest filing in Grinols v. Electoral College:
Plaintiffs also moved to recuse the Department of Justice/US Attorney’s office from the representation of Barack Soebarkah, aka Soetoro, aka Obama…
Bryan A. Garner, author of A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage and editor in chief of the Oxford Law Dictionary Project said:
Disqualify might be used in place of recuse, but the reverse does not hold. Disqualify, the broader term, may be used of witnesses, for example, as well of judges, whereas recuse is applied only to someone who sits in judgment, usually judges or jurors.
… but not in Orly Law. Taitz has moved that the court recuse the US Attorney from representing federal defendants in Grinols.
Specifically, Taitz has moved that the US Attorney be “recused” from representing the Electoral College. Given that there is no Electoral College right now, and that it is not an entity that can be sued, that doesn’t mean a lot. Second, she wants the US Attorney “recused” from representing Joe Biden, the President of the Senate. That’s OK, because Joe Biden isn’t a party to the case. Taitz wants the US Attorney “recused” from representing President Obama, and that’s not an issue either because apparently, until he is served with the complaint, President Obama isn’t a party to the suit either. The issue is with Congress, where the US Attorney has responded.
In this latter matter, Taitz is claiming that the the Congress is properly represented by the Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives, who has responded to Taitz that the House members whom Orly Taitz tried to contact directly will not answer her sham subpoenas.
I think it is a defining characteristic of legal cranks that they attack not only the issue at hand, but opposing counsel and the judge. Here Orly is trying to disqualify the US Attorney (and to be fair Taitz uses this word too in the page footer) in order to negate the motion to dismiss that is looming to derail her entire judicial circus. This provides a good example of what happens when a Taitz case is allowed to fester: multiplicity of filings and endless complexity of proceedings. The docket has passed 100 entries in Grinols.
Here we arrive at a central principle of Orly Law, which is “whatever benefits Orly is Law.” A corollary is that “one can have ones cake and eat it too if one is Orly Taitz.” Case in point: Orly served the complaint against all of these federal entities on the Department of Justice, arguing that the complaint is valid and properly served, while at the same time arguing that the agency she served cannot represent the federal defendants she is suing.
Read the motion: