Main Menu

50 Responses to Taitz v. Colvin: Taitz response to MTD

  1. avatar
    realist February 20, 2014 at 9:48 am #

    51 pages of complete nonsense.

  2. avatar
    Jim February 20, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    realist:
    51 pages of complete nonsense.

    I’ll wait for the Reader’s Digest version…if they stick to the legal evidence should end up being less than a page.

  3. avatar
    sfjeff February 20, 2014 at 10:46 am #

    I can’t access scribd at the moment- an example of firewalls really protecting my eyeballs…..

  4. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2014 at 11:34 am #

    Orly finally figured out that if “Harry Bounel” was 50 at the time of the 1940 census, he might have been born in 1889 rather than 1890.

    But of course she utterly fails to establish a connection between “HarrisonJ Bounel” and “Harry Bounel” other than that the names are similar.

    And she makes the usual evidence-free charges about corrupt employees.

    I wonder how Orly believes that a “paper search” would be conducted. I assume that the SS-5 forms are filed by SSN. The first thing that the SSA would be is to look up the number, if it has been provided by the requestor. Otherwise, they would search by name and try to match it to an SSN. It seems to me that a computer search has to be the first step, unless Orly believes that the SSA has to rummage through every SS-5 ever filed until they find one which matches the elusive Mr. Bounel.

  5. avatar
    JPotter February 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm #

    I made it past the yelling on the first page ( imagining the judge rolling his eyes at that, “Oh, brother, here we go again”) …. now enjoying the projected narrative about how Obama personally prepared his own taxes, translated them into PDF format, and posted them on the web. Glad to know our President has time to handle his own affairs, and is technically savvy. ;)

  6. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm #

    Maybe, this time, there’s enough libelous crap in here for the judge to slam her into the ground. But good that a candidate for California AG knows how to misspell “martial…marshall”. It’s this careful attention to detail that we need from the state’s chief law officer.

  7. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 20, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    Rickey: I wonder how Orly believes that a “paper search” would be conducted. I assume that the SS-5 forms are filed by SSN. The first thing that the SSA would be is to look up the number, if it has been provided by the requestor. Otherwise, they would search by name and try to match it to an SSN. It seems to me that a computer search has to be the first step, unless Orly believes that the SSA has to rummage through every SS-5 ever filed until they find one which matches the elusive Mr. Bounel.

    Does it really seem probable that Social Security still has the original applications for the 400-million cards that have been issued?

    Isn’t that what microfilm and digital imaging was invented to eliminate?

    Seriously……other than lawyer Taitz’s assertions has it ever been confirmed that the originals do exist?

  8. avatar
    nbc February 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm #

    Orly is getting desperate in her claims. Fascinating… She knows that there is no SS-5 for Bounel, just as the numindent search found. But insists that they search the millions of documents in ‘the vault’.

    Hilarious…

  9. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm #

    realist: 51 pages of complete nonsense.

    It would be wonderful if an official mechanism was in place whereby a professional review of this turkey, and the other documents she has authored and filed for all of her eligibility-related cases, could serve as the basis for determining whether or not the “distance-learning-based” Taft Law School should continue to be allowed to excrete similarly incompetent, law degree waving turds Esquire!

  10. avatar
    nbc February 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Rickey: It seems to me that a computer search has to be the first step, unless Orly believes that the SSA has to rummage through every SS-5 ever filed until they find one which matches the elusive Mr. Bounel.

    Orly believes whatever she wants to believe to explain her failures. If they cannot locate the document in Numindent, then of course they must be hiding something as ‘the Orly’ cannot be wrong, in spite of a well established record to the contrary.

  11. avatar
    John Reilly February 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    The vault in which the social security applications are stored can be seen towards the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

  12. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 20, 2014 at 2:12 pm #

    In the Communist treason-loving Republic of Canada, accreditation of law schools is competency-based and no distance ed is allowed, so there’s no way Taft would have been allowed. That isn’t to say that distance ed is a bad thing, but I think there needs to be an inquiry into how someone with no discernible legal knowledge or skills managed to pass the exams.

