Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v Obama

Cover v. recover

Here’s a screen shot in case this particular post [link to Taitz web site] from the Taitz web site gets scrubbed:

image

The Court decision doesn’t say that the respondent must “cover” costs, but rather that the respondent may “recover” costs, i.e., Orly pays.

In this action, the respondents did not file any responses, leading one to think that they will not have much in the way of costs to recover.

Update:

The article on the Taitz site is gone this morning. I think the importance of retaining my article is not to leave a monument to how clueless Orly Taitz is, but rather to give a possible example of the kind of error she makes that contributes to her being the conspiracy theorist she is—the lack of a high-functioning nonsense filter. Orly Taitz expressed surprise that she should lose her case and the other side have to pay costs—recognizing something that makes no sense whatever; nevertheless, the way her mind works, that recognition of nonsense was not strong enough to effect a change in behavior and to  prevent an embarrassing mistake.

Birthers play the race card

While I have been hesitant to play the race card and make generalized statements saying that birthers are fundamentally racist, others have not, and they have used the “racist” label to good effect against birthers, to the point where I think that there are many, and maybe a majority who view birthers as racists (and undoubtedly they are right in many instances).

Birthers have been quick to pick up on any claims that they are racist and try to turn that into the entire argument to avoid the fundamental weakness of the birther position in general. However, seeing, I think, the effective use of the racist label when used against them, they are now responding in kind by labeling their opponents “racist.” Any time they can find two instances remotely parallel where the black guy is treated differently than they white guy, they cry racism, and we have seen such attacks against Barack Obama, Eric Holder and others.

We saw examples of this in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial in Florida this past July this such as the “Blackness Trumps Fairness (Eric Holder the Racist)” thread at the Free Republic from last July. Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld (in an ironic statement) suggested that calling some a racist unfairly is itself racist hate speech. Birther rock musician Ted Nugent said:

We are most offended that the president of the United States and the U.S. attorney general are clearly guilty of racism when they intentionally bring race to the fore when they make public judgments based on the color of someone’s skin instead of the content of their character in total defiance of the findings of the FBI, Department of Justice, entire state’s investigative resources and a jury verdict.

Orly Taitz is, of course, not to be left out of any anti-Obama movement. OC Weekly reports on this comment from Taitz, and her link to a racist web site:

More evidence of young black men beating up, mutilating and in some cases killing whites, particularly elderly, women and children. Black racist Eric Holder does nothing about it, only charged one white man with hate crime, did not charge any blacks, Demand impeachment hearings for Holder. Please, give me phone numbers of white men and women, who were victims of these attacks.

Black on white crime is a popular theme on the Taitz web site the last couple of days. Here are some articles, with links to the Taitz site (which still issuing that fake browser alert, so watch out):

The following are older articles from the Taitz site (where she is just copying the stories of others):

Taitz v. Obama appeal complete

Birther attorney Orly Taitz moved for reconsideration of her case before the 4th Appellation District Division 3 of the State of California, appealing her loss in Taitz v. Obama. On November 18, 2013, the court denied rehearing of the case. Today the case was marked “complete” in the court docket. Here is a graphic depiction of results to date in Taitz lawsuits against Obama.

Photo of old tombstones

Taitz v. Obama rehearing denied

The 4th Appellate District Division 3 of California received a misfaxed request for reconsideration of their decision in Taitz v. Obama, a decision affirming the lower court decision in its entirety including a $4,000 sanction/cost shift against Taitz.

The Court construed her request for reconsideration to be a request for a rehearing, and yesterday the Court denied the rehearing.

Case closed.

Will Taitz appeal to the California Supreme Court? No, I do not think they will find her appealing.

Just the fax mam

Remember that appeal that Orly Taitz lost1 in California, Taitz v. Obama et al.? Of course you do. OK, please raise your hands if you know what Orly Taitz did next?

I see that everybody has raised their hands. You there in the blue helmet, what do you think? You say she would ask for reconsideration? I see everybody is shaking their heads in agreement. Wait, I see one young lady wearing a lei with her hand up. What do you say—that Taitz would file for reconsideration incorrectly? Yes! Absolutely correct. 50 points for the State of Hawaii team.

Referring to the Appellate Court Docket we find:

Date Description Notes
10/31/2013 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished) Affirmed. Ikola Fybel Thompson
11/13/2013

Returned document for non-conformance.

faxed a motion for reconsideration received by fax on 11/13/13, not a fax file document thus no action will be taken by this court. (Aplt faxed over motion twice to the court both fax rejected).

11/14/2013 Rehearing petition filed. filed by aplt Orly Taitz.
11/14/2013 Order on motion filed. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the order on appeal received on November 13, 2013 is DEEMED a petition for rehearing. The clerk of this court is ordered to file the petition for rehearing forthwith.

1The lower court ruling dismissing the case per rule 8.140(b) was Affirmed in full on 10/31/2013.

No Halloween treat for Taitz

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three has issued a ruling in Taitz v. Obama, just days after Taitz made an oral argument before a three-judge panel, opposed by three empty chairs representing Barack Obama, and Senate candidates Diane Feinstein and Elizabeth Emken. The Court affirmed the earlier dismissal of the suit by Orange County Superior Court.

Taitz had sued to prevent the results of the 2012 primary election from being certified, alleging that Obama was not eligible and that there was massive election fraud in the US Senate race where Feinstein was re-elected. This is the case where Occidental College won a $4,000 assessment of costs (also appealed) from Taitz over an improper subpoena. So why did Taitz lose the appeal?

Let me count the ways…

The essential flaw in Taitz’ original case was that she filed it in the wrong court, a court that lacked jurisdiction under California Law to hear election challenges. That alone doomed the appeal. Taitz argued that if was the wrong court, then the court should have transferred the case to the correct court, rather than dismissing it. Taitz cited a statute that does not apply in support her assertion that there should have been a transfer. Both errors are examples of sloppy procedure on the part of Taitz

Next, even if Taitz had filed in the correct court, she filed too late for the court to do anything about her complaint. The Court of Appeals addressed this point in detail, pointing out the statutory time requirements.

Further, even if she had filed on time, and in the right court, her notice of appeal was untimely because the statute only allows a delay of 10 days after the superior court rules on an election challenge.

She filed motions that are not allowed by law, and she didn’t file the required contest of the general election. Taitz prosecution of her case was a joke.

Finally, her appeal was totally botched in that she provided reams of rubbish about Obama, but failed to provide copies of transcripts and lower court orders which are the fundamental paperwork that must be filed with an appeal.

Taitz never learns.