The Perils of Orly Episode 21 – Orly loses a client


Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

Orly’s case in California, formerly known as Keyes v Obama is now being called Barnett v. Obama. According to court documents filed yesterday, Orly Taitz wants to dump the judge, and her clients Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson want to dump her (although they tried to keep that hushed up under seal).

On August 19, 2009, the Court received an Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (the “Ex Parte Application”) on behalf of Plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Dr. Wiley S. Drake (the “Moving Plaintiffs”), through their attorney, Gary G. Kreep. The Moving Plaintiffs also seek to file their Ex Parte Application under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. The Moving Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to substitute Gary Kreep as counsel due to their dissatisfaction with Dr. Orly Taitz, Ms. Taitz improperly and without their consent filed a voluntary dismissal of them from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). See Doc. No. 33. As such, they seek reconsideration of the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Court finds that this matter is not appropriate for resolution on an ex parte basis. Nor does this matter warrant filing documents under seal.

Meanwhile the Government is still waiting for proper service of the complaint (good grief, it’s been 7 months now), and the court has ordered that this be done no later than September 8, 2009. Further Orly is demanding recusal of the magistrate who struck her filing of the fake Kenyan Birth Certificate on technical grounds. (It was a GIFT!)

However, the court did grant an expedited hearing of the mess, and I do not think that Judge Carter will be handing out “gifts” this time. So drop by after September 8 for the next chapter in the continuing saga of the Perils of Orly.

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.

47 Responses to The Perils of Orly Episode 21 – Orly loses a client

  1. milspec says:

    I LOVE the picture of Orly in her pajamas.

  2. Adrianinflorida says:

    The only gift that needs to be handed out is a full censure of Orly Taitz. Maybe she’s ‘deportable’?

  3. misha says:

    If she’s hit with sanctions (fines), she’ll flee to Israel. They can have her.

    The Dynamic Trio: Orly, Lieberman and Sharansky. Oy!

    Read about Meyer Lansky, who fled there in 1970:

  4. Rickey says:

    Orly could well be sanctioned for dumping clients without their consent.

  5. Bob says:

    Meanwhile the Government is still waiting for proper service of the complaint (good grief, it’s been 7 months now), and the court has ordered that this be done no later than September 8, 2009.

    I don’t read the court order that way. I think they’re going to talk about this service issue.

    Now if Taitz wises up, she’ll properly serve the government before then. But Taitz, being Taitz, won’t.

    So the government will ask for a dismissal. And Judge Carter, acknowledging the train wreck that is before him, may grant that the request, and make this the 9th Circuit’s problem.

  6. Bob says:

    Highlights from the transcript of Brockhausen v. Andrade (Taitz’s Texas case).

  7. That is painfully embarrassing to read.

  8. Rickey says:

    I may have missed it before, but this is the first time that I have seen Orly admit that she has never tried a case.

  9. Folks who have looked at California court records found that Orly previously had only represented herself and family members, but I did not knew that none of those cases involved a trial.

  10. Bob says:

    It is so good, I will simply repost, in toto, from Taitz’s site:

    1. somebody has written a bio about me on wikipedia, that is full of slander and insults. Please contact wikipedia and ask them to clean up the article from slander and insults

    2. somebody has erased hundreds of thousands of positive articles about me. For example on Yahoo there were close to a million articles and then it fell to 175,000, went up to 450,000 and stayed there. On Google there were nearly 2 million articles, then it fell to a million, then went up to 1.5 million and stayed there. Can someone complain to Yahoo and Google?

    3. Someone disabled my Facebook account

    4. Someone has tampered with my web site. This is the third web site that is being hacked

    5. previously an e-mail address connected to my paypal was changed. I took care of it

    6. Previously my case Lightfoot v Bowen was erased from the external docket of the Supreme Court

    7. A number of people have reported tampering with my e-mail account, as they don’t get e-mails from me and I don’t get their e-mails.

    8. can someone contact FBI and Department of Justice cyber crimes and demand action. It has been 7 months and no response and no action on their part, even though I reported to them numerous death threats and tampering with my car and my husband’s car.

    8. I will have to cut somewhat on the amount of posts and moderation of e-mails and comments. I’ve got some type of poisoning and after working for 20min-half an hour I get really nauseous and have to lay down and rest. I will be doing some testing and lab tests. Meanwhile, please keep your comments short and no links (unwittingly you might bring a virus on the web site via links). Please cut he amount of e-mails, keep them very succinct and send only if there is something very important. I have some 78,000 e-mails and it takes a lot of my time and effort

  11. Bob says:

    Taitz does have a wikipedia page. (She previously had one that had been deleted for lack of notability, but her recent appearances have made her notable.)

