Main Menu

Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols

A hearing is scheduled for next Monday, April 22, in the case of Grinols v. Electoral College and the paperwork is arriving in advance of it. The subject of the hearing, according to Judge England’s order is to hear oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, and in particular to the questions:

  • Mootness
  • Standing
  • Political question doctrine
  • Speech and Debate Clause
  • Service of process on defendants

Yesterday, Plaintiff’s attorney Orly Taitz filed an Ex-parte Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss. Why ex parte? Because Taitz says she filed the motion too late to give the Defendants proper notice, and that would only be proper in an emergency and for some kind of temporary relief.

Emergency

Taitz does not justify her tardy filing, and I dare say Judge England will have some choice words for Taitz. His order from April 4 suggests that Taitz’s emergency maneuver is unnecessary. The present argument repeats Taitz’ earlier motion to recuse, about which England wrote in his order:

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF NO. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss.

Meanwhile the California State Defendants have filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss saying:

  • This case is moot as to claims concerning the reelection of Barack Obama.
  • This case presents a nonjusticiable political question.
  • Plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim for “invalid” registration.
  • Plaintiffs do not state a claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3328.

Just a word on that last one. Federal law says that people born after 1959 who did not comply with the draft registration cannot be appointed to a position in an “Executive agency.” The California Defendants point out that Obama was elected, not appointed. I would point out that the Office of the President is not an Executive agency. This contention has Taitz all upset, railing that California says Obama can get away with selective-service fraud [Link to Taitz web site]. Taitz is wrong. California didn’t say selective-service fraud is “OK,” just that Taitz is wrong on the law. A President can be prosecuted for fraud after leaving office.

On other fronts, Taitz is dabbling in rumors about the Boston Marathon bombing yesterday, emphasizing her themes of anti-Muslim bigotry and official complicity in crimes.

, , ,

63 Responses to Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols

  1. avatar
    Deborah April 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

    Taitz and her followers, (if she has any significant amount worth worrying over), are mutually lazy. These followers are too lazy to look up the facts themselves so they take Taitz at her word, and Taitz, on the other hand, is always asking her followers to do work for her- look up cases, recall elected officials, make phone calls, etc.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    And the stupid keep getting stupider.
    Can’t they put in her jail for being a public nuisance?

  3. avatar
    Andrew Morris April 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    And small point, but the proper response to a motion to dismiss is to submit an answer, not an ex parte application; and if (even if) there’s an issue around lateness, she could ask the court for an extension. So, this too is doomed. Amisingly, though, she must have been flicking through the index of a law book because she’s suggesting that if the Court doesn’t uphold her arguments, then Obama will be able to claim res judicata or estoppel in subsequent impeachment proceedings. This is nonsense, of course, because (a) he can’t, because the House and Senate have their own rules and (b) Orly’s contention is that he isn’t a valid President, so by her reasoning he can’t be impeached anyway. She rounds out all of this nonsense with her arguments for “recusing” the US Attorney by claiming that he doesn’t have the right or capacity to represent any of the defendants because they aren’t in fact valid defendants….which sort of undermines her entire case.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

    I think the rationale here is that Taitz would lose the argument on the motion to dismiss because it has no merit in law. The only way for the case to to stay alive is to make the motion “go away.” Taitz needs to keep the case alive in order for her relevance as a crusading anti-Obama attorney to stay alive. Of course, there is always Mississippi. Muahahahahah!

    Andrew Morris: And small point, but the proper response to a motion to dismiss is to submit an answer, not an ex parte application

  5. avatar
    J.D. Sue April 16, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

    Andrew Morris: she must have been flicking through the index of a law book because she’s suggesting that if the Court doesn’t uphold her arguments, then Obama will be able to claim res judicata or estoppel in subsequent impeachment proceedings.

    —-

    This argument made me laugh out loud. I can see the headlines: “Orly Taitz Precludes Possible Impeachment By Bringing and Losing Lawsuit!”

  6. avatar
    Andrew Morris April 16, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

    Whatever her motive, she’s doomed. She has no valid answer to the motion to dismiss, and her ex parte application will fail, for several reasons. So with luck, Grinols is dead as of next Monday.

  7. avatar
    donna April 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

    it is clear that judge england intends to control his courtroom –

    The Court will allot each party–Plaintiffs, California Defendants, and Federal Defendants–a maximum of 30 minutes of oral argument. (6 minutes per issue including time for the questions by the judge)

    No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing.

  8. avatar
    Thinker April 16, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    If Judge England wanted to screw around with Orly, he could grant this motion to disqualify the DOJ from representing the federal defendants and let Orly flail around for the next 6 months trying to serve Obama without going through the DOJ, trying to serve each member of Congress individually, gathering the names and contact information for each state’s Electoral College delegates and serving each of them, only to have the whole thing thrown out by this time next year for lack of jurisdiction and mootness.

    Be careful what you wish for, Clownselor Taitz. You might get it.

  9. avatar
    Bob April 16, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    Write and call Judge England and DEMAND that he screw around with Orly!

  10. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

    “Clownselor Taitz”
    tha was great, a perfect title

  11. avatar
    Yoda April 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/obama-document-fraud-hearing-monday.html

    The comments are such a sad commentary on public knowledge of our court system.

  12. avatar
    donna April 16, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    Bob: Write and call Judge England and DEMAND that he screw around with Orly!

    when taitz spends her entire allotted 30 minutes on only one of the questions (Mootness, Standing, Political question doctrine, Speech and Debate Clause, or Service of process on defendants) while fumbling with her papers, identifying the witnesses she brought and waving her exhibits (both not allowed), judge england won’t have to “screw around with” her

    “time’s up”!!!!!!

  13. avatar
    alg April 16, 2013 at 9:23 pm #

    I think this is going to be terrifically fun to watch. Dollars to doughnuts that Orly won’t address even one of the five issues that the judge has confined this hearing to. I doubt that the good judge will let her feeenishhh.

  14. avatar
    J.D. Sue April 16, 2013 at 9:48 pm #

    Yoda: The comments are such a sad commentary on public knowledge of our court system.

    —-

    Really. They complain that she can’t present evidence, but don’t get the fact that on a motion to dismiss, all of plaintiffs’ factual allegations are accepted as true….

  15. avatar
    nbc April 16, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

    Orly and some of her minions appear to be totally clueless. This hearing needs not experts and witnesses, it’s all about very specific issues that need to be resolved before the suit can even move forward.

    Orly is totally clueless about following the rules, she is wrong about the DOJ’s involvement and has little relevant to contribute that will allow the motion to dismiss to be rejected.

    It’s obvious that our dentist friend is once again “in over her head” and does not even realize it.

    Let’s hope the Judge has a sense of humor and awards her appropriately for her wasted efforts.

    But he may very well treat her as a virtual ‘pro se’ whose lack of familiarity with court room decorum precedes her reputation at failure.

  16. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg April 16, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

    One way that Judge England could screw around with Orly is to allow her to proffer her exhibits (none is admissible, so the defendants’ objections would be sustained) and her witlesses. The court could then deem the motions to dismiss as converted to motions for summary judgment. After the defendants cross examine Orly’s witnesses, Judge England would then be in a position to rule on the merits. Of course, that would result in granting judgment in favor of the defendants.

    Then on to the Ninth Circuit!

  17. avatar
    Rickey April 16, 2013 at 11:18 pm #

    Thinker:
    If Judge England wanted to screw around with Orly, he could grant this motion to disqualify the DOJ from representing the federal defendants and let Orly flail around for the next 6 months trying to serve Obama without going through the DOJ, trying to serve each member of Congress individually, gathering the names and contact information for each state’s Electoral College delegates and serving each of them, only to have the whole thing thrown out by this time next year for lack of jurisdiction and mootness.

    Be careful what you wish for, Clownselor Taitz. You might get it.

    First she would have to file another amended complaint actually naming the individual Congresscritters and electors as defendants and then serve them. However, since some of the current defendants have filed responsive pleadings I believe that she would have to get permission from the Court to file a second amended complaint.

  18. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 17, 2013 at 3:14 am #

    Butterfly Bilderberg:
    One way that Judge England could screw around with Orly is to allow her to proffer her exhibits (none is admissible, so the defendants’ objections would be sustained) and her witlesses.The court could then deem the motions to dismiss as converted to motions for summary judgment.After the defendants cross examine Orly’s witnesses, Judge England would then be in a position to rule on the merits.Of course, that would result in granting judgment in favor of the defendants.

    Then on to the Ninth Circuit!

    Which would then rule that they have no jurisdiction, and the trial court should have dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The birthers will then claim that this is a victory, because the ruling on the merits has been vacated, and continue complaining that no court has the balls to hear this case on the merits…

    It’s interesting being a birther-predictor…

  19. avatar
    john April 17, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    “Federal law says that people born after 1959 who did not comply with the draft registration cannot be appointed to a position in an “Executive agency.” The California Defendants point out that Obama was elected, not appointed. I would point out that the Office of the President is not an Executive agency. This contention has Taitz all upset, railing that California says Obama can get away with selective-service fraud [Link to Taitz web site]. Taitz is wrong. California didn’t say selective-service fraud is “OK,” just that Taitz is wrong on the law. A President can be prosecuted for fraud after leaving office.”

    I don’t know. Could one argue that Obama was “appointed” or chosen by “The People.” I also agree with Orly. California does appear to be condoning Selective Service Fraud on the part of Obama. California makes no mention of the means of prosecuting Obama after he leaves office.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    True. It’s not in their jurisdiction, showing their superior knowledge of the law compared to this sheriff in Arizona, what’s his name.

    john: California makes no mention of the means of prosecuting Obama after he leaves office.

  21. avatar
    richCares April 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

    john,john,john
    there was no Selective Service Fraud, if there was it was under the Bush administration
    is your conspiracy so deep, get a life man
    Orly is a joke, she is an evil person, look how she has affected you. You should sue her for destroying your life.

  22. avatar
    Plantmaster April 17, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    john:

    I don’t know. Could one argue that Obama was “appointed” or chosen by “The People.”

    *************
    Regarding the first sentence, John, this is first intelligent thing you’ve said on this blog. The second sentence proves it.

    Do you ever get tired of playing the fool?

  23. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    john: I also agree with Orly.

    Which makes you a sub-human piece of filth in my eyes.

  24. avatar
    misha marinsky April 17, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    john: Could one argue that Obama was…chosen by “The People.”

    Yes!! Hooray!!

    In case you did not notice, Obama was chosen by “The People,” twice – in a landslide each time.

    Guess you’ll have to cry in your Zima beer.

  25. avatar
    misha marinsky April 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    john: I also agree with Orly.

    Co-dependency

  26. avatar
    misha marinsky April 17, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Which makes you a sub-human piece of filth in my eyes.

    No, just a schmuck.

  27. avatar
    Rickey April 17, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

    john:

    I don’t know.Could one argue that Obama was “appointed” or chosen by “The People.”I also agree with Orly.California does appear to be condoning Selective Service Fraud on the part of Obama.California makes no mention of the means of prosecuting Obama after he leaves office.

    Your comment is several points of logic short of a coherent argument.

    For one thing, there is no evidence that Obama or anyone acting on his behalf has committed Selective Service Fraud. And at least Obama didn’t run off to Paris to avoid fighting in a war.

    Second, even an eight-year-old child knows the difference between “elected” and “appointed.” Hint: they are not synonyms.

  28. avatar
    Yoda April 17, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

    john: I don’t know. Could one argue that Obama was “appointed” or chosen by “The People.” I also agree with Orly. California does appear to be condoning Selective Service Fraud on the part of Obama. California makes no mention of the means of prosecuting Obama after he leaves office.

    In fairness to John, he is absolutely correct. One could argue that the President was appointed by “the people”. One can argue anything he wants to. For example, one could argue that only the children of citizens born on US soil are NBC. One can argue that an allegedly “forged” digital representation of a lfbc that was posted on a website represents a felonious act. One can argue anything, the question is whether there is merit to the argument. And the answer is no,

    John, there are some brilliant legal minds on the right. Not one of them has touched this non issue. Anti birthers and debunkers have correctly predicted of every birther case brought. It is not because the courts are corrupt, it is because we are right and birthers are wrong.

