Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Orly Taitz’

Birther cat fight

October 2nd, 2009 Comments off

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  Willey [sic] Drake claims that I no longer represent Alan Keyes  – that is a lie.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…

October 2nd, 2009 Comments off

…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

September 22nd, 2009 Comments off

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.

Birthers eat their young

September 21st, 2009 Comments off

This was a saying about Republicans, made a few years ago. It refers to a group turning against its own members. The first big crack in birther unity was the Liberi v Taitz lawsuit, involving a long list of birthers including Phil Berg, Orly Taitz and Ed Hale (Plains Radio).

Then there was the open feud between Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep that surfaced in court in the Barnett (Keyes) v. Obama case in California.

Now Orly’s helpers and witnesses in Barnett say Orly asked them to lie. The article is reported at RenewAmerica.com in the article, Orly Taitz accused of suborning perjury for Barnett v. Obama — updated including affidavit, etc.

Larry Sinclair (anti-Obama smear author) says:

Later today I will be faxing to the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California as well as to the U.S. Attorney’s Office an Affidavit informing Judge Carter that on September 7, 2009 Orly Taitz did knowingly and intentionally ask me to appear before his Court on September 8, 2009 and give knowingly false testimony for the purpose of obtaining “expedited discovery,” and to gain publicity for my book.

It’s really not a question of Sinclair’s word against Taitz. They are ALL frauds, but I just admit there is a certain satisfaction that these fear mongers and propagandists have turned on themselves; they deserve it.

Second complaint filed with California Bar

September 20th, 2009 Comments off

A second complaint has been filed with the California Bar against correspondence school attorney Orly Taitz, leading to speculation that California will reconsider its practice of licensing attorneys who have not attended an accredited law school.

TPMMuckraker reports that professor Subodh Chandra, who practices in Ohio and is also an inactive member of the California bar, has filed a formal complaint against Taitz.  California bar rules require attorneys to exhibit respect for the courts. I guess calling Judge Land in Florida a “traitor” and a “regime puppet” goes beyond proper respect for the court.

A more detailed complaint was filed anonymously by another lawyer last April. I hope they act soon. Orly Taitz is a danger to herself and others.

How to choose a dentist

September 19th, 2009 3 comments

Would you go to a dentist who had never filled a tooth before? How about a dentist that was supposed to pull one tooth, but decided on their own, and without asking you, to pull out another one?

That’s a good comparison to Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.

Under questioning by Texas judge Burt Carnes (Brockhausen v. Andrade) Orly Taitz admitted that she has never tried a case. Then in Georgia, after sanctions were threatened, Orly filed a motion to reconsider without considering the risk she was putting her client in!

Here’s what Orly’s client, Connie Rhodes, said:

Please withdraw the motion to stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and I do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I had not seen it on the late news Thursday before going to board my plane to Iraq…

Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

While she has never tried a case, she certainly has lots of experience having them dismissed.