  13. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    John Reilly:
    The vault in which the social security applications are stored can be seen towards the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

    Orly also wants to inspect the original paper form. My guess is that all original SS-5 forms are stored on Microfilm and the originals probably were destroyed eons ago.

    The copy of Harry Boymel’s SS-5 which was sent to me looks like it was sourced from Microfilm.

  14. avatar
    Volkonski February 20, 2014 at 2:36 pm #

    The SSA does keep paper records but whether these are the originals or just paper copies of the data in the electronic files I can not say.

    “Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage: We maintain records in this system in paper form (Forms SS-5 (Application for a Social Security Card), and system generated forms); magnetic media (magnetic tape and disc with on-line access); in microfilm and microfiche form; and on electronic files (NUMIDENT and Alpha-Index).”

    http://www.ssa.gov/foia/bluebook/60-0058.htm

  15. avatar
    Volkonski February 20, 2014 at 2:41 pm #

    However, maybe not forever-

    “Retention and disposal: We retain most paper forms only until we film and verify them for accuracy. We then shred the paper records. We retain electronic and updated microfilm and microfiche records indefinitely. We update all tape, discs, microfilm, and microfiche files periodically. We erase out-of-date magnetic tapes and discs and we shred out-of-date microfiches.”

  16. avatar
    Northland10 February 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm #

    Rickey: I wonder how Orly believes that a “paper search” would be conducted. I assume that the SS-5 forms are filed by SSN.

    If I were doing the filing, I would consider using the RFN (Reference number). Filing by SSN would require adding a card into an existing stack, file, box, etc. When it becomes to crowded, you have to move everything behind it back to make more room. Filing by RFN means anything new would go to the end of the file. With computerized searches (i.e. a numident search, which I doubt Orly understands what that means) you can look up by various criteria and get the RFN (or possibly electronic image). This is even more necessary with microfilm as you cannot insert a new file in the middle of the microfilm.

    Any large document search would need to be done on a database, but that confuses Orly since she thinks searching on a computer involves typing Orly Taitz.

  17. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm #

    Volkonski:
    The SSA does keep paper records but whether these are the originals or just paper copies of the data in the electronic files I can not say.

    “Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage:We maintain records in this system in paper form (Forms SS-5 (Application for a Social Security Card), and system generated forms); magnetic media (magnetic tape and disc with on-line access); in microfilm and microfiche form; and on electronic files (NUMIDENT and Alpha-Index).”

    http://www.ssa.gov/foia/bluebook/60-0058.htm

    But there’s more….down a couple paragraphs:

    Retention and disposal: We retain most paper forms only until we film and verify them for accuracy. We then shred the paper records. We retain electronic and updated microfilm and microfiche records indefinitely. We update all tape, discs, microfilm, and microfiche files periodically. We erase out-of-date magnetic tapes and discs and we shred out-of-date microfiches.

    Assuming the process of filming and verifying material doesn’t take decades I think we can assume that any paper records relevant to lawyer Taitz’s claims are long gone.

  18. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 20, 2014 at 2:57 pm #

    Volkonski: However, maybe not forever-

    At 5-million applications a year my guess would be months, not years, in order to get them into a secure, searchable form.

  19. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm #

    CarlOrcas: At 5-million applications a year my guess would be months, not years, in order to get them into a secure, searchable form.

    Orly doesn’t realize that that saving paper records on Microfilm/Microfiche and/or computers is far more secure than storing paper files. Not only does it keep records from being lost, it also makes it easier to monitor who has accessed the records. And of course it makes it easier to search for records.

    If, as Orly has spuriously alleged, Harry Ballantyne altered the electronic records, wouldn’t he have covered his tracks by also destroying the paper records?

    Her entire scenario is ludicrous. Case dismissed.

  20. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 20, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    Yet more treasonous conspiracy! Remember that Obama was pre-ordained to be selected as President, and even before he was born, the trail was being faked so that in 2007 he would become the nominee. At a minimum, we can expect Taitz to file FOIA for all emails sent in 1962 or thereabouts regarding the destruction of Bounel’s SSN application.

