Despite what you may have heard, erstwhile attorney Orly Taitz, her appeals exhausted, has paid the $20,000 in sanctions imposed by federal judge Clay D. Land in Georgia, for her misconduct in the Rhodes v. MacDonald case after the the federal government filed a lien on all her real property.
Taitz still hopes to get her money back, having asked the District Court to reconsider (again) in a filing last Wednesday (Aug 26, 2010). I must say that she does a much better job redacting her bank account number than she does Barack Obama’s social-security number.
On the back of the check she wrote:
paid under protest as illegal extortion to cover obama’s fraud
This is money that no doubt would have otherwise gone to support Republican tea baggers. A win-win.
Orly missed a golden opportunity to write something clever on the memo line.
Her loss. Well, that and the 20,000 dollars.
Well, that’s 20 grand that won’t go towards therapy and medication
It is so tempting to use Taitz own arguments about the settling of her sanction.
She has no principles. Mandela would have hone to jail rather than pay up. 🙂
Faked check. There’s no seal. The name is not printed as Dr. Orly Taitz. Esq. as she has declared on numerous legal filings. The signature is highly suspect. We’re going to need to see the routing number with account to verify this is actually her account and not drawn from the estate of a deceased person from Rhode Island. Affidavits from interested parties who are experts in banking fraud are forthcoming. And a web posting is no proof of authenticity. An anonymous expert in forgery has volunteered to swear under oath that this is a counterfeit document.
This is an obvious attempt to defraud the DOJ, a deceased person’s estate from Rhode Island, Bank of America, the Justice League of America or JLA, the American people, Gordon Shumway, Anderson Cooper, Senator Al Franken, the Hague, Hadassah, Mihai Ghimpu, et alia.
In the Orlian world this isn’t proof of payment as there is no receipt. What is housand? What else can you think of?
I think that anyone who has ever received a cheque from Orly Taitz’s Bank of America account should provide a copy of the cheque and bank records as to when it cleared. If the order of the clearing of the cheques does not correspond to the order of the numbers of the cheques, then cheque 231 must be a fraud.
It’s also obvious there are attempts to disguise a new kind of TACMARS through steganography with the intent of re-establishing the Old World Order. It’s only a matter of time before she is exposed and the entire word sees the ugly truth behind her stealth mission.
You forgot to mention that we don’t know the Social Security number on the account and every detail about when it was obtained.
We must find the Social Security Number and search every credit database in the country for a discrepancy. As data entry errors never happen, a single discrepancy will be sufficient to secure a fraud conviction, right?
Is that her signature? It doesn’t look like the signatures on her court documents.
It doesn’t say Dr. Orly Taitz. Esq. It looks more like a hieroglyph. The first symbol is a stingray and the second is a scrotum. Connect the dots.
How do we know that the person who claims to be Orly Taitz is who she says she is? We have never seen any image of a driving licence or passport issued in her name, much less an unredacted original.
Unless “Orly Taitz” can present such evidence, we should call on the US Department of Justice to investigate whether the identity of the real Orly Taitz has been stolen in order to commit a massive fraud upon not only the real Orly Taitz, but also numerous courts, Bank of America, PayPal, the voters of California, et al.
Was a reply to: Lupin 28. Aug, 2010 at 5:46 am (Quote) #
Is that her signature? It doesn’t look like the signatures on her court documents.
Compare the signature to CEL III’s handwriting.
Let’s hope the government refuses this as a spoiled check and goes after the Tesla.
Who is this TC person who signed the check? Did Orly Taitz slip up and revealed her real identity. She should provide her Bank of America application with her social security number, along with a doctors note. Why is she hiding this information?
I think I can make out the number, and it doesn’t seem to be that for any Bank of America bank in California.
I wonder if the DOJ is going to let her get away with not paying the interest? I think that amounts to about $7 by now.
That raises more questions. However, I doubt that they will not rectify a problem where a person paid less than sanction plus interest.
I was wrong. I really thought she would flee.
when you’ve left reality, where else is there to go ?
Oz. Latveria. The World of Tiers. Lower Slobbovia. I can think of quite a few fictional lands where Orly could do quite well.
She owns a house that is worth far more than $20,000. To flee and avoid losing a substantial sum, she would have to dispose of her house, which she would have trouble doing before the government secured a lien against it.
The signature says “JC.”
It’s not legal.
When the check was written, anyone could just make up any name they wanted without the bank’s verification. Bank of America has very lax rules about checks, so that photoshopped check is meaningless. Even if it was real, there’s the matter of your parents having bank accounts in this country. If Orly’s parents have accounts in foreign countries and not here, that would mean she still holds a loyalty to foreign banks making that check to the DOJ null and void. You must be a “Natural Born Bank Customer.”
It’s time for Pet Polarik’s ex-spurt take and for Lucas to discover an almost exact duplicate check originating from a bank in Burkina Faso.
Many Soviet women normally used and use only initials – when they marry, they only have to change the big first initial.
So, did Orly switch from Ac to Tc when she got married. Perhaps this is her cyrillic “paraph”? The rationale would be that when she first got an American bank account, she used this flourish as a signature and now has to continue to use it in order not to have any problems with her bank.
So, (yes, I know, I am starting to look like a slightly more intelligent version of Polarik) what is the meaning of the (cyrillic) c? The reason why my guess is Svetlana, is that that Russian name has almost the same meaning as Orly in Hebrew: Orly means “my light”, Svetlana means the woman who carries the light.
Is Orly signing as “Taitz, Svetlana” ?
How about Teflondia And Souvlakia?
Houses are usually owned ‘tenants by the entirety,’ which means no lien.
In England, a charging order given as a result of a judgment debt can be registered against an individual’s equitable interest where the land is owned jointly. Where the judgment debtor dies, the surviving joint owner becomes subject to the charge on taking the whole of the property.
I am not aware if the situation would be different with a tanancy by entirety in the United States. (New tenancies by entireties could not arise in England after the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 came into force and all remaining tenancies by entireties were converted to joint tenancies by the Law of Property Act 1925.) I would assume, however, that Orly Taitz’s interest in the land, and consequent ability to deal with it, could be subject to a lien during her lifetime ownership of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is starting to sound like a Talmudic discussion. (bada-bing)
IANAL, but I
play one on the Nethave a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University.
From what I know, ‘tenants by the entirety,’ means the entire house is off limits. If a house is owned jointly, then her half could be attached.
Real estate lawyers in the audience?
After a quick search, I see that the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Craft would suggest that as long as Taitz has certain rights of her own under state law by virtue of the tenancy by entireties, then the federal government has the ability to obtain a lien against Taitz’s interest.
Of course, United States v. Craft dealt specifically with a statutory provision on federal tax liens, whereas Taitz’s debt to the federal government is a simple judgment debt rather than a tax debt. One could argue by analogy to try to extend the same principle to 28 U.S.C. § 3201, which deals with judgment liens in general. One could alternatively try to distinguish the tax lien provisions from 28 U.S.C. § 3201 by noting that the former deals with “property or rights to property” whereas the latter deals only with “property”. However, the opinion in Craft addressed the concept of “property” in addition to “right to property” and noted, “The unilateral alienation stick is not essential to ‘property.” Thus, I think that Taitz’s own rights and interests may well be capable of being subject to a federal lien.
An opinion here does disagree with my interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 3201 above, but it also notes a contradictory opinion by an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Any input by someone familiar with both the federal statute and California law on tenancies by entireties would be helpful, provided that the input isn’t from Orly Taitz.
Misha, you are mistaken — the property is subject to a lien, in theory. (In reality, if her $20,000 check clears, she has satisfied the judgment except for a possible small amount of interest — so there’s not going to be any lien.).
“Tenancy by the entirety” simply means that the person has full ownership of the property — there is no form of ownership that would exempt the property from liens, other than the homestead exemption — but even a California homestead exemption only protects a certain dollar value of the property, it doesn’t prevent the filing of a judgment lien or the forced sale of the property to satisfy the lien, if the net value of the property is in excess of the homestead exemption.
And yes, I am a lawyer, in California, who has practiced in the field of real estate law for many years. But I think your understanding of “tenancy by the entirety” is a simple misunderstanding of terminology that most law students would spot — if you want more of an explanation I’d be glad to give it, but its really boring and tedious stuff.
I don’t practice real estate law in California (so I don’t know what California law is, obviously), but I am an attorney, and in Maryland (and I thought under common law as well), Misha’s understanding is correct. The creditors of a single spouce cannot attach property held as tenants in the entirety. Only creditors of both spouces. Otherwise, wouldn’t that just be a joint tenancy?
Orly Taitz is using the bank accounts of 136 different people including a dead guy. Two of my researchers dug this up recently. Being a dentist, she has access to hundreds of people’s personal records including bank account numbers. Being a lawyer AND a dentist is questionable and suspect of something. Something bad. Then there’s the matter of Orly’s Dad. How do we REALLY know he wasn’t Joseph Stalin? There’s a rumor going around that he was. I know, because I started it. I demand that we have all bank records, all medical and dental records (including all of her patients), hair and blood and stool samples, and high res genitalia photos to put this whole thing behind us.
Good jab Dr. C about the redaction! Good to see you on your witty game. I appreciate the deep set of knowledge (and neural connections) it takes to make the remark.
