Cook v. Simtech orders not sealed



Stefan Cook’s attorney Orly Taitz has apparently gone berzerk over the results of her case in Florida, Cook v. Simtech. She’s screaming NAZI at the judge and demanding his removal from the bench. Why, because she says he “sealed” his orders. Orly is also feeling the heat because her bad advice cost Cook has lost his $120,000 job. (If you want to keep your security clearance, you don’t run around in public challenging the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief.)

After the case was dismissed, Orly made several motions to reconsider the case and to dismiss the judge.

Of course, it makes no sense for orders to be sealed in a case like this, and indeed it’s not true. A quick visit to the court’s web site (subscription required) reveals the orders as follows:

Full docket text for document 10:
ENDORSED ORDER denying [8] Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

Full docket text for document 11:
ENDORSED ORDER denying as frivolous and wholly without merit [9] Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and [9]Motion for Rehearing re: [6] Order on Motion for Reconsideration of [3] Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB)

Orly says:

This is a total travesty of justice and a total and complete insanity. this is a behavior that can happen only in Nazi Germany or in Stalinist Russia…. If this is allowed to continue, next they can take your houses in eminent domain and give you cents on a dollar and provide no answer, no reasoning; they can send you and your loved ones to FEMA camps behind barped wire and provide you no answer, no reasoning. Every decent American has to go to the White house, each and every Federal building, offices of congressmen and senators, state representatives and state senators and DEMAND IMMEDIATE JUDICIAL HEARINGS IN US AND STATE HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATES OF THE ISSUE OF OBAMA’S ILLEGITIMACY FOR PRESIDENCY AND IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FOR ALL OF OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS. DEMAND THE COURTS TO HEAR THE CASES OF…

Sorry, Orly. Nothing was sealed. The judge just dismissed these frivolous motions without comment. Nothing requires the judge to deliver a lengthy opinion to dismiss a frivolous motion. If Orly doesn’t like it, she can appeal.

The order in this case explains the electronic filing related to endorsements. (Thanks to commenter on NBC blog).

Note: Due to the likely presence of malicious scripting on Orly’s web site (as reported by several browsers), I am not providing any hyperlinks to that site until the issue is resolved.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Cook v. Simtech orders not sealed

  1. Low Rider says:

    Good lord. She apparently thinks that the orders are “sealed” because there isn’t a link to a .pdf of the orders. Sorry, hon, there’s just not that much to say. Frivolous. Dismissed. Go ‘way.

  2. Nobody says:

    She is actually claiming in her press release that the orders are being kept secret from her.

    I think her logic goes something like this.
    1. My case is perfect.
    2. The Judge tossed it out.
    3. The reasons for tossing it out are wrong and the judge knows it.
    4. So it must have been tossed out for some other reason.
    5. The judge wont tell me or anyone else the real reason.
    6. Therefore there must be sealed orders that explain real reason.
    7. ????
    8. Profit!

    It makes perfect wingnuttery sense.

  3. misha says:

    That’s what happens to a dime store lawyer.

    Refuseniks seem to be uniformly nuts.

  4. Jeff R says:

    Judging from the whacked-out rant above, it appears that Orly is about to reach critical mass.

    If she goes supernova, will it create a black hole that will suck the universe into it? I worry about these things sometimes.

  5. Bob says:

    On Orly’s site, her “proof” that the judge sealed his order: PACER doesn’t link a document.

    “How can I appeal his order, if I don’t know the basis, the reasoning for it.”

    Send a messenger to the courthouse, purchase copies. Or: Pick the phone and call a clerk, and inquire why you haven’t gotten a copy.

    Oh: gratitious Nazi reference: “I am sure that what attorneys saw in Nazi Germany.”

  6. jtx says:


    Perhaps since Doc or some of the other of the Flying Monkey Tribe could just publish the judges decisions in question here so everyone could chuckle???

    ‘Cause they aren’t available!!!

  7. I assume that by “endorsed the motion”, it means the judge just wrote “frivolous and without merit – denied” on the motion and signed it. Is this possible ye lawyers?

  8. Bob says:

    The full decision has been published; that’s the point.

    PACER is available to anyone; you just have to subscribe. There’s nothing preventing you from logging on and doing it yourself.

  9. Bob says:

    Yes, quite possible. When the judge doesn’t want to waste time, the judge can just write on the motion and sign it.

    Better practice, of course, is a separate order. But not absolutely required.