  21. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 20, 2014 at 5:05 pm #

    Rickey: Her entire scenario is ludicrous.

    Orly is ludicrous. Here is the latest example from her website:

    I need your help

    Posted on | February 20, 2014 | 4 Comments

    I need affidavits of people who view my videos and observe that number of views counter does not record additional views.

    I need to submit your affidavits to the judge to show that Google-Youtube are complicit in sabotage and complicit in silencing an attorney bringing forward evidence of Obama’s use of fabricated IDs

    What is there to say? Wow! Just….wow!

  22. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 20, 2014 at 5:40 pm #

    As I keep asking, who did she get to do her law school assignments?

  23. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm #

    Now that she’s running for California AG, what are the odds that she’ll screw up over campaign finance rules?

  24. avatar
    Soduko February 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm #

    Anyone have a spare irony meter? Taitz says she wants the paper record because of the mistakes with computers. Yet, Obama’s “CT” SSN can’t be a typo in the zip code and all her Bounel 1890 database/credit check doody are gospel.

    SMH, gnash my teeth

  25. avatar
    Thinker February 20, 2014 at 5:57 pm #

    100%. She already has screwed up a few things. She started soliciting money before she filed her paperwork and she’s soliciting money on the web site of her silly foundation. The violations are sure to mount as the campaign goes on. But the chances that she will be held accountable for her rule-breaking?

    Zero. She’s made of teflon. She’ll get away with her chronic rulebreaking, just like she always does.

    Andrew Morris:
    Now that she’s running for California AG, what are the odds that she’ll screw up over campaign finance rules?

  26. avatar
    RanTalbott February 20, 2014 at 6:09 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I need affidavits of people who view my videos and observe that number of views counter does not record additional views.

    Does anyone know whether Youtube increments the counter when a video is not watched all the way to its end?

    I would hope not, since I might load a video’s page dozens of extra times if I get involved in a discussion in the comments section.

    Maybe the real problem is that she needs to learn how to make videos that people won’t switch off in mid-view.

  27. avatar
    Bob February 20, 2014 at 6:12 pm #

    “I need help.”
    ~Orly Taitz

    Nothing short of a 2 1/2 year long chemically-induced coma could possibly help.

  28. avatar
    Northland10 February 20, 2014 at 6:46 pm #

    Thinker: …The violations are sure to mount as the campaign goes on. But the chances that she will be held accountable for her rule-breaking?

    Zero. She’s made of teflon. She’ll get away with her chronic rulebreaking, just like she always does.

    In a world of limited resources, the campaign finance police likely do not find it worth it to investigate and punish a fringe candidate, who has no chance of being close to winning, and only brings in a few thousand dollars.

  29. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    In the Communist treason-loving Republic of Canada, accreditation of law schools is competency-based and no distance ed is allowed, so there’s no way Taft would have been allowed. That isn’t to say that distance ed is a bad thing, but I think there needs to be an inquiry into how someone with no discernible legal knowledge or skills managed to pass the exams.

    I, for one, am boycotting all members of the California Bar until they explain and correct this egregious error.

    Isn’t the whole purpose of the Bar Association to protect the reputation of its membership?

  30. avatar
    realist February 20, 2014 at 6:52 pm #

    “Isn’t the whole purpose of the Bar Association to protect the reputation of its membership?”

    No. The purpose of the bar (not to be confused with the bar association) is to protect the public.

  31. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 20, 2014 at 7:27 pm #

    RanTalbott: Maybe the real problem is that she needs to learn how to make videos that people won’t switch off in mid-view.

    You mean it might be her fault? I don’t think that’s possible….in Birtherstan.

  32. avatar
    Reality Check February 20, 2014 at 8:24 pm #

    I sincerely hope the SSA takes Orly’s demands seriously and dispatches about 500 people to search the paper records for Harry Bounel’s SS-5 card. I hope that they search for about a month and then bill Orly for the costs at about $100 per hour.

