Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v. Elections Commission

Orly cries “wolf”

Orly Taitz has a penchant for interpreting judicial events as meaning her litigation targets are in default. She did it in Mississippi with Michael Astrue [link to Taitz web site] and she did it Indiana against the Secretary of State [link to Taitz web site]. And again against Barack Obama in the Judd case in California [link to Taitz web site]. Those are just since last October. She didn’t get a default judgment in any of these.

Well she’s at again, this time declaring Obama is in default in Grinols v. Electoral College [link to Taitz web site].  I am not a lawyer, and as I continue to do this web site I become more and more aware of how much I don’t know about the law and how it is difficult to substitute Google for a real legal education. Nevertheless, based on Orly’s track record and the presumed competence of Obama’s representation, I’m going out on a limb here and say that Taitz is wrong.

In the federal system there are two standards of response to the complaint in a civil lawsuit, one for ordinary folks and one for the government. This is detailed in FRCP 12(a). The normal 21-day response requirement is extended to 60 days when the United States or one of its Officers is sued in connection with their official duties. Orly Taitz is trying to sue Obama as a candidate, not as President, but she served him on January 4 through the Attorney General, and not personally. Since she served the government, only the government is obligated to respond, and they get 60 days. If Orly persists in saying that she is suing Obama personally, then she hasn’t served him at all, and the 21-day clock hasn’t even started.

Anyhow, Taitz has filed for a “expedited default judgment” against Obama and in that judgment she is asking the Court to declare Barack Obama ineligible to be President (point 8 in the proposed order).

Orly Taitz is crying “wolf” and wasting the taxpayers motion tilting at windmills.

Here’s Orly’s motion:

Continue Reading →

Orly’s Indiana receipt

Orly Taitz says that some (not me) have suggested that she stole the audio recording of the October 22 Indiana trial in Taitz v. Elections Commission that turned up on YouTube. In response today, she posted a copy of the receipt for $25 from the court.

That’s not news as far as I’m concerned. What is interesting is other comments that I’ve seen that say that the receipt will show some restriction on the use of the recording. It does not. There may be come accompanying papers that came with the recording, but no restrictions are printed on the receipt. That leads us to:

Making a milestone out a mole hill

Orly is also reporting that her “show cause” hearing in Indiana has been canceled, a “Milestone victory” to use her words. Obama is still on his way towards a second term as President, so I don’t think it’s much of a milestone. Anyway, I think Judge Reid did the right thing by dropping the hearing.

If anyone thinks Orly didn’t come out very well in that recording, perhaps it was tampered with by someone:


Indiana order to show cause

Scales of Justice imageI’ve been wondering exactly what this was about ever since I learned about a court date for November 27 where Orly Taitz is ordered to appear before judge S. K. Reid in Indiana to “show cause.” In my limited legal experience, an order to show cause is usually a bad thing for the one who receives it, and that turns out to be the case here.

Taitz disclosed on her blog yesterday what it is about in a published copy of a letter to Judge Reid that says in part:

Orly Taita photoI received from you a letter stating that this court intends to hold a hearing to show cause regarding release and publication of a certain audio transcript of the October 22 hearing, which contains expert testimony of forgery in the birth certificate of Barack Obama. “Parties are ordered to show cause  whether or not they should be in Contempt of Court for the release and posting on “Youtube” of the audio recording of October 22, 2012 hearing, all in violation of this court order and pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct rule 2.17”

I can understand why Judge Reid is upset by the release of the recording because it puts her in a very bad light. Reid allowed Taitz to get testimony into the record from unqualified experts. I think the trial should never have been held while motions to dismiss were pending and that the audio recording is an embarrassment to the judge (as well as to Taitz). The only mitigating factor for Judge Reid is that she vacated the entire trial afterwards.

If Taitz is to believed, and I personally do in this instance, the audio recording in question was made by the court reporter and sold to Taitz. The court ordered the parties not to make recordings, but Taitz didn’t do that. What she probably did was to publish, or to allow to be published, the recording she properly obtained and after the recording was published on YouTube, she published the embedded YouTube copy of it on her web site. As of this morning, the YouTube video itself has been made private.

YouTube "This video is private" logo

Continue Reading →

Help reading map and other Orlybits

2012 Electoral College vote mapHave you seen this graphic?

It’s like all over the Internet. I snagged the image on the right off the Huffington Post web site, but it’s easily available from any major news web site or from the Wikipedia.

