Obots.org » Orly Taitz

Orly makes child sacrifice to get Obama

obot1 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:46:09 +0000

It makes me want to vomit. Orly Taitz has started one of her ~~witch hunts~~ investigations only this time the victim is a child, an innocent child who lived only 55 days and whose only crime was to have “Obama” as part of her name. There for all to see on the Taitz ~~cesspool~~ blog is her name, date of birth, date of death, her Social Security number, and the dirty paw marks of Orly Taitz, sending out her ~~flying zombie monkeys~~ followers to seek birth and death certificates for the child.

Why? To add the sick, Sick, SICK assertion that the child’s death was some sort of Obama family ritual satanic murder to the Orly repertoire. This child has parents. Orly have you no decency left as a mother or has your obsession with destroying President Obama consumed you totally?

Orly goes double or nothing

obot1 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:26:38 +0000

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

In a desperate gamble against incredible odds, crusading nobot lawyer, Orly Taitz, already rejected by her client, presses on by filing an appeal of her $20,000 sanction by federal judge Clay Land in Georgia.

Having her lawsuit, Rhodes v. MacDonald, identified as “frivolous”, the unrepentant Taitz is now filing a frivolous appeal with the Circuit court of appeals. Perhaps mail order lawyer Taitz is unaware that not only are there rules against filing frivolous lawsuits, there are also rules against filing frivolous appeals.

RULE 38. Frivolous Appeals–Damages and Costs

If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

Uh-oh.

What is her argument? Bias by the judge. What is the proof the judge was biased? He didn’t rule her way. She actually wrote:

…the court proved its pervasively extreme and outrageous (extrajudicial) prejudice and bias against the undersigned [yes, she remembered to sign it] counsel by not only denying her Motion to Recuse but also her Motion for Extension of Time to Respond… [citations omitted, emphasis in original]

And here it is, the whole notice for your r0tten vegetable throwing pleasure:

RHODES v MacDONALD – 29 – NOTICE OF APPEAL – Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.29.0

Somebody buy Orly a new black marker, please!

obot1 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:51:41 +0000

The following is a notice from the federal court electronic filing system:

IMPORTANT: IMPORTANT NOTICE OF REDACTION RESPONSIBILITY: All filers must redact: Social Security or taxpayer-identification numbers; dates of birth; names of minor children; financial account numbers; and, in criminal cases, home addresses, in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9037. This requirement applies to all documents, including attachments.

Birther lawyer (and I use the term loosely) Orly Taitz filed documents with the US District Court for the Central District of California with some of her nutty Social Security number stuff. However, instead of fully obliterating the Social Security numbers of one innocent victim from Connecticut, her scanned images clearly expose the number along with the fellow’s name and a date of birth for which there was no attempt to obscure.

Orly the Inept, however, miscategorized her filing, and so received a notice of deficiency from the court. So given the opportunity to correct her failure, what does Orly do? Files the same thing again.

Also included in Orly’s filing was the Social Security of a deceased person, something that is public information. I will show that following in order to demonstrate the sloppy redaction.

042-68-4424

Georgia attorney calls Orly Taitz “nuts”

obot1 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:11:26 +0000

Taitz with fake birth certificate in Columbus, GA

In an article in the Columbus Georgia Ledger-Enquirer newspaper, local lawyer William Mason called Orly Taitz “nuts”.

“She’s nuts,” Mason said. “Based on what I saw and read, she’s nuts.” … “First of all, a lawyer has an ethical duty not to advance an argument that either you know is not true or you do not have an honest basis to argue,” Martin said. “She’s the type of person who gives lawyers a bad name.”

That reminds me of what attorney and CNN legal affairs consultant Jeffrey Toobin said about an earlier round of birther lawsuits, way back in 2008: “whack-job”, “total bull”.

The Ledger-Enquirer has had some great coverage of the Rhodes v MacDonald lawsuit in their home town.

Taitz hit with THIRD CA Bar complaint

obot1 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:52:03 +0000

GA Federal Court

Christmas came early this year for the Obots. In a 43-page order, Judge Land in Georgia raked birther lawyer Orly Taitz over the coals. But not only did he excoriate her and sanction her, he included the following cherry on top of the Obot ice cream sundae:

The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.

Court to California Bar: You have a problem. Deal with it!

Judge spanks naughty lawyer

obot1 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:50:19 +0000

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

Oh dear, poor little Orly. The big bad old judge has sanctioned you to the tune of $20,000. But think of it as a learning experience. You really have to learn some respect for the legal profession that you are trying to be a part of.