  10. John says:

    I agree it sounds suspect. 2 Hours after the Lazzara got the motions he denied them without comment and without explanation. I read both of Orly’s motions. It’s hard to believe that the judge could only make a ruling in only 2 hours. Based on what Orly wrote in her motions and based on what the Judge Lazzara wrote in his initials motions for denial, it quite clear the Judge Lazzara holds a blatant bias against Cook. Judge Lazzara needs to be removed from the case and Cook has solid case. Hopefully the appeals court will see differently.

  11. richCares says:

    sure, idiot!

  12. dunstvangeet says:

    John, the motion was something he heard 5 times before from them. He knew the arguments, and scanned the brief, to see if there was anything new in them. He denied the motion, because he’s heard it before.

    One of the orders was against a bunch of motions to reconsider. Basically, you’re asking a judge to reconsider his position, and you’re submitting briefs. He’s heard all the arguments before. He probably scanned the briefs to see if there was anything new, and when he found nothing new, said, “There’s nothing in here that would make me change my mind. My previous order stands.”

    The other one was a motion for him to recuse himself. If you don’t think that really has to do a detailed opinion on that, it doesn’t really mention it. And if you think you have enough evidence to show a conflict of interest, or bias against your client, then you should appeal his rufusing to recuse himself, and take him to the Judicial Ethics panel.

  13. Rickey says:

    I doubt that Judge Lazzara has a bias against Cook, but he probably does have a bias against unprepared and incompetent attorneys. Every time that Orly has a ruling go against her she stamps her feet and screams that the judge is biased.

    It is clear that Orly is out of her depth in Federal Court (in fact, I suspect that she would be out of her depth in small claims court). Has it occurred to any of the birthers to wonder why not a single conservative attorney who is an expert in Constitutional law has taken on any of these cases? Why are the Theodore Olsons of this country leaving them to Constitutional novices like Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo? The answer, of course, is that no prominent conservative Constitutional attorneys want to go anywhere near the birthers, because they know that the lawsuits are frivolous and doomed to failure.

  14. jtx says:


    And there’s nothing filed in PACER that indicates any judicial reasoning. Orly is correct in her observation.

    <aube you could give the judge a ring and ask him – pretty please – to tell everyone the basis of his decision … just "piss off"!!! won't cut it.

    Of course, he could just say he's part of the vast left wing conspiracy enabling Obama and disabling his own country. Either way, he'll most likely be out of a job soon along with more of the Flying Monkeys than you can shake a stick at.

  15. jtx says:


    So … let’s see – you’ve got a fly on the wall in the judge’s chambers, eh???

    If the guy is THAT transparent he probably should recuse himself – or, better yet, just not bother with judges, etc. at all … and why we’re at it, pitch out the Constitution??

  16. jtx says:


    You seem to be unaware that Ted Olson is one of the”living Constitution” crowd of liberal leftist attorneys and works very closely with Laurence Tribe (see their “opinion” – not the quotes – on SR511 fiasco). Tribe was a teacher and mentor of Obama at Harvard and hopes to land a SCOTUS nomination. Quite possibly Olson does also.

    As for either of them being any great shakes in Constitutional law, your evaluation is WAY off. Their opinions have shown no regard for the Constitution; they’d like to trash it (and are).

  17. Greg says:

    Ted Olsen is a liberal the same way Ann Coulter is. And he has as much chance of getting a Supreme Court nomination.

    When you write a Constitutional Law treatise that everyone who practices in the area has on their bookshelf, like Tribe, then you can knock his “shakes.”

  18. Greg says:

    Because our Federal Courts don’t have infinite resources to waste giving crackpots a different judge each time one of them rules against their wholly frivolous suits!

    If she doesn’t like it, she can appeal. But, every time she moves forward with one of these nonsense suits, she risks Rule 11 sanctions.

  19. Expelliarmus says:

    We don’t need flies on the wall, we know what the law is and we know how courts work.

    A competent lawyer can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy what will happen with a case — the lawyer knows whether a motion before a court is likely to win, whether its a long shot, whether its the sort of thing that could go either way. Most lawyers know what the weak points of their cases are and if they lose a motion they hoped to win, they have a good idea of why even without reading the judge’s opinion.

    Orly’s entire case in Florida has been so off the wall frivolous that she is lucky that she has not yet been sanctioned by the court. She is not admitted in Florida and cannot find a single lawyer in the state willing to vouch for her on a pro hac vice application; I think the Judge should instruct his clerk to refuse to accept her filings unless accompanied by a proper pro hac vice application.

    Cook has a possibly very good lawsuit… against Orly, for malpractice. Her actions cost him his job. If she did not advise him in advance of that possible consequence, then he really should be talking to a real lawyer about what kind of an action he can bring against her. (There are clear regulations that say that someone who has filed for conscientious objector status cannot get a security clearance — and Orly filed paperwork for Cook seeking an injunction to grant him that status — which meant it was a foregone conclusion that the security clearance would be lost.)

  20. Bob says:

    WND picked up the phone and guess what:

    “WND asked the Lazzara’s office about why there was no explanation in the judge’s ‘endorsed order,’ and Sandra Hartman, Lazzara’s judicial assistant said, ‘That’s standard procedure if a judge wants to use it.'”

    “She also indicated, ‘There’s nothing sealed in this case. It’s a public record.'”

    Farah ought to tell Taitz that.

    As for Cook:

    “‘I don’t have another job yet,’ said Cook. ‘I’m working on trying to find something. I have a very broad but deep background in a variety of subjects and I have built my experience that way just in the event of some catastrophic experience like this.'”

    Self-inflicted stupidity is not a catastrophic event.

    And Cook’s pity party:

    “I might get crushed in the wheels, in the gears of the Chicago machine, but if it’s for the greater good and if we can gain some kind of definitive ruling or clarity on eligibility, then that’s OK.”

    To the extent Obama even has a “Chicago machine,” it had nothing to do with either of his suit being dismissed.

    And there’ll never be a definitive ruling or clarification, so it looks like your shot your own career for absolutely nothing.

  21. Epectitus says:

    This is interesting. In the WND Artcle, Cook is quoted as saying:

    “Perhaps Mr. Olbermann would have cared to join me in Kuwait from February 2002 through September 2003, when Saddam and his buddies were shooting Scud [missiles] and such where I was located at Camp Doha. Perhaps Mr. Olbermann would also have cared to join me in January/February of 2008 while I was knocking around in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Should I ever get the opportunity to deploy to either of the two again, he’s welcome to join me there.”

    However, according to his own resume (posted at Orly’s Blog) he left Camp Doha in February of ’03, spending the rest of the time he claims to have been in Kuwait associated with the IRR (Individual ready Researve) in St. Louis.

    USAR – Not on Active Duty
    S3 Plans Officer, HQ, 32nd TRANSGROUP, Camp Doha, Kuwait
    Direct support to 143d TRANSCOM (FWD)
    Feb 02 – Feb 03

    USAR – Not on Active Duty
    Individual Ready Reserve, (Reinforcement) Army Reserve
    Personnel Center, St. Louis,MO
    Feb 03 – Oct 03

    The war did not begin until March 19, 2003… meaning he was never under SCUD fire from Iraq. An individual assigned to the IRR receives no pay and is not obligated to drill, conduct annual training, or participate in any military activities, though the time does count towards retirement.

    The supposed “knocking around in both Iraq and Afghanistan” in January February of ’08 also does not appear on his resume.

    USAR – Not on Active Duty
    Individual Mobilization Augmentee, Army Reserve, assigned HQ USSOUTHCOM SCEN as Regional Contingency Engineer
    Management Cell Central American Team Chief
    Jul 07 – present

    It does not appear MAJ Cook is being entirely forthright about his “combat experience.”

  22. Bob says:

    IIRC, there was chatter that he was a private contractor.

  23. Oh this is too funny.

    Somebody in the area should go to the Courthouse pay the 3-4 bucks to get copies of the Orders, scan `em, and post `em.

    Is this woman really that stupid ?

  24. Bob says:

    Taitz on Israeli news.

    At about six minutes in, Taitz claims she won Cook v. Obama.

    Guessing Cook feels like a real winner now.

  25. misha says:

    As I wrote before, she is a dime store lawyer. She is worse than stupid – she is dangerous to her clientele.

    Her actions cost Cook his SC. She is petty and vindictive, like Sharansky and Lieberman. Another crackpot refusenik.

  26. misha says:

    If that’s winning, I hate to think what losing is.

    A dimestore lawyer, clinically insane refusenik. Donofrio is a pro poker player, and Mario’s stock in trade is DWI. A fine, upstanding motley crew.

    That bunch proves evolution, or in this case, reverse evolution.

    I’m convinced they were hatched from eggs.