I’ve been reading but not posting, Your comments section has been taken over ( with some worthy exceptions) by the cyber equivalent of playground thugs. It ain’t worth the beating! I decided to post today because it seems you’re suffering from a little bandwith envy, and I want to console you. Keep up the good work! Keep making those connections. The sense the sea change in you is coming!
By the way, a while back during family vacation time you ran a qualitative survey about why “we” come to this site. I’d like to add that it’s the only site I trust to point to an archive of information that would also not infect my sister’s system with malicious code.
Excuse me, but I killed Stalin.
Check out the brilliant Estiveo’s Orly-Toons latest at Politijab: http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3238&start=350#p169754
California is a community property state; therefore if 2 spouses hold as tenants in the entirety, then the creditors of EITHER spouse would be able to attach the property. In California, spouses typically opt to hold property in joint tenancy, which — among other things — might provide some measure of protection against a creditor of one spouse holding a judgment for more than 50% of the property’s value.
I’ve heard Strelsau is lovely this time of year.
According to troll Hulu, we also need to see a receipt for when she paid for the checks that she is using. Did she order them through the bank, or one of those third-parties that advertise in the Sunday papers that make checks with cute puppies and rainbows? Are any of the checks in her cue out of order or post-dated? If she writes more than one check a day does she decide who to pay first by zip code or alphabetization? Did her bank process the checks in order? Did it clear in AM or PM?What is the ratio of magnetic particles to ink in the routing/account numbers on her checks? Does each check contain the same ratio? There are so many details we simply must know…..
Is Mother Of The “Birther” Movement Orly Taitz An Agent Of A Foreign Government?
I read it. Has anyone ever seen Orly and Putin together? Think about it.
Well, you learn something new every day. I vaguely recall something from law school about California and community property….but since I never planned on taking the California bar, I never paid it much attention. Thanks for the info.
Huh. I see her check won’t even let her fineesh. Even BoA is out to get her.
heh hehh heh. thanks for the inspiration
I think the point here is that a check with the account number removed is no more valid than a birth certificate with the certificate number removed.
It is my opinion that what we see on the signature line is actually “Tz” with the top part of the “z” ultra short. Note the fuller version of the signature on page 2 here:
It is Orly Taitz signature, and I accept this until I find anything to suggest otherwise. I have seen many illegible signatures as they are suppose to be a security measure. I should have gone for a DC, but I think it should read “Taitz” as you correctly pointed out.
It is ironic that she would concealing of the account information, and her address. The TZ (Taitz) is just another ironic thing about her check.
Could you imagine the birther reaction to an Obama birth certificate with a doctor’s signature that looked like that 😉
Unless I’ve missed something, I have seen no explanation from Ms. Taitz as to her promised cert petition in Rhodes. And the Supreme Court docket reports nothing. However, I’ve found a Supreme Court rule, 13.2, that says that the clerk will reject any petition that is late. I’m guessing that means that it won’t even appear on the docket. If that is so, why isn’t Ms. Taitz waiving the rejection notice as more proof that the clerks are blocking her access to the Supreme Court?
I’ve been wondering the same thing. We know her petition arrived at the Supreme Court Aug. 20, so one might wonder why it still doesn’t appear on the on-line docket.
One might speculate that publicizing a rejection for late filing might hamper her fund raising efforts. On the other hand, her fund raising seems to have slowed to a trickle anyway.
At the same time, she’s been posting at a furious rate, about all kinds of things except her cert petition, like how much she hates Facebook and Muslims. A post listing her recent great accomplishments against the usurper omitted the cert petition. I get the impression she’s trying to change the subject. But I can’t guess why.
She’s been pretty cagey on her site when directly asked about it as well:
September 2nd, 2010 @ 1:00 am
When are you going to post the writ of certiorari you sent to the Supreme Court?
September 2nd, 2010 @ 5:56 am
when the time is right
August 26th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
What happened to your petition for writ of certiorari? Did you decide not to file an appeal after all? That would be pretty clever! Don’t appeal and pay instead. Then you have standing in DC! Is that what you are doing? It’s been so many days since you mailed the petition. What happened?
August 27th, 2010 @ 3:23 am
I will provide info later
Hit PayPal, Hit PayPal
Taitz has a post on her blog entitled “Tampering with my mail”:
But having talked to the clerk, she must know what those letters said — but she doesn’t mention.
Taitz is also claiming on her blog that the 9th Circuit has ordered her Barnett appeal into mediation for Oct. 4th, yet I have not been able to verify this anywhere.
They might be able to send her the several hundred, long, thin paper strips that made up her letters.