Read federal Judge Land’s scathing order here. The judge called your contentions “laughable”, your claims “frivolous” and your allegations “fictitious”!

You have 30 days to pay up the $20,000. Better get filling those teeth because I don’t think you have any future in the legal field.

Taitz hit with 2nd CA Bar complaint

obot1 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:55:36 +0000

Cleveland lawyer, and native-born United States citizen, Subodh Chandra filed a complaint against birther crusader Orly Taitz with the California bar–at least the second formal complaint to be so filed. In explaining his reasons for filing the complaint Chandra said:

While lawyers have a wide range of latitude to advocate for their clients, they do not have professional license to just make things up. In a self-regulating profession, lawyers have a responsibility to report when other lawyers engage in conduct that reflects on fitness to practice law.

Here, Ms. Taitz has waived around demonstrably phony documents (the Republic of Kenya was the “Dominion” of Kenya on the date of the fake “Republic of Kenya” birth certificate she’s been brandishing), ignored the state of Hawaii’s own official statement that its records reflect the President was born in Hawaii and failed to explain how a Hawaii newspaper reported on President Obama’s birth back at the time — did the wily conspiracy extend to the president’s grandparents when he was infant?

Ms. Taitz also accused a (Bush-appointee) federal judge in Georgia of “treason” and corruption without any reasonable basis. She reportedly advocated positions contrary to her clients’ direct instruction. And the federal judge sanctioned her for “frivolous” conduct. These are things for which we mere mortal lawyers normally face consequences.

The Cleveland Scene

Birther cat fight

obot1 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:26:07 +0000

Do not try this at home!

The Orly Taitz web site is a minefield of malicious software that can destroy your computer. Don’t go there. You have been warned.

Orly pours dirt on self (see below)

In an article today, Birther lawyer Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq, RSVP, EIEIO says:

It was reported to me by an Attorney Larry Miller and a number of other parties that Willey [sic] Drake is again saying things that are absolutely not true.

1. Willey [sic] Drake is spreading rumors that I was kicked of [sic] the legal team in Barnett et al v Obama, that Gary Kreep is the only attorney on the case.

2. Gary Kreep is sending heavy solicitations through the media, specifically WND and Newsmax, completely misrepresenting the case and presenting it as if he is the only attorney on the case.

3. Willey [sic] Drake claims that I no longer represent Alan Keyes – that is a lie. [No wonder they fired you. You can't even spell your own client's name!]

…Kreep recently filed a motion to severe [sic] the case, which I stipulate to (I agree to). I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me. [huh?] Most of it is not true or misrepresentation of what really took place. For example he claimed that I couldn’t serve the case properly. This is nottrue [sic]…. Judge Carter stated at the hearing on July 13ththat [sic] I should just serve the US attorneys for expediency or the case will be dragged [sic].

…Ii[sic] am pretty busy, but keep in mind one thing. Kreep ran solicitations this whole year telling people "[sic] I’ll fight for you, [sic] I’ll file law suits every time Obama signs a law or executive order. In reality he didn’t file one single law suit, absolute zero [brrrr!]. He just joined me in prior [sic] case in state court and squeezed himself [sic] in this case…

Orly lies in court…

obot1 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:58:33 +0000

…and I don’t mean that she took a nap.

Y’all know that miz Orly has two o’dem law suits a’goin’ on. But she done file thangs in one dat don’ say whut it say in de udder. I give a big ole thank’e to PolitiJab.com wh’r I done stole dis.

In dis’un she be a’arguin’ dat the judge gib her standin’ and in de udder she say he didn’. Land o’ mercy. A Christian woman aughtn’t a’lie like dat.

Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009	Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.)	It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing (and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
	Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
	…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)

Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009	Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standingof the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.)	It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing(and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
	Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
	…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)

Orly headed for FEMA gulag

obot1 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:01:43 +0000

In the mind of Orly Taitz, birther lawyer, the world is a very different place from the one inhabited by normal people. Not only is President Obama an illegal alien, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is preparing a string of “concentration camps” to incarcerate all the real “patriotic Americans” (i.e., those who share her delusions).

When Judge Land in Georgia pointed out for the world that Orly Taitz had brought a lawsuit with no legal merit for the purposes of publicity, and threatened a $10,000 fine, Orly struck back calling the judge a “traitor” and saying she was about to be sent to the “FEMA Gulag“.

I hope they don’t have Internet access in the FEMA Gulag. I for one will be glad to be rid of her.