    My advice to the SSA is to collect up front from Orly however.

  33. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2014 at 8:50 pm #

    realist:
    “Isn’t the whole purpose of the Bar Association to protect the reputation of its membership?”

    No.The purpose of the bar (not to be confused with the bar association) is to protect the public.

    I said Bar Association. (California is a Unified Bar state. All lawyers MUST be a member of the Association.)

    Protecting the public from shonky lawyers IS protecting the reputation of the Association members. 8-)

  34. avatar
    realist February 20, 2014 at 9:37 pm #

    They can be unified all they want but the disciplinary arm if the CA bar is to protect the public.

    Orly has no clients, therefore no paying clients, so they don’t give a rip how unethical she is. Unfortunately. Client money seems to be paramount with bar disciplinary committees. :(

  35. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 20, 2014 at 10:03 pm #

    Soduko: Taitz says she wants the paper record because of the mistakes with computers. Yet, Obama’s “CT” SSN can’t be a typo in the zip code and all her Bounel 1890 database/credit check doody are gospel.

    —-

    Bingo!

  36. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 20, 2014 at 11:19 pm #

    Yeah, sadly epic dumb&%$#ery alone doesn’t seem to be a disbarable offense. I mean it used to be! I dunno if any of you remember a guy named Jack Thompson, but he got himself disbarred for very unlawyerly stupidity a few years back. That was a different state though.

  37. avatar
    nbc February 21, 2014 at 1:41 am #

    CarlOrcas: Orly is ludicrous.

    Orly is Or’ly, she can’t help herself. It’s all about Orly…

  38. avatar
    Craig HS February 21, 2014 at 2:40 am #

    I say we LET Orly bypass regulations and personally inspect the yes-they-MUST-exist records. Put her in the vault with the 1880s and let her go, one box at a time.

    Maybe we should open the vault when she finally gets to the 1900s.

  39. avatar
    Lupin February 21, 2014 at 2:43 am #

    Over a 10-year period (arguably even a little more) I saw my parents drift from mild eccentricity into diagnosable cognitive disorders (in my mom’s case, alzheimer).

    Based on similarities in behavior, I am convinced that Orly is suffering from some kind of neurological disorder, still undiagnosed because it’s in the very early stages.

    There is medication that helps slow down even stabilize the symptoms, which sadly didn’t benefit my folks until it was past too late.

    This in no way excuses Orly — or her husband — but it might provide an explanation.

  40. avatar
    Arthur February 21, 2014 at 4:00 am #

    RanTalbott: Does anyone know whether Youtube increments the counter when a video is not watched all the way to its end?

    In the early days of YouTube, a video got one view count every time a page was loaded. It didn’t matter if you watched the whole video, or whether only one person watched the video hundreds of times. Additionally, number counts were easily inflated by people who sat at their computers and continually refreshed the page. Every refresh added one view count.

    However, as YouTube transitioned into a money-making endeavor, it became important to get a more accurate sense of how many individual viewers were actually watching a particular video. Under Google’s direction, YouTube now has computer software that prevents people from gaming view counts. For obvious reasons, Google has not described the details of their system, but they have revealed that when it detects an attempt to artificially inflate a video’s view count, the video remains available but the view count freezes. According to Google, “Video views are at the heart of the YouTube community and we want to ensure that we’re counting only valid views (and not artificial attempts to game the system). Ultimately, consistent view counts benefit everyone in the community, from the viewers to the uploaders.”

    I think it’s very likely that Orly Taitz tried to increase her view counts through dishonest means and Google has responded by freezing her numbers.

  41. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 21, 2014 at 4:08 am #

    Arthur, I suspect you are quite right. Not being privy to Google’s back office, I can only guess how they go about it, but one way would be to monitor where someone is logging in from, and not counting if there are repeated attempts from the same IP address within a certain time frame. I am quite sure that she and her followers have tried to inflate the numbers, and got caught, and as you say, the counters got frozen, which if is the case, they have only themselves to blame. Conversely, she may not be getting the attention she thinks she deserves, and the numbers are close to accurate, which I think would be even more fitting.