NBC’s blog had the story on this. There was a docket entry stating this, Taitz posted the news, then there was another docket entry saying the first one was a docketing error.
Okay, thanks for that info, Dave.
Ms. Taitz is saying on her web site that the Supreme Court granted her an additional 60 days to file her cert petition. The Rules say that any justice may grant a 60 day extension if one files a request showing good cause. Ordinarily, the application must be made 10 days before the cert petition is due. I would expect to see that reflected on the docket but it was not the docket this evening. Maybe the Supreme Court does not docket such requests. I doubt that.
Ms. Taitz is also trumpeting on her web site that the 9th Circuit has ordered her appeal of Judge Carter’s decision to mediation. The 9th Circuit has an active mediation program with 9 mediators. Not every case is sent to mediation. Why the Circuit sent this case to mediation is a mystery. Ms. Taitz may have requested it; in the District Court she requested mediation from Judge Carter who observed that there was nothing to mediate, either the President was qualified or not. (That was before he granted the government’s motion to dismiss.)
It was a mistake in filing. A case close to Orly’s was referred to mediation and filed under Orly’s number. The case itself showed the one different digit.
It was later corrected
Orly is such a fool, there is nothing to mediate.
PS: Orly’s continued false assertions about why she was sanctioned show her lack of legal understanding. She’d better plan to remain a dentist.
I found an example of a docketed application for extension of time here. There are many others. It seems to be a very common application.
The Court rules say that exceptions can be made to the 10 day rule. Poking around in the dockets, I found several examples and some are granted.
There’s also the oddity that she says her new due date is Oct 25, but a 60 day extension would make the new due date Oct 11.
But the fact that she says she has an extension when her application doesn’t appear on the docket really doesn’t look right. I’m wondering if we have another classic Taitz moment here. Maybe her cert petition was rejected for late filing, and the clerk told her she could file an extension application, and she took that to mean she already had the extension.
There are sufficient examples of precedents to support your conclusion :–) Orly’s legal abilities combined with her English language skills has caused her more than once some embarrassment.
Taitz’s admirers are commenting on her blog that Taitz’s decision to pay up is brilliant because her financial loss will magically amount to standing in a future claim. I have already addressed the absurdity of this belief here and here.
What Taitz needs to show is that that Obama drove her mad by sabotaging her car. That would give her standing.
And a moment of truth?
People like Taitz and her cult members who come up with all these crazy, ad hoc legal theories to fit their agenda are so stupid it’s truly pathetic, if you don’t mind my saying so
The absurdity of Taitz.
Taitz should just claim that by her not (having standing for) getting Obama to show her his birth records is causing her mental angst. This is causing her great emotional stress and financial difficulties ($20,000 plus interest worth). Then she should claim that is all Obama’s fault, and the only remedy would be for her to get access to his birth records.
I wonder if the snickers and chuckles would be heard outside of the court room.
I believe that several months ago, Taitz claimed, in one of her insufferable appeals, exactly what you described above.
I’m starting to think we’ve seen the last of her cert petition. She said on her blog that she has 60 days to resubmit, but didn’t say why it needs to be resubmitted. Because she already submitted it once, how long could it take to resubmit? Her blog doesn’t give you the impression that she’s even thinking about it. And has already been noted on this thread, her claim of having a 60 day extension is dubious.
I can’t escape the impression that she’s decided to quietly drop the thing. And really, why shouldn’t she. We haven’t seen the petition, but she did preview her questions in the stay application, and they will get granted cert when pigs fly. And even in the alternate universe where she does get cert, the President’s eligibility is no longer an issue in this case, no matter what she thinks.
So, farewell, cert petition. We hardly knew ye.
And Taitz is a pathological liar among other things.
I thought that she just recently paid the $20,000. Was there any “snickers and chuckles” in the court room? Or, was that later?
On the Supreme Court’s website Docket search, I noticed that the last updated date for her stay application, 10a56, is September 4 while nothing perceptible has changed on the docket. As I have checked other dockets around the same time (and later) and noticed that some change and others do not, I suspect (though only on experience with systems that post to an outward facing portal), that when a docket file is updated on their system, it causes an automatic refresh of the docket page on the website. The changes may be internal, such as notations or comments on material received, but trigger an automatic upload of the public docket information. That could point to the fact that there is some activity happening, though what that is, I could not appropriately state.
The telling part is that there is not a number “cert” number assigned to her case (or to her earlier one either). My brief understanding is that the number with the “a” in the middle is an application. An actual cert would be converted to 10-xxx number and a motion is 10mXXX number.
spam, spam, spam, baked beans, and spam
The comment has been canned. The spam filter has caught over 35,000 spams, but one slips through from time to time (5 so far this month).