  12. As I’ve always said: any fool can change the Wikipedia (at least briefly).

    Well not in Orly’s case. The page is locked.

  13. SixToeMoe says:

    I keep hearing a story that Orly donated $1000 to the Democrats. All I find is a $300 donation to G.W. Bush in Q1 of 2004.

  14. Rickey says: reports the following donations by Orly, going back to 2004. One donation to Lieberman, one to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the rest to Republicans.

    10/22/08 $500 Republican National Cmte (R)

    10/10/06 $500 Lieberman, Joe (I)

    5/31/06 $500 Campbell, John (R)

    Laguna Niguel,CA 92677
    9/17/08 $2,000 Republican Party of California (R)

    3/26/04 $300 Bush, George W (R)

    6/30/06 $1,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)

  15. Orly has been quite generous with her wealth, generally towards the Republicans but also to Democrat Joe Lieberman.

    In 2008 she donated $2000 to the California Republican Party, and $2000 to the McCain-Palin Victory California. In 2006 she donated $500 to the “Friends of Joe Lieberman”, and $1000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (that last under the name Orty Taitz).

    The best way to find all the Taitz listings is on the FEC web site under the last name of Taitz with first name blank.

    You hear things other places. Come here, and you get facts.

  16. Mike says:

    Donations to Lieberman are donations to the Republicans in all but name…

  17. SixToeMoe says:

    Oh for Goodness Sake has a link to the
    KEYES v OBAMA – 45 – EX PARTE APPLICATION to Vacate Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff.

    Orly inadvertently refers to Mr. Kreep as Mr. Creep in an email exhibit.

  18. Sven,

    And the claim is that Drake and Markham were included as plaintiffs WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, although now they want to stay in with Kreep as counsel.

  19. Bob says:

    As I’ve always said: any fool can change the Wikipedia (at least briefly).

    Wikipedia to change editing policies for pages about living people.

  20. Adrianinflorida says:

    Is it a crime to include somone as a plaintiff without their knowledge/permission? Sounds like a very nasty ethical lapse, at the very least. Time for Orly to start answering for her actions

  21. SixToeMoe says:


    You’ve got to read Lame Cherry.

    Joesph Farah in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

  22. That’s a very interesting development both from the point of view of the Wikipedia in particular and the maturing of ad hoc organizations in general.

  23. Bob says:

    I suspect it may be motivated by the threat of lawsuits (living people can sue for defamation; ideas, events, etc. cannot).

  24. Bob says:

    Taitz, on her site, claims to have served the complaint and summons (4th attempt).

  25. Bob says:

    From Taitz’s site: “Demand for immediate reactivation of Facebook account due to need for notification for upcoming court hearing.”

    Taitz demands (one of her favorite words, no?) that facebook reactivate her account because she’s in a middle of a lawsuit and needs facebook to rally the troops.

  26. SixToeMoe says:

    Hopefully, Defendants will find something technically wrong with the complaint and have it dismissed. And then we can all rejoice in the fact people are so worried the CiC is not eligible for position that they are willing to oppose any and all policies until his eligibility is clearly and fully presented.

    Oh no, wait, they oppose his policies because he’s black.

  27. Heavy says:

    You’re right, Moe. This is ALL because we are RACIST!

  28. Is she planning on storming the court room?

  29. Bob says:

    Taitz on the Young Turks program.

    The interviewer knows his stuff pretty well, and doesn’t mind calling Taitz a crazy liar.

  30. Bob says:

    From Taitz’s site:

    Taitz tells Facebook that if it doesn’t comply with her demands, she’s going to use Twitter instead. That’ll show them! She also encourages people to use the conservative social networking site Restore the Republic, but doesn’t provide a link (and is unresponsive.)

    Of course she urges all patriots to leave “the Obama nazi facebook”.

    Taitz also needs information: “who are the major shareholders of Facebook, who are the executives and board members. Are they US citizens. If they are US citizens – they can be found guilty of aiding and abetting treason. I need to figure if they can be included as additional defendants on RICO charges in the existing action by filing a second amended complaint or I might need to file a separate action.

    I need similar info on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, NBC, CBC, ABC, AP”

    Taitz also needs a lawyer: “I need help from attorney to file a complaint to Judicial counsel against judge Lazzara and judge Land, who refused to hear Obama’s massive fraud cases without any justification.”

    (Helllllo! You are (supposedly) a lawyer. And here’s the instructions on how to file a complaint against a judge serving in the 11th Circuit. You’re welcome.)

    That pro-Obama magazine, Time, has a brief (and “lop sided”) profile of Taitz.

  31. Welsh Dragon says:

    MILLIONS of Orly supporters! LOL

  32. Greg says:

    “If they are US citizens – they can be found guilty of aiding and abetting treason.”

    The mind boggles. This one sentence could be an entire law school exam. There are so many things wrong with this sentence. Mens rea. Overt Act. Hostile enemy. Specific knowledge of the crime. Private right of action.

    Law school FAIL!

  33. Bob says:

    A Taitz commenter asks, “What happened to Apuzzo?” No new posts on his blog, and he’s unresponsive to e-mails and calls:

    “I have phoned him and left a message with a girl who I fear may have been hired for her bra size rather than her IQ.”

    Our commenter unironically concludes with, “I HOPE he hasn’t turned his effort into a revenue producing one rather than a judicial effort (as I think Berg and several others did).”

    …others, such as Taitz?

  34. Rickey says:

    Taitz also needs information

    She needs more than information, that’s for sure. But for as much as she has complained about Wikipedia, it hasn’t occurred to her to look up Facebook there? The Wikipedia entry identifies the CEO and other key executives. Also, Facebook is a California corporation.

    I hope she does sue them. The more frivolous and harassing lawsuits she files, the sooner she will be disbarred.

  35. Bob says:

    Apparently this commenter was “shocked” that Taitz posted a private e-mail to her blog.

    Because she’s certainly never done that before, no sir.

  36. Bob says:

    From Taitz’s site: “Fox news stated that they will be in the courtroom on Sept. 8.”

    Interesting that Fox said it will send a reporter.

    Cameras aren’t allow in the courtroom, but a reporter could attend the hearing and then film something outside of the courthouse.

  37. kimba says:

    “I have phoned him and left a message with a girl who I fear may have been hired for her bra size rather than her IQ.”

    Wow, Orly followers think they can tell how big a phone answerer’s breasts are by talking to her on the phone. So they’re not only racists, they’re sexists and they don’t understand what a bra size designates. What a surprise! Here’s a bra primer for you. (Trolls, let me say, go F yourselves right up front. ) Those who have need to wear one know that the cup size designation of a woman’s brassiere size is not a volume measurement, but is in fact the difference between the circumference around the largest part of the bosom, and the circumference of the rib cage under the bosom (which measurement provides the band size). The difference in inches translates to the letter designation you know and love: 1″= A, 2″ = B, 3″= C,and so on. Thus, large booblage is not the only reason for larger cup sizes. One might also wear a larger cup size if one has a small rib cage or a broad back. The bra fitting ladies at Nordstrom say that 75% of the women who come to be fitted for a bra are wearing one cup size too small and one band size too big. So there you have it, and don’t be a pig about who you talk on the phone.

  38. So can Ms BraSize sue Orly for libel?

  39. Bob says:

    I would have to see the talents of the woman in question before answering that.

    (And, uh: no.)

  40. misha says:

    I have to remember that when I cross-dress.

  41. AXJ says:

    25,000 post here…

    but who is counting right?

  42. AXJ says:

    “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

  43. Bob says:

    April Fool’s!

  44. AXJ says:

    All parties are ordered to be present. Does this mean OBAMA?

    In summary, the Court set for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present.

    The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all the parties to the action.

    Is this the first time in American History top members of the United States Government are ordered to be present in this hearing?

    Has Orly just made history and jurisprudence that nobody including the President of the USA is above the Law? If OBAMA nad Hillary Clinton do not appear in person can they be held in contempt of Court?

    All Orly has to do is prove that Discovery is absolutely necessary in this case and subject to Judicial review…


    * Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state. – WIKI

  45. AXJ, I don’t allow posting the same comment multiple times in different threads. I deleted two of the above and left this one in the thread where it is on topic. Also note that off topic comments may be moved to the Great Mother of all Off Topic Comment Dumps thread.

    While one would think Obama (meaning the US Attorney representing him) is not required to be there due to continuing lack of service in the case, I fully expect that someone representing him will be there.

  46. Black Lion says:

    It is amusing when you birhters recycle the same discredited April Fools joke and think that it is some sort of smoking gun…Truly fascinating…

  47. Tom says:

    The only thing more surprising than Orly’s admission to the California Bar, is that she hasn’t been disbarred yet. She is clearly incompetent.

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.