Main Menu

Archive | Who’s Who

Information about people and web sites that discuss Barack Obama

A waste of money

So Orly Taitz wrote in an article yesterday [link to Taitz web site] that she had appealed Taitz v. Colvin to the 4th Circuit. I ran a search on PACER to find the case, wasting ten cents on getting no results as of close of business today. Taitz, no doubt, wasted a lot more filing a case that has zero chance of going anywhere. We’ll just have to wait for the text.

As I was writing this article, my browser rested on the Taitz site and some of those dodgy download messages started appearing.  I thought about adding a sidebar feature, a Taitz web site threat alert level, but that wouldn’t be good unless it was always up to date. Here is today’s alert anyway:

image

I’ve been impressed by the various judicial opinion’s I’ve read in the course of writing about Obama conspiracy stories. It’s sort of a mini legal education. I can’t read Judge Hollander’s decision in Taitz v. Colvin without hearing in the background, “See? This is how to frame a legal argument!”

2

The judge was not impressed

Plaintiff [Orly Taitz] can rest assured that if any reasonable grounds existed for me to recuse myself from this case, I would have done so, if for no other reason than to avoid spending precious time on such frivolous filings. But, my responsibilities require me to handle dutifully the cases assigned to me.

– Federal Judge Ellen L. Hollander
Taitz v. Colvin

And so Orly Taitz’s motion for reconsideration and recusal of the judge was summarily rejected in a 7-page memorandum. Judge Hollander makes it clear that she is quite familiar with who Orly Taitz is, and her litigation history on behalf of the “’birther’ movement.” Judge Hollander points out that the time limit provided by statute had already passed, when Taitz filed her motion.

Judge Hollander notes:

Ms. Taitz has not provided any legal authority for the proposition that, if the President were removed from office, this judge or the hundreds of other executive and judicial branch appointees selected by him and then confirmed by the Senate would also become disqualified from their offices.

Nor has any other birther cited any legal authority for this widely-birther-held theory.

71

Contemplating Orly

When I saw this statue, I immediately thought of Orly Taitz.

DC and  Statue

Maybe it was the eyes.

Orly has always been a difficult character to relate to, not really helped by my having an extended phone conversation with her. I have a moral imperative to view and speak of my neighbor in the best possible light; most people I have known throughout the years have been decent people. Orly strains that attitude.

All conspiracy theorists (and here I only include unreasonable theories) are working from a disadvantage. My understanding of them comes from Michael Shermer’s book, The  Believing Brain, and I see the conspiracist mindset as coming from a low-functioning nonsense filter. So I don’t think that being a conspiracy theorists makes someone a bad person, or even a stupid one. Indeed, my criticisms of Orly Taitz are only tangentially related to her being a conspiracy theorist. Here are some of them:

  • Incompetence. Orly Taitz is a lawyer and a very bad one. She has been repeatedly lectured by judges that she doesn’t follow procedures and that she doesn’t understand the law. She repeatedly violated court rules by failing to redact social-security numbers. She has bungled service in almost every case. She was sanctioned 3 times.
  • Lack of regard for others. At various times, Orly has solicited clients and then represented them badly, doing things that were in Orly’s interest, but not that of her clients. Connie Rhodes had to write the Court to tell them that the things Orly was filing were not on her behalf. She has blatantly violated the privacy of individuals by publishing their names, addresses, social-security numbers, and even birth certificates. She even egged on her readers to investigate the deaths of newborns who had nothing whatever top do with any public issue.
  • Dishonesty. The most recent instance of this was when Orly presented a petition to the Court claiming “new evidence” that she had known about for at least 6 months. I believe she lied to me when she claimed that she had public records of other names associated with Obama’s social-security number before the number was published on the Internet.
  • Bigotry. I have seen Orly demonize illegal immigrant children on her web site. Orly likes to seek sympathy because she is a mother, but she doesn’t seem to be very motherly towards other people’s children.
  • Immorality. This assumes the truth of reports of her having an extramarital affair. I take a dim view of adultery.

I recognize that everyone has their bad points; nevertheless, I can chose those people I like, and those I don’t. There are people I get along with, and those I would rather stay away from. Orly Taitz is just someone I don’t like.

28

How do I make this sound interesting?

Readers may recall that the FOIA lawsuit Taitz v. Colvin, an attempt to force the Social Security Administration to release a non-existent record for the apparently equally non-existent Harrison J. Bounel, was decided in favor of the Social Security Administration. They looked, and didn’t find anything.

Cover-up, screams Taitz and blames a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Hollander, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama.

In an article [link to Taitz web site] including her motion to re-open and recuse, Taitz cites the rules on judicial recusal and, in my opinion, fails to find anything relevant.

Update:

Thanks to a commenter here, perhaps it got more interesting. This is from Taitz’ motion:

Further, revelation of a conflict of interest by a judge represents a new evidence, which satisfies Rule 60(b)(2).

But was it “new evidence”? Here is a screen shot from Orly Taitz’ web site:

image

And here’s another:

image

Taitz responds to comment 41, suggesting that she was well aware last January that Judge Hollander was an Obama appointee. Is Taitz trying to deceive the Court?

Read more:

93

“Any day now” gets closer

It’s been a slow week and I am reduced to republishing Birther Report. One of them had the stomach to listen to Carl Gallups Freedom Friday program and this comes from that:

Carl Gallups: Been talking to Mike Zullo. Both the birth certificate and criminal investigations are still ongoing. Sheriff Arpaio is getting close to holding the press conference. They are in the process of getting over two legal hurdles so they can release some of the information. All sources and information must be extensively vetted.

So “any day now” becomes “getting close” and “getting VIPs on board” becomes “getting over two legal hurdles.” I wonder what those legal hurdles are. Could they be:

  1. No evidence
  2. No jurisdiction

Perhaps we will find out, any day now.

41

Birther sues to deport children

I need wonder no longer when Orly Taitz is going to sue the federal government over the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who crossed the US border and have been apprehended by immigration officials.

Taitz has been actively blogging on immigration topics for some time, including this title:

None of the individuals who crossed the US border in the last year or earlier from Mexico or Central America qualify as refugees or asylees. Asylum is given only to people who are persecuted due to their religion, race, ethnicity or political opposition. As such, all of them should be deported immediately

and

Please, not, only people, who are outside the U.S., can ask for a refugee status. If they are already in the U.s., they do not qualify as refugee

Taitz might want to review the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. While that Act is a little more dense than I want to dig into, press reports indicate that the law requires a hearing before a child from a non-contiguous country can be deported, for example Carl Hulse of The New York Times wrote:

Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

Taitz wants them summarily loaded onto boxcars cargo planes and shipped back to their country of origin. She filed a federal lawsuit in Texas, Taitz v. Johnson [Draft of complaint filed], to prevent transportation of detained children from Texas to California citing:

[a] serious threat to public health, spread of infectious diseases, national security threat, crime threat and economic damages

Further Taitz demands that the these persons be immediately deported, or placed in quarantine in a FEMA facility.

One would think that Taitz lacks standing to bring such a lawsuit and that the case will be dismissed on that ground.

Read more: