Orly Taitz faced thinly veiled hostility from the Indiana Election Commission in Indianapolis yesterday. The hearing challenging Barack Obama’s place on the Indiana primary ballot opened with emphatic threats of perjury charges should the challengers lie to the panel. It was enough to make me uncomfortable and I wasn’t even there. Why were they like this?
I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t because Commission Chairman Dan Dumezich is a good buddy of Barack Obama – Dumezich co-chairs the Mitt Romney’s campaign in Indiana! No, I think it’s something else.
What I have observed is that some of the strongest and unforgiving condemnation of Orly Taitz has come from other attorneys. They express pride in their professionalism and commitment to the law, and they see in Orly Taitz gross incompetence, and disrespect for the law. This is why, I think, federal Judge Land not only sanctioned Taitz, but directed that a copy of his order be forwarded to the California Bar. Taitz reflects badly on the profession and lawyers don’t like that. The Election Commission said “we’re all lawyers” as they shut down Orly Taitz trying to tell them what a “natural born citizen” was.
Further, it is possible that the Commission was aware of the contempt Taitz has exhibited for other tribunals before which she has appeared, calling Judges incompetent or treasonous.
One final reason that I find resonates with me personally, is what she files with her challenges, 300 pages this time in two FedEx boxes. I ask myself as I read such material, “why should I have to read this?” It is clear that Orly Taitz has not a clue what evidence is, or what is admissible in court, and how to lay the foundation for admitting evidence. It’s like she just fell asleep during the online class on evidence. I can excuse the average birther for being upset when the courts don’t consider evidence Orly submits or tries to submit, but Taitz has no excuse. She should know better, and I expect that some of the hostility towards her from the Indiana Elections Commission is because they expect her to know better too. One of the Commission members, Ms. Riordan made it pretty plain that she was upset by the evidence packet which she derisively dismissed as 100 percent hearsay, and unintelligible.
The Commission may not have wanted a repeat of the circus that Judge Malihi partially allowed to occur in Atlanta and so they gave her no leeway.
I think that Orly Taitz yesterday did what she once said [link to Taitz web site]:
“I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me.”
I think she brought the hostility on herself by her prior actions and her incompetent documentation.
Every time I see that picture of her, my first thought is that it must have been taken by her sometime lover CELIII for “private” purposes. Then I see the watermark and realize she posed this way for a reporter, somehow thinking it expressed her competence as an attorney (or a dentist, or a realtor, or as the largest supporter of the false eyelash industry). And I shudder.
Not only does she have no evidence; not only does she have no understanding of the technical aspects of the law, such as how to properly get evidence admitted.*
She has no idea about the American system of justice. She doesn’t understand that in any situation like in Atlanta or Indianapolis, you’re supposed to make a → persuasive ← argument. You’re trying to get somebody to agree with you, and to WANT to agree with you.
Granted, the commission was ready for her, and wasn’t subject to persuasion. They knew what was coming. Still, my first comment when watching the election commission hearing yesterday, when we were watching all the other challengers, was that they were teaching a lesson on how to present a proper challenge, and Orly was sitting right there, watching and listening and learning NOTHING.
Her only approach to a court is bullying and wheedling and whining. After all the court appearances where she saw other lawyers winning court hearings by being really persuasive through one technique or the other, she has no idea.
Hey Doc, can you use basic HTML formatting, like you can on ORYR? Just being able to use <em> and <strong> and <a> would be cool.
* There’s a great book on how to get evidence admitted with a memorable author’s name:
Evidentiary Foundations, by Edward J. Imwinkelreid. Very readable and easy to understand, even for non-lawyers.
Heh, heh. I put spaces between my angle brackets and the codes! The HTML wasn’t supposed to work in that post! I demand my money back!
(But just for that one post.) 😀
Yes. FIFY.
Frankly, I am tied of Orly’s foul mouthed accusations and innuendo, she is a hateful person, her screeching is as tiresome as her accusations. She even brought up “his name is Soebarkh, not knowing that Soe is a common Indonesian name prefix and Barkh is the Indonesian version of Barack. Her fake SSN issue is only accepted by her hateful supporters. She really needs to be barred from all courts.
I’ve tried every way I can think of to find some sanity in this woman, but try as I might, I have not been able to do it. I know it sounds simplistic to say she’s clearly mentally unstable, but just look at her behavior. She has the biggest sense of entitlement of any one I’ve see in the birther crowd. She really believes that anything that she puts forward regarding President Obama should be accepted FULLY AND COMPLETELY and almost without question. These are the actions of instability.
Most normal thinking individuals (not super smart, necessarily, but normal thinking people) understand that you are not going to win every time.
All lawyers (normal ones) understand this. I work at a law firm. When my bosses go into court, they present the best case they have and sometimes we’ve won and sometimes we have lost. No one calls the judges incompetent or “in on it” or “in the tank for the other side” or all the things that Orly says EACH TIME SHE LOSES.
I would adjust my thinking if she said something like “I know I’ve not won so far, but I’m going to keep trying cause I think this is a worthy cause, etc.” but each time she loses, she predictably stumps around yelling “they were bought or threatened or scared or…” She won’t adjust herself, or consider that she should try another way of doing things and maybe win that way. She’s convinced that it’s the judges (or Obama, or Rham Emanuel, or whoever – the Easter Bunny) and so, she keeps going the same road over and over and over.. That is insanity.
Nothing else works in explaining this woman accept that she needs medication. I just wish someone who loves her would help her. She’s ruining her life and she has children to consider who will be tainted (sad, but true) by her behavior.
Man, I sure could go for a “like” or “thumbs up” button right about now. You just hit the nail on the head!
Jack Maskell’s CRS Report on Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Issue is Refuted.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/24/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-3/
This is a 3 Part Series that completely refutes Jack Maskell’s CRS report. Well researched.
The problem is that Ms. Taitz doesn’t really know the craft of lawyering. She attended a correspondence school and passed the California Bar, but that doesn’t make her a competent lawyer.
I know lots of lawyers. In fact, I have 20 that work for me and I work closely with some 30 others. What I can tell you is that there really are good and bad lawyers, just like there are good and bad engineers and doctors. Diplomas and certificates aren’t necessarily a guarantee of competence.
I view Ms. Taitz as a pathetic character and I almost feel sorry for her. She has ruined her professional reputation on a national scale. Sadly, she hasn’t a clue what she’s done to herself. Here was someone who actually possesses the ingredients to succeed…a russian immigrant woman who has pulled herself up by her bootstraps and she’s just squandered it all. Really too bad.
Guess which of these will be accepted by anyone whose opinion matters.
Well-researched is not equivalent to accurately-stated or well-argued.
Indeed Mr. Joseph DeMaio’s paper is full of accurate statements, and it is quite informative, except where he lies. Here’s a good example. After a fine section explaining what dicta is, DeMaio writes:
In the preceding section he explained that dicta were those comments not directly part of the reasoning in deciding the case. And he further stated that the court did not need to determine that Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen.” Given that, it is trivially obvious that the comment has to be dicta. There is no debate (except maybe with the birthers who don’t count).
DeMaio writes long passages of pretty prose filled with sound information. It’s just at the points where he actually makes an argument in favor of his crank theories, he misstates the facts. Judging by the quality of the writing and the research, I would presume that these misstatements are intentional and not honest mistakes.
In any case, Maskell isn’t refuted until a judge agrees with DeMaio. Just the opposite is repeating itself time after time.
I think the course she took was geared at being able to do simple things like wills and deeds. I don’t think it was ever intended to prepare someone for serious litigation.
More Doc…
While the Court in Happersett did state that there were “doubts,” those “doubts” related to the issue of whether children born in the United States of foreign or non-U.S. citizen parents could properly be recognized as natural born citizens. The “doubts” identified by the Court did not relate to the separate recognition that the term “natural born citizen” had always included persons born in the United States to parents who were at the time of the birth U.S. citizens. As to that category of citizens, there had “never” been any doubt that they were “natural born citizens.”
Accordingly, the CRSR’s dismissal of the entirety of the Court’s statement in this regard as dictum is plainly ill-founded. See CRSR at 28-29. While an argument can certainly be made that the Court’s statement about the topic of its “doubts” was dictum, an equally persuasive and more rational argument can be made that the other portion of the statement – as to which there had “never” been any doubts – was not dictum.
It depends on what you mean by “natural born citizen.” If it is understood as “born a citizen” which most authorities agree that it is, then yes, it is part of the holding. It was necessary to determine that Virginia Minor was a citizen.
However if, as DeMaio argues, “natural born citizen” is something else than “born a citizen” then it was not necessary to deciding whether Minor was a citizen, and so anything related to the phrase “natural born citizen” must be dicta.
The real problem with Minor, however, is that it never says that ONLY US-born children of citizen parents were natural born citizens, only that they are. The issue is not what is dicta and what is not. The issue is whether Minor offers a comprehensive definition of “natural born citizen” anywhere, and it does not.
All the lawyers understand this and that is why all of these ballot challenges invoking Minor get thrown out.
John is back.
John, I read the poiece you attached. It did not address getting the Indonesian school record admitted. Have you figured out how to get that into evidence yet, or are you just a drive-by birther?
I just wonder if Orly’s nearest and dearest are just happy to see her busy and out of the house….. Who knows what she would be like at home if stuck with dentistry?
I just wish they’d have pity on the outside world!
I just wish someone who loves her would help her.[jayhg]
[sorry, quote function confused me here, I didn’t want the whole comment included!]
I wonder what it was for her kids to have a mother who is a pathological liar. I pity those children. On other other hand, maybe when she goes senile she’ll start telling the truth!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how would you know?
Who IS Joseph DeMaio and why should anyone think he knows the law better than the 9 judges who ruled in the Ankeny case?
1 lower court
3 appeals court
5 Indiana Supreme Court
Total 9
Instead of pretty prose and pontificating, Mr. DeMaio (and all the other birthers) should be making an emergency effort to participate somehow in Tisdale v. Obama in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Otherwise, they’re going to wake up soon and find that the ruling in Ankeny is expressly approved by a federal appeals court, after which it will be borderline Apuzzo-style frivolous to spout DeMaio’s nonsense in a court pleading anywhere in this great land of ours.
DeMaio’s frothing is being published at the Post & Email, run by the delusional Sharon Rondeau. Jack Maskell’s works are published by the Congressional Research Service, and are probably the reason Allen West stopped birfing immediately upon taking office.
Great Googly-Moogly, John! How often do we need to explain this?
You guys are EXACTLY like the “Moon Landing Deniers.” They come up with all these technical-sounding ideas ‘proving’ we never went to the moon, how it could’ve been faked, hundreds of very inventive arguments… None of which outweighs the fact that we have the friggin’ MOON ROCKS and tons of other evidence.
Birtherism is equally lame, just as preposterous, exactly as futile as their absurd “quest for the truth.”
Let’s use allegory to shed light on your Mahili finding objections:
We’ll use the Property Tax Collector as a stand-in for Judge Malihi, and in place of the Evidence Proving Obama’s Ineligibilty, for demonstration purposes we’ll use the Sack of Money due as Tax on your Property.
In you come, armed with a big ol’ bag of Poo, and plop it down on the Tax Man’s desk.
The Tax Man says “I’m not accepting this… this isn’t Money, it’s just a sack of Poop!”
Now pay attention to this part:
He doesn’t have to weigh the poo. He doesn’t want to sniff it, and sure as hell can’t be expected to taste it. He doesn’t have to explain to you why poo isn’t money. You can claim it was used as money in ancient Sri Lanka, and get indignant, tell the Tax Man he has no grasp of History. You can claim he’s biased against those who choose to use poo as legal tender. You can complain that he didn’t address the non-money status of each individual piece of the poo. You can bring in a local expert, the one who catches and eats flies after first giving each one a Christian name, to testify that HE has often accepted poo as money. You can claim Thomas Jefferson once mentioned his appreciation for the ancient Sri Lankan culture, and de Vattel thought nothing else BUT poo should ever be used as money, and that therefore your poo-money was sanctioned by the Sacred Founders of the U S of A.
Know what you can’t do, John?
PAY YOUR TAXES WITH A BAG OF POO.
Foggy,
Hate to be a stickler for correct usage, but I believe the phrase is, “DeMaio’s santorum is being published at the Post and Email.”
Loved your clever rant, Thomas! Only problem–here’s what John’s reaction will be, “While not everyone accepts poo, the considered research of many constitutional scholars is pro poo. The fact that Indiana pooh-poohed Orly’s massive amount of poo shows just how full of sh#t they are.”
“PAY YOUR TAXES WITH A BAG OF POO.”
you should not eat as well (hat tip to the movie “The Help”)
ROTFLMAO!!! Wow, that was just awesomely brilliant! My sides are still in pain from non-stop laughter. Bravo!!
Let’s be clear here: the reason Orly needs to be disbarred YESTERDAY (if that was possible) is because of her egregious behavior as an attorney.
I have no problem with her going the Corsi route and turning into a one-harridan industry of anti-obama bilge reports.
If anything she provides a Darwinian service by bilking all the other birther fools out of their money.
Agreed.
Poo is self-authenticating.
That’s a keeper Thomas! I nominate that for the comment of the week. Would it be OK if I incorporated that into a post on my blog?
Commissioner Sarah Riordan had looked at Orly’s bag of poo and knew it was exactly poo. That is why she stepped in and stopped the perfunctory procedure putting her poo into the hearing record. She was ready. The other Democratic member knew Orly was practicing law without a license. As soon as he asked her if she were licensed to practice in Indiana you could see the look of horror on Orly’s face. She was done. She’d been had. She knew they were not going to just sit their like Judge Malihi and let her stink up their hearing for 30 minutes. I think she only got what time they gave her because the Commission chair was a embarrassed that he lost his composure for a minute.
sit there …. homophone alert!
I don’t think you quite understand what the meaning of “refuted” is. A person posting crack pot theories he is no in way qualified to make, and that no one who is actually qualified in the field remotely accepts, and posting them on a crack pot website, does not refute anything. It does not even merit serious consideration.
what i find EGREGIOUS:
the birthers’ continuous BEGGING for money with NO ACCOUNTABILITY – how is this money being spent? are there retainer agreements/timeslips? would the “documentation” withstand judicial scrutiny?
their LYING BY OMISSION – scrubbing websites of FACTUAL INFO in opposition to their AGENDAS – ie taitz DID NOT INFORM indiana of the georgia sos’ order – taitz scrubbed her website of the arpaio response to her “NOT VALID” subpoena
NO running status of these endeavors – 16 FAILED lawsuits went to the supremes – over 41 state birther bills FAILED – NUMEROUS ballot challenges have FAILED since 2008
NO CITATIONS re the rules of evidence for documents and qualifying “expert witnesses”
NO CITATIONS for individual state rules re ballot challenges
how about an ACCURATE memorandum of law on both sides of the argument
and the list goes on – these people are FRAUDS and ONLY their followers DON’T KNOW IT – if any one of us, outside birtherstan, acted this way, we would be in jail
Does anybody know what happened in San Diago yesterday? Orly had promised mayhem if they did not let her speak at the conference.
“I want to know too,” he said salaciously.
You absolutely may. With my compliments.
Orly has not yet given her version of events.
I’ve been looking for any news/blog/facebook stories this morning. There have been a few pieces about the speeches Gingrich and Paul made, but not any mentioning Taitz.
It appears that if she attended, no one noticed.
Sarah Palin does: The New Oxford American Dictionary has named ‘refudiate’ its 2010 Word of the Year, defining it as:
refudiate: verb used loosely to mean “reject”: she called on them to refudiate the proposal to build a mosque. [origin — blend of refute and repudiate]
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/palins-refudiate-wins-2010-word-of-the-year.php
You should look up the meaning of romney!
I like it! “All of a sudden, this huge bear charged down the path and I did a total romney.”