  27. AdrianInFlorida says:

    “IIRC, there was chatter that he was a private contractor.”
    If that were even the case, I doub it was, as he’s already been caught lying, then as a ‘Private Contactor’, he would have been there entirely by choice, and being rewarded handsomely, i’m sure. Mr. (I won’t address him by a millitary rank, as he currently doesn’t have the right, imo, to use it) Cook is a liar and opportunist. Good riddence to bad garbage.

  28. AdrianInFlorida says:

    You’re right John. 2 hours isn’t even enough time to figure out what an attorney without a clue, Like Orly, was even babbling about in her motions. It would take 2 1/2 hours to figure them out and then file them in the circular file.

  29. Bob says:

    Donofrio is hilarious: “Major Cook’s Pleadings Waived Obama’s British Birth Issue, So Judge Lazzara’s Holding Is Technically Accurate”.

    Donofrio is so busy examining leaves on the trees in the forest that he overlooks the obvious: Cook lacked standing and failed to state a claim.

  30. Greg says:

    Yes, if you look only at Donofrio’s conclusion, then technically, he’s correct. If, however, you assume that waiving Obama’s British Birth issue has anything to do with anything, he’s completely horseshit wrong again.

  31. ObotsREvil says:

    The document ‘Cook v Simtech-Docket’ has been deleted from Scribd.

    Phil posted link as Order

  32. Pingback: The Right Side of Life » In Response to My Posting RE: Cook v. Simtech

  33. Phil says:


    Yeah, my mistake: I fat-fingered the PDF over at Scribd. I’ve since reposted it. Here’s the direct link:

    It also looks like my response is beginning to make the rounds:

    All the best,


  34. Bob says:

    From Taitz’s site: “Based on SCOTUS prior decisions, judge Lazzara’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction in Cook v Obama equals to treason.”

    (For those curious how Taitz arrived at such a tortured conclusion, a “helpful” reader said so in an e-mail, citing dicta (not even dicta; rhetoric!). But in Taitz’s world, an erroneous grant of a Rule 12 motion means death for the judge.)

  35. Hi Phil, glad you could drop by.

    University of South Alabama is my old Alma Mater. It was really cool to see them in one of the Obama Conspiracy lawsuits. (Although not as cool as when a screen shot from this blog appeared in one!)

  36. Rickey says:

    Ted Olson’s “liberal” credentials include membership in the Federalist Society, board member of The American Spectator, attorney for Ronald Reagan, arguing against affirmative action before the Supreme Court, representing the Republicans in Bush v. Gore, and of course he was Solicitor General in the Bush Administration.

  37. June bug says:

    Hi Bob,

    Any chance you could post the “helpful” reader’s e-mail? I’m not going to Orly’s site at the moment due to the Google warning.


  38. Bob says:


    It is kind of hard to make the connections without the actual pleading. Sorry to hear that he poo-poo’ed the whole thing. This was you local Federal District court?

    I would think that the dismissal without grounds would make a good case for a “remand for trial“ from a higher court with an order for “recusal for prejudice“ and/or incompetence, but the world of judges is a strange place. I think this guy pretty well made your/Orly’s case that he should have been ON the case. “First the verdict, Then the trial” worked in Alice in Wonderland. It isn’t good protocol for a Federal court, however as it tends to fly into the face that the 14th amendment guarantees us a right to have our case fully heard by a competent, impartial tribunal. I’d think that your relief would lie there. I’d also think that relief could be found in Cohens V. Virginia where the SCOTUS determined that court acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution is committing treason; that a court seizing jurisdiction where they have none and failing to exercise jurisdiction where there should is likewise committing treason. OF course, what would SCOTUS know?

    Page 19 U. S. 404

    It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.

    (PS: Judges don’t like to be accused of “treason” but it isn’t us, but rather SCOTUS who levels the charge.)


  39. Bob says:

    I have a favor to ask of someone with a PACER account:

    Could you please open up docket items 8 and 9 (the original motions) in Cook v. Obama and see if the endorsed order is part of those docs?


  40. You mean Cook v Simtech? The answer is no.

  41. Bob says:

    I did mean Cook v. Simtech.

    Sometimes the court appends to endorsed order to a copy of the original.

    Still, it is hilarious that Taitz thinks there some secret order. Umemployed Cook ought to drive down to the courthouse and request to see the court file.

  42. Bob says:

    A commenter at nativeborncitizen provides an order explaining an “‘endorsed order’ is entered in the Electronic Case Filing system without a document attached.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.