  29. avatar
    misha marinsky April 17, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    Yoda: One can argue anything he wants to.

    One can argue Orly Taitz is sane. Or not.

  30. avatar
    saynomorejoe April 18, 2013 at 2:09 am #

    Words, words, words, and what they mean!

    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector

    Appointees appointed by politicans cast their votes, and if the votes do not elect a president, then the Congress has the job, and they select or appoint, or chose, from the candidates and , in effect, chose one of them, which , maybe, in some instances and minds, be considerd to be appointing the President.

    According to the Constitution the public never elected anyone President!

    And quibbling continues , each to their own beliefs and desires.

  31. avatar
    Keith April 18, 2013 at 4:20 am #

    saynomorejoe: Words, words, words, and what they mean!


    Holy Zots!

  32. avatar
    The Magic M April 18, 2013 at 5:35 am #

    saynomorejoe: According to the Constitution the public never elected anyone President!

    Correct. But the Electoral College did.

    Why do you assume a measly law can impose additional prerequisites on presidential eligibility on top of those mandated by the Constitution when it suits your needs?

    Are you saying a Democrat-controlled Congress could pass a law that says “only Democrats are eligible for any US office” and that would include Congress and the Presidency, thereby effectively granting Democrat control of the government forever?

    Well, blimey, why didn’t we think of that before. I’m on the phone with Soros as I type, my reward is going to be HUGE!

    Edit: he told me to give his regards and a big thank you to you. Legislation will be prepared to be ready after the 2014 elections.

  33. avatar
    Paper April 18, 2013 at 6:45 am #

    That would seem to be because you respond to and focus on quibbles (which always exist in life), but ignore substantial rebuttals.

    saynomorejoe:

    And quibbling continues , each to their own beliefs and desires.

  34. avatar
    Majority Will April 18, 2013 at 7:36 am #

    saynomorejoe: Words, words, words, and what they mean! And quibbling continues , each to their own beliefs and desires.

    traderjack:
    As to being a racist, sure I am a racist, but I do not practice racism.

    The one thing I am not is a bigot, because I will listen to any point of view, and accept , or reject, as I desire.

    saynomorejoe:
    Bias, Bigotry, and Stupidity are fellow traits in all of the human race!

    traderjack:
    It might have been a Muslim marriage where they simply state that they are married.with a muslim witness being present.

    traderjack:
    How dare you compare an aborigine to an african!

    traderjack:
    JEWISH billionaire, And not just Billiionaire, kind of like Maher giving I million to Obama, but with an emphasis on Jewish!

    How about JEWISH Soros giving millions to Obama,Same thing?

    saynomorejoe:
    The more tears and urine rain upon the ground, the more strong will the plant become.

  35. avatar
    nbc April 18, 2013 at 9:47 am #

    saynomorejoe: According to the Constitution the public never elected anyone President!

    Wow, you figured this our when?…

  36. avatar
    donna April 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

    aspirant judge england pen pal, taitz: Letter from Major General Childers to Judge England. 17 more high ranking officers of the U.S. military signed similar letters.

    urging Judge England to hear on the merits the legal challenge brought by Attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of Presidential Candidates and Presidential Electors in light of evidence of forgery in Obama’s IDs.

  37. avatar
    saynomorejoe April 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    Majority Will, congratulations that you have found things that agree with my statements, or are statements of mine,!

    it shows that I am not a Bigot, or Birther, or Anti-birther, just an antagonistic person!

    Of course I am a racist, I believe that some races excel at some things and others excel at others.

    China, Japan, and the South East Asians appear to me to be more artistic than the Northern Anglo-Saxons, and everyone has prejudices for and against various groups of people.

    But, almost all people are superior to other peoples in some way or another!

    Opinions are only valid for those that hold them ,and that is a truism! If there is such a thing as truism!

    Hold your opinions tightly as to expose them may lead others to ridicule them!