Republican Liberty Caucus of California to taitz
Dr. Taitz and the Rally for Liberty
Reply |Parke Bostrom secretary@rlcca.org to MeDaMom23, me, bcc: John, bcc: Rick
show details 10:48 AM (14 minutes ago)
Dear Elaine,
I saw you RSVP’ed, expressing an interest in seeing Dr. Taitz speak at the RLCCA’s Rally for Liberty event.
It is the position of the RLCCA that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz does not agree, and as Dr. Taitz makes her disagreement the primary point of her campaign, the RLCCA has retracted the invitation to Dr. Taitz.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you or Dr. Taitz.
Sincerely,
Parke Bostrom
Secretary, RLCCA
I will admit that I have actually seen and touched a moon rock, but I only have a picture of Obama’s birth certificate framed and hanging on my wall. In my defense, I did believe in the moon landing before I touched the rock.
LMAO! Good one.
+1000 coolness points, right there!
Educating the Confused – ORYR and the Passport records
At ORYR, there is a headline “Indiana Election COMM: Obama’s Mom’s Records Showing Obama Surname Soebarkah Irrelevant”
But the records do NOT show Obama’s surname to be Soebarkah. What they show is the name Barack Hussein Obama, crossed out with an annotation Soebarkah’. There is NO evidence that the annotation has any relevance to the surname. It’s this kind of wishful thinking that makes the evidence non probative as it establishes no fact, and certainly no fact that supports that President Obama changed his last name. Note how the full name of President Obama is within the box and is subsequently crossed out with an annotation written obviously by someone else.
No wonder that such arguments fail to impress Judges and hearing commissioners alike…
MR. DUMEZICH: We’re in the discussion phase of the commission at this point in time. The way that I look at this, you’ve submitted these documents. These are lodged with the commission. Regardless of what happens today, you have a remedy, which is a judicial remedy, which would be more appropriate. Frankly, I would get an attorney in Indiana, okay, that’s licensed here, to put together a case, because what I can see in front of me, and I’ve reviewed these documents — and believe me, I’m not a fan of Barack Obama, but he is the President of the United States, and he should not be subjected to this sort of evidence that is unsubstantiated. That’s a problem. That’s a problem. It’s all hearsay.
Even the Republican Chair recognizes the evidence’ for what it really is…
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/educating-the-confused-oryr-and-the-passport-records/
Now with a picture of the Soebarkah annotation 🙂
ORYR is ‘full of it’…
So Donna, you are my faithful ‘stalker’ 🙂 Thanks for ‘spreading the news’
avec plaisir, nbc!!!!
For the record, I didn’t know about that when I wrote my article with the same annotation.
National Air and Space Museum in DC.
Apropos of nothing, my brother was awarded the coveted Silver Snoopy. Only of interest to certified space geeks.
Did anyone else notice that Orly didn’t even properly cite the Constitution when she began trying to testify in Indiana? She cited “Article II, Section 1, paragraph 4”.
It’s around the 7:30 mark.
Waaaay Cooool!!!
For those who want more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Snoopy_award
It struck me to day (belatedly) that what was so delicious about the Indiana Election Commission’s rebuff of Taitz was that they called her out, plainly and loudly, on using crap, undocumented documents (“undocuments” 😛 ) to say, among other things, that the President’s birth certificates (very well-documented documents) are the crap documents.
The President’s papers have their own papers. Orly’s papers … are just papers.
So ironic, that a perfect example for Orly to study, to learn how to produce authenticated, documented documents, is the target of her allegations, the Presidents’ LFBC and its accompanying paper trail.
____________
“Show us your papers, boy!”
“Well, suh, I done show’d you muh papers, an’ muh papers’ papers, too, suh.”
“Hmmm, yes, but have you showed us your papers’ papers’ papers’ papers?”
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
.
She comes off as lecturing the court, not trying to persuade them.
I saw on her sight where she has ordered 50 “certified copies” of the transcript with exhibits from the Georgia hearing to send to every state. It is because she says that now they will have to accept her exhibits because they are “certified.” Hoo boy, she still doesn’t understand civil procedure.
Of course not. She went to Joe’s Law School and Biker Bar™.