  42. avatar
    RanTalbott February 21, 2014 at 4:28 am #

    Arthur: I think it’s very likely that Orly Taitz tried to increase her view counts through dishonest means and Google has responded by freezing her numbers.

    I think it’s more likely that one or more of her flying monkeys tried it. Even she must realize that such antics are traceable.

    I think it’s less likely, but still possible, that someone hostile (like the author of the “stand down” letter, or of the “the judge told me ex parte that you’re a foo-foo head” blog posting), who knew about the policy (thanks for explaining it) decided to wind her up and see if she’d waddle off the pitchman’s table this time.

    I’d guess the relative odds are on the order of
    10 – monkey(s)
    3 – Orly
    < 1 – Anti-Orly

    Iirc, she screeched this same song sometime last year, and a few of us (here, maybe??) posted numbers that showed her "frozen" counter was, in fact, changing at the low rate she deserved.

  43. avatar
    The Magic M February 21, 2014 at 5:27 am #

    Notorial Dissent: Conversely, she may not be getting the attention she thinks she deserves, and the numbers are close to accurate, which I think would be even more fitting.

    Very likely. Nobody except herself posts links to her videos anymore as she’s no longer a big name in Birtherstan.

    A friend of mine runs my country’s biggest site about Tourette’s Syndrome and his numbers are usually very low. Whenever he gets invited to a TV show, however, the numbers explode in the days after, then quickly go back to normal.
    He would never complain somebody’s “messing with his numbers” just because on a normal day, he gets less than 1/1,000th of what he gets on those peak days.

  44. avatar
    The European February 21, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    /offtopic

    Birtherland is so boring. Where, oh where is Fleet Commander Zullo ?
    Can he shake us a bit and the universe with us ??

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    Maybe a real lawyer can inform me. In this latest filing in response to the defense reply to her a 2nd amended complaint (which asks for dismissal or summary judgment), Taitz move for summary judgment against the defense.

    Can the court rule on the defense motions and dismiss the case, or does Orly’s motion require another round of briefs?

  46. avatar
    RetiredLawyer February 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

    In short, no. What it does do is it gives Orly the right to file a reply to the response brief of the defendants to her motion. If and when they file a response brief.

  47. avatar
    J.D. Sue February 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    RetiredLawyer: In short, no. What it does do is it gives Orly the right to file a reply to the response brief of the defendants to her motion. If and when they file a response brief.

    —-
    Seems to me that, once the defendant files a reply brief in support of its own motions (or the time expires for a reply), the court could rule on the defendant’s motions–regardless of Taitz’s filing of her own motion. If the court grants the defendant’s motion(s), it’s over.

  48. avatar
    JoZeppy February 21, 2014 at 1:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Maybe a real lawyer can inform me. In this latest filing in response to the defense reply to her a 2nd amended complaint (which asks for dismissal or summary judgment), Taitz move for summary judgment against the defense. Can the court rule on the defense motions and dismiss the case, or does Orly’s motion require another round of briefs?

    The short answer is the Court can dismiss whenever they desire. The long answer is, (and what I’m guessing will happen), is the Government is entitled to file both a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and a separate Opposition to her Motion to Dismiss. Orly is then entitled to file a Reply i support of her MtD, but should not raise issues exclusively part of her MtD (that would make it an impermissible sur-reply). This muddling of things is why courts tend to frown on doing combo filings such as this. File your opposition, and then file a separate motion. Much neater that way.

  49. avatar
    JPotter February 21, 2014 at 7:16 pm #

    JoZeppy: but should not raise issues

    We’re talking about Orly here …. should not = could not help but !

  50. avatar
    RanTalbott February 28, 2014 at 11:33 pm #

    Just happened to notice that Orly says Hendershot found Bounel in “Mervyns Information Systems database”. I used to get socks and jeans from Mervyn’s, but I never did see that they had a Conspiracy Department…