Archive | Orly Taitz RSS feed for this section

Things heat up for Monday face-off in Grinols

By on April 16, 2013 in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

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.

Comments { 39 }

Taitz deletes racially-tinged article, but why?

By on April 9, 2013 in Orly Taitz, Punking the birthers

Commenter donna mentioned this article at the Taitz web site, but when I went looking, it was not there:

Error 404 on page http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=412112

It was once there [Google cached version, Before it’s News reprint]. It was a letter of support from the “East Oakland Counsel of Conservative Citizens.” They have a novel theory about why President Obama is ineligible:

We at the East Oakland chapter have been following your case for several years, and we agree that we have the wrong president; he’s ineligible and should be brought to justice. Anyone with any sense can see that just by looking at this impostor.

And lest there be any question about where they are coming from:

It would have been obvious to anyone who viewed the elections of 2008 and 2012, that Obama is a shill for other, more evil powers, and has been inserted in power to advance the goals of those who would institute a truly anti-American multicultural government who will work against the European heritage that we at COCC believe will tear apart this country even more than we’ve seen since the Obama “presidency” began.

So the COCC offered some fund raising, and to send a busload of supporters to Taitz’ court hearing on April 22 in the Grinols case, describing it as a trial and saying that people showing up will influence the Court.

All of that said, the article in question is gone, zapped and erased; it is an ex-article. Now the question is “why?” Could it be that he East Oakland Counsel of Conservatives Citizens never existed? Is this rather one in a long string of attempts to punk Orly Taitz? Is it real, but Orly Taitz upon reflection decided she didn’t want their support? Is it just a technical glitch, or something entirely different?

The article says that the East Bay Bible Church is the COCC meeting place. Is this photo from the church’s Facebook page a clue?

East Bay Bible Church with non-white face

Not finding anything on the web about the “East Oakland Council of Conservative Citizens, ” nor about Taitz’ title variant, “East Oakland Counsel for Conservative Citizens” except as derived from her article, I’d say it was a fake.

Punking the birthers – priceless

Comments { 72 }

Sven @ Orly

By on April 9, 2013 in Orly Taitz

The character who posted here extensively under dozens of aliases, but that we most remember as Sven Magnussen, has turned up at the Orly Taitz blog to promote his unique theories of Barack Obama the abandoned child. I don’t intend to get into his alternate history since we did that in comments on this blog years ago and in great length, but what I want to focus on is a comment left on Orly’s blog [link to Taitz web site] about it:

I am not an enemy to one group or the other. That is the idea of the left to divide, so would it not be best to see the heart of those trying to get results rather than their methods? We are not working in a normal situation, at best. Anyone willing to stick their necks out deserves some credit. I will not go against anyone trying to get to the truth. I will NOT trust anyone group with the whole truth. I will make my own decisions on that when the time comes. The evidence weighs wholly in the favor of those proving this man is not eligible or fit to be in OUR White House and he should go. That is the bottom line for me, not which group is doing all the right moves and for what reasons that I do not see or are not privy to. I just know those mentioned and Orly are doing work that not many want to stick out their necks for. Let’s not turn this into an infight.

– Blackyb

I suppose lying,  filing frivolous lawsuits, fabricating evidence, forging documents, accessing databases illegally, flouting privacy laws and just plain making stuff up is not a problem for this commenter. It would seem that the goal is not fairness, due process, accuracy, evidence and much less truth, but rather the conclusion, that Obama is ineligible is what matters.

It doesn’t matter how crazy the story, and that there’s no evidence whatever to support it: Folks get credit for just making the claim. This is really a faith-based statement.

Comments { 8 }

Doc foresees latest Taitz move in a dream

By on April 2, 2013 in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

imageI mentioned briefly in a comment a couple of days ago that I had a dream, a really strange one, where I kept finding boxes of cranks and  boxes of dirt. It wasn’t obvious why I had this dream, but I think now that it was prophetic of the latest legal move of Orly Taitz in Grinols v. Electoral College.

Not long after being rebuffed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi, where she attempted to obtain a Writ of Mandamus to require the judge to declare Michael Astrue, former Commissioner of Social Security, in default for failing to respond to a defective service of the complaint, she turns around and files an appeal of Judge England’s refusal to find President Obama in default in Grinols, where the judge had explained in great detail why her service was defective in that case also.

imageThe legal form of the two appellate actions are different, one to force a judge to rule  with a writ of mandamus and the other an appeal of a ruling, but the underlying defect is the same: Orly Taitz doesn’t follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules when serving plaintiffs. Repeated legal failures makes one a crank, and I think that this is what my dream meant, particularly as Orly Taitz once said on her blog [link to Taitz web site]: “I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me.”

Note: there is a hearing on a motion to dismiss in this case on the 18th of this month.

Grinols Notice of Appeal and Ex Parte Expedited Motion0001 by orlytaitz1

Taitz dental office seized by feds

By on April 1, 2013 in Orly Taitz

This is breaking news from OC Weekly, the best local coverage of Orly Taitz and her antics. In a pre-dawn raid, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration seized the building at 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, housing the dental practice and law offices of Orly Taitz, Esq. As we reported last year, Taitz had leased part of the building to a medical marijuana distributor.

While legal in California, the sale and possession of marijuana is still against federal law, and statutes allow seizing assets, including buildings and vehicles, used in the drug trade.

OC Weekly speculates that this is pay-back from the Obama administration for Taitz’ string of harassing lawsuits against the President. Taitz, in a characteristic response, has posted a string of articles [link to Taitz web site] on her blog, describing herself as a political dissident and urging her readers and supporters to flood the Justice Department  and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with complaints.

Court considers reconsidering and decides not to

By on March 30, 2013 in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

Yes, the latest motion to reconsider from Orly Taitz in Grinols v. Electoral College has been denied by Judge England. Taitz tried to have the President declared in default for not appearing in the case, but she bungled the service and so he’s not (yet) a party, and so has no duty to respond. Judge England explained to her in great detail how she went wrong when he denied her motion, and taking this to heart, Taitz ignored it, and asked for reconsideration.

No dice, says the Judge. Read the order:

Continue Reading →

Taitz under attack, surrounded–threats loom

By on March 26, 2013 in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz

While I’m at the dentist’s office, you can read this tale of Orly Taitz inserting herself where she is not wanted, but herself found wanting a legal theory to support her action.

Thanks to the Jack Ryan collection for this tidbit that contains some perhaps over-the-top language, which I borrowed for the headline.

Taitz’ motion is subject to attack on many fronts; between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, she is surrounded.

…

In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice.

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

Judicial Watch v King (SD Ind) – Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intevene by Jack Ryan

Older posts