  38. avatar
    Deborah April 18, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

    donna April 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm (Quote) #

    aspirant judge england pen pal, taitz: Letter from Major General Childers to Judge England. 17 more high ranking officers of the U.S. military signed similar letters.

    urging Judge England to hear on the merits the legal challenge brought by Attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of Presidential Candidates and Presidential Electors in light of evidence of forgery in Obama’s IDs.

    I’ll be very disappointed if she does not get sanctioned by England for violating the Order not to send ex parte communications! I posted a message to her that England had ordered her not to do it. The comment probably won’t make it through moderation.

    With Orly, the simplest errors on her part become the most complex conspiracy theories.

  39. avatar
    The Magic M April 19, 2013 at 5:41 am #

    And we have the magic word “affidavit” again.

    Seems of the 18 signers, only one actually signed it and then wrote an “affidavit” stating the other 17 have agreed to be named as signers.

  40. avatar
    Keith April 19, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    The Magic M:
    And we have the magic word “affidavit” again.

    Seems of the 18 signers, only one actually signed it and then wrote an “affidavit” stating the other 17 have agreed to be named as signers.

    I think they have officially entered into a Salvador Dali painting.

  41. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg April 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm #

    john, john, john. Don’t you EVER do any research before posting your crap? You see, there’s this thing called a “statute” that requires all males born after 1959 to register with SSS and, if they don’t, they are not eligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency of the Federal government. It is section 3328 of Title 5 of the United States Code. The STATUTE has these things called “definitions”. The statute also delegates to the Office of Personnel Management the authority to promulgate these things called “regulations” to carry out the statute.

    Now, what is truly wonderful is that this statute and these regulations are published, so folks like you and I can read them and see the things in them that are labeled as “definitions”. Where do you find these definitions, you ask? Why, they are on the internet! How convenient.

    So let’s have a look-see at who is covered by this statute and these regs. Yep, here it is, right there in 5 C.F.R. (that is an abbreviation, john, for Code of Federal Regulations) Subpart G. In Section 300.702 — headed “Coverage” — we can find out WHO the STATUTE covers: “Appointments in the competitive service, the excepted service, the Senior Executive Service, or ANY OTHER CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY.” Hmm, the President is not any of those.

    Let’s look at the definition of “appointment”, shall we? Oh look! It’s right there in Section 300.703 under the heading Definitions”! That is soooooo convenient, yes?

    “Appointment means any personnel action that brings onto the rolls of an executive agency AS A CIVIL SERVICE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2104 or 2105, respectively, a person who is not currently employed in that agency. …”

    Whadya know. It applies to civil servants. Guess what — “Executive agency” is defined there, too. And there is also a lot of explanation about what happens to an employee who lied and certified that he was registered. The OPM is the arbiter of any dispute between an appointed civil servant in an Executive agency and the agency that proposes to terminate him (that means “fire him”, john).

    Ya know, looking up the actual statute and reading the actual regs is quite informative. For instance, such exercise will inform you that the ELECTED President does not fall within the coverage of the statute and that an ELECTION does not fall within the definition of “appointment.”

    As the saying goes, live and learn.

  42. avatar
    misha marinsky April 19, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    saynomorejoe: China, Japan, and the South East Asians appear to me to be more artistic than the Northern Anglo-Saxons, and everyone has prejudices for and against various groups of people.

    And Jews are good at business. Just ask Oklahoma state representative Dennis Johnson: “Did I? All right. I apologize to the Jews,” he said, grinning as if he could not give less of a sh!t. “They’re good small businessmen as well.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/oklahoma-jew-me-down-dennis-johnson-video.html

  43. avatar
    Plantmaster April 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

    saynomorejoe:
    Words, words, words, and what they mean!

    *************
    And you, saynomorejoe, obviously think you will gain a hearing by their sheer multiplication. In truth, however, they are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    You, Larry, Pietr Nosworthy, Palamas, John, Gabe and Bob Gard are great at putting out a surfeit of hot air which masquerades as open-mindedness–but refuse to acknowledge that your arguments have been refuted umpteen times over (and then some).

    The whole lot of you appear to follow the same old tired script: “If you can’t dazzle them with wit, baffle them with B.S.”

    Dudes, never enter into a battle of wits unarmed!

  44. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    Things should be interesting at The Fogbow tomorrow. There will be BOTG for the hearing, which starts at 1:00 p.m. EDT. It will probably be a couple of hours later before we start to see reports.

  45. avatar
    Lani April 22, 2013 at 12:37 am #

    I’m looking forward to seeing one more birther case shut down. Of course, it will be followed by the usual accusations of treason and a time wasting appeal, but it will basically be over.

    Other than Mississippi, is anything left?

  46. avatar
    Deborah April 22, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    Tomorrow is also Glen Beck’s deadline” to “expose” Obama- something to do with six congressmen and the Boston marathon bombers.

  47. avatar
    The Magic M April 22, 2013 at 5:35 am #

    As far as I understood, Beck wants to “expose” the name of the person allegedly deported to Saudi-Arabia in the wake of the investigations.

  48. avatar
    Reality Check April 22, 2013 at 8:56 am #

    There was no connection to the Marathon bombings. Beck is an idiot.

    The Magic M:
    As far as I understood, Beck wants to “expose” the name of the person allegedly deported to Saudi-Arabia in the wake of the investigations.

  49. avatar
    TOM SCOTT April 25, 2013 at 12:32 am #

    Posters are ridiculing Orly TAitz, commenting on her law errors, etc. But, there is no explanation for the 200 pages of evidence she amassed showing his forged and fraudulent documents. The question of why he is keeping his records sealed has not been answered. Even five million dollars from Trump couldn’t pry them loose. Why not? The crap about it being his right to privacy does not answer the questions. If there was nothing to hide, anyone else would have opened their records to the public to shut up the clamor.
    Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?
    The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

  50. avatar
    The Magic M April 25, 2013 at 4:05 am #

    TOM SCOTT: there is no explanation for the 200 pages of evidence she amassed

    Quantity does not equal quality. And all courts where Orly got to present her “evidence” ruled it has no probative value. I mean, it’s not that a lawyer would know that proper evidence has to be authenticated and not be “stuff printed from the internet”, right?

    TOM SCOTT: The question of why he is keeping his records sealed has not been answered.

    It has, you just don’t like the answer: he hasn’t “sealed” a thing.

    TOM SCOTT: The crap about it being his right to privacy

    There is no way you can get the Dept. of Health in your birth state to take your original vault documents out of the vault and show them to Orly Taitz. It’s not your own privacy, it’s the law of the respective state that forbids that. Even with your agreement, it’s legally impossible.

    TOM SCOTT: Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?

    He isn’t.

    Why are you still beating your wife?

  51. avatar
    bovril April 25, 2013 at 4:21 am #

    Tommy,

    Have you ACTUALLY read any of Mad Ole Orly’s ‘zibbits by any chance..?

    To quote the Hawai’in court when discussing MOO’s fecal matter, it is an….

    “inartfully collated, defectively stapled, and misordered collection of pages.”

    As examples of Orlys craptacular mad skillz

    In one of her cases, her photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of the BC was so poor a quality the OPPOSITION had to get a clean copy to enter into the record

    In one case the judge instructed MOO to go to a law library, open a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary and look up the meaning and definition of evidence

    In not one single solitary case has MOO managed to correctly serve the President or ANY OTHER PARTY IN ANY CASE

    MOO lost a case to an empty chair where opposition refused to turn up in court and let her pee in the paddling pool

    The only case MOO ever was a pary to that she “won” was a civil case against some people who had failed to pay their rent. Even after the “win” she screwed up the follow up so badly SHE NEVER GOT ANY OF THE MONETARY AWARD

    One could continue but the vein of FAIL is so rich it would choke several Birfoons

  52. avatar
    Lupin April 25, 2013 at 4:23 am #

    TOM SCOTT: Posters are ridiculing Orly TAitz, commenting on her law errors, etc. But, there is no explanation for the 200 pages of evidence she amassed showing his forged and fraudulent documents. The question of why he is keeping his records sealed has not been answered. Even five million dollars from Trump couldn’t pry them loose. Why not? The crap about it being his right to privacy does not answer the questions. If there was nothing to hide, anyone else would have opened their records to the public to shut up the clamor.
    Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?
    The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    The reality is as always much simpler: there isn’t an ounce of truth in your beliefs. Every statement you made has been verifiably proven false, over and over.

    After a while, if you keep repeating transparent and mostly absurd lies, you become an object of ridicule.

  53. avatar
    Northland10 April 25, 2013 at 7:29 am #

    TOM SCOTT: The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    Please define this tactic as explained in the context of his book. Please give specific examples. I assume, since you brought it up, that you have read and understand that book.

  54. avatar
    misha marinsky April 25, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    TOM SCOTT: Posters are ridiculing Orly TAitz, commenting on her law errors, etc.

    Orly Taitz was born Svetlana Auerbach, and was a streetwalker in Romania.

    TOM SCOTT: Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?

    Who was the SSN originally issued to, and when?

    TOM SCOTT: The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    Please name the book(s) written by Alinsky, and how this applies. Chapters and page numbers, also.

  55. avatar
    misha marinsky April 25, 2013 at 8:11 am #

    TOM SCOTT: The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    I read all of Alinsky’s book(s) in college. They were on the required reading list in Sociology.

    How many books or book did Alinsky write? What was his first name, and where did he live? What profession did he create?

  56. avatar
    J.D. Sue April 25, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    misha marinsky: I read all of Alinsky’s book(s) in college. They were on the required reading list in Sociology.

    —-

    I read Alinsky in college too, as required reading for a degree in social work. I certainly don’t remember it being anything like the birthers say.

  57. avatar
    misha marinsky April 25, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    J.D. Sue: I read Alinsky in college too, as required reading for a degree in social work.I certainly don’t remember it being anything like the birthers say.

    It’s the Gingrich translation.

  58. avatar
    J.D. Sue April 25, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    misha marinsky: It’s the Gingrich translation

    Frankly, I think the Gingrich translation for Alinsky is “left wing J”.

  59. avatar
    misha marinsky April 26, 2013 at 12:22 am #

    J.D. Sue: Frankly, I think the Gingrich translation for Alinsky is “left wing J”.

    Exactly. It’s a dog whistle.

  60. avatar
    SluggoJD April 26, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    TOM SCOTT:
    Posters are ridiculing Orly TAitz, commenting on her law errors, etc. But, there is no explanation for the 200 pages of evidence she amassed showing his forged and fraudulent documents.The question of why he is keeping his records sealed has not been answered. Even five million dollars from Trump couldn’t pry them loose. Why not? The crap about it being his right to privacy does not answer the questions.If there was nothing to hide, anyone else would have opened their records to the public to shut up the clamor.
    Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?
    The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    Your mother obviously failed badly with you.

  61. avatar
    nbc April 26, 2013 at 12:54 am #

    TOM SCOTT:
    Posters are ridiculing Orly TAitz, commenting on her law errors, etc. But, there is no explanation for the 200 pages of evidence she amassed showing his forged and fraudulent documents.The question of why he is keeping his records sealed has not been answered. Even five million dollars from Trump couldn’t pry them loose. Why not? The crap about it being his right to privacy does not answer the questions.If there was nothing to hide, anyone else would have opened their records to the public to shut up the clamor.
    Why IS he using a Social Security number issued to someone else?
    The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    Orly’s documents show nothing of any relevance, certainly nothing that amounts to evidence admissible in court.

    He is not using a social security number assigned to someone else. It’s that simple.

  62. avatar
    The Magic M April 26, 2013 at 1:36 am #

    J.D. Sue: Frankly, I think the Gingrich translation for Alinsky is “left wing J”.

    Ironically:

    Newt Gingrich’s most recent primary campaign was noted for featuring strong elements of Alinsky’s organizing techniques.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals)

  63. avatar
    misha marinsky April 26, 2013 at 7:32 am #

    TOM SCOTT: The Alinsky ridicule tactic will not deter Orly Taitz.

    Svetlana Orly has plenty of skeletons in her closet.