Orly Taitz, however, can’t read or can’t be bothered to read stuff like this. Rather, she has people to do things like that her, writing:

I remember that the difference was 1-2%, but I don’t remember how many states exactly voted for Obama. I need to figure the exact number of the states…

She also wants the names and addresses of all the secretaries of state in two lists, one for states that went Obama and one for states that went for Romney. (Thank goodness Maine and Nebraska went one way this time). She wants to send them a threatening letter or something along with a few hundred pages of crank expert testimony.

Other Orlybits:

Orly has a hearing scheduled in Indiana on the 27th. She’s asking Judge Reid whether it’s still on. The subject of the hearing: an order to show cause why Orly should not be held in contempt for publishing the audio recording of her trial last October 22. I understand that the recording was originally on her web site, and Orly sent a copy to the Court in Mississippi. An anonymous person published it on YouTube. Orly’s excuse “There  was never any order stating that parties are not allowed to post on you-tube audio recordings lawfully purchased from the court.” [Link to Taitz web site] The story made the The Indiana Law Blog. I do not take any position on who did what, nor on whether what was done was illegal.

Orly has, of course, bought into the massive vote fraud conspiracy theories and since she believes that all officials are corrupt, that’s pretty easy to do.

Orly is getting some obscene fan comments, which she gleefully posts on her site. If you are offended by certain words, you might not want to click on this [Link to Taitz web site and this comment]. The miscreant here appears to be from Canada or Texas—hard to tell.

Orly offered what she describes as “Additional evidence of proof of service on Attorney General of HI…” [Link to Taitz web site] It’s also evidence that she served the Hawaii Defendants in their official capacity under which they are immune from RICO. Oopsies.

After reading Orly’s bizarre article titled: “Is Nancy Pelosi President of the Electoral College?” [Link to Taitz web site], I was prompted to ask how Orly passed her citizenship test (much less her bar exam).

Oh, and Orly is claiming that folks are tampering with her web site again because she can’t upload some documents. She put them on Scribd instead. Excellent idea. And while on the tampering theme, I offer this bit of irony (screen taken November 20):


Audio of trial in Taitz v. Elections Commission

The Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored site has an interesting and informative article about this mysterious audio recording posted on YouTube of the trial October 22 in Indianapolis in Taitz v. Elections Commission. This trial was later vacated by Judge S. K. Reid.

Taitz says that it is a legal recording sold by the court reporter to the parties. I reported previously that Taitz sent a copy of this recording to the Court in Mississippi. No one seems to know who uploaded the recording to YouTube. The YouTube version is on the Taitz web site [link to Taitz web site] and there is an unofficial transcript available.

Adding to the mystery is an “Order to Show Cause” issued by the Court with Taitz commanded to appear on Nov. 27. I haven’t been able to find out what this is about either.


Indiana attorney Greg Black “gobsmacked”

Dr. Conspiracy photo reading Globe MagazineIn a letter to the editor of the Hendricks County Flyer, Orly Taitz’ sponsoring Attorney in Indiana has written that the decision in Taitz  v. Elections Commission was a “nightmare” and that he was “gobsmacked”:

To the Editor:

Karl Swihart of Avon persuaded Dr. Orly Taitz, a California lawyer who attacks President Obama’s birth records etc., to make me her sponsoring lawyer for suit in Indianapolis to remove Mr. Obama from the ballot as not being a natural born citizen[.]

I did, to the chagrin of many who regard me as strange. Maybe I am, but I am also curious.

Not even sure why I write.

The trial was Oct. 22 in Judge S. K. Reid’s court, she a former adversary in a case I had. Judge Reid is honest, brave. We disagree, but respect each other.

We have been "gobsmacked," word Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal uses to mean shocked, ambushed.

The birth certificate the White House published 18 months ago online to prove Mr. Obama’s birth 4 August 1971 in Honolulu is a forgery, so says expert Paul Irey, formerly of Air Force intelligence.

No contrary evidence was offered, though opponents were informed of the evidence in March or so.

The evidence is in.

This is not a political case, it is a Constitutional Law case.

This is a nightmare. May God protect this nation.


Greg Black

I must say that this struck me as disingenuous. Mr. Black certainly knows that there were a host of standing objections to Irey’s qualifications as an expert that the Judge didn’t rule on. Surely he knows that Paul Irey’s stint at Air Force Intelligence was as a typist. He certainly knows that Judge Reid ended the trial before the Defense completed its cross examination of Paul Irey. The evidence was not “in” in any legal sense of the word. The trial may well have been a nightmare, but it was a nightmare for the Defense, with the birthers being allowed all sorts of leave to call unqualified witnesses. Plaintiffs got much better than they deserved to have had the trial at all.

Black may have been “gobsmacked” but normal folks saw this coming for months.