Saying twice, a court-martial is not “a vehicle to challenge political decisions,” last Thursday an Army judge ran a tank over Lakin’s Birtheristic hopes for connecting the charges against him with President Obama’s birth in Hawaii (or elsewhere, as Lakin wants to believe). Lakin’s defense had asked for Hawaiian officials to be deposed on the matter of the President’s birth certificate, which was denied by the military judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, who ruled, essentially, that Presidential ineligibility, even if that were the true case, is not a legal defense against the charges faced by Lakin. In addition to the birth certificate, Lakin’s defense had asked for school records which might include the birth certificate.
What are the charges and of which of them is Lakin guilty?
1-missing movement to Afghanistan
2-disobeying lawful orders
3-dereliction of duty
We know he is guilty of all of them, because he did those things, but also because, even before the video pimped by the GOP hacks at the American Patriot Foundation, on their site Safeguard Our Constitution, he told us, Lakin told us, he would be guilty of doing these things. And American Patriot Foundation saw to it that he told the whole world. At the same time, in press releases issued by American Patriot Foundation, Lakin says: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our commander in chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices.”
Lakin’s case was not this crowd’s first venture into Birfistan. Margaret Hemenway, Executive Director, CEO and Vice President of Public Affairs for the American Patriot Foundation, who is also a contributing editor of Family Security Matters and worked in the Bush administration, was involved in her father-in-law’s failed Birther lawsuit, Hollister v. Soetoro, originally filed in late 2008. John Hemenway is registered agent for the American Patriot Foundation.
Founded in 2003 by former US Senator Bob Smith (R-NH), soon after his Senate term ended, the 501(c)(3) group’s mission, which seems to change with the prevailing winds, was to support “the families of soldiers lost in war”–a project on which they spent no money, according to reports on GuideStar, except for $1000 in 2004 to American WWII Orphans Network. By then, the group’s purpose had changed to “foster[ing] patriotism and relevance to society.” For 2006, it changed again, retrospectively from 2010, when a three-year tax filing was made, to “interest in and respect for the US Constitution.”
Lakin’s civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, is the foundation’s Chairman of the Board, President and General Counsel, with both his law office on the east coast and the foundation office conveniently located at 1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Washington DC, in Suite 500, one of those rent-an-address places. In 2003, Jensen was Secretary of the American Patriot Foundation and signed its IRS papers for that year, showing $28,000 in donations; $16,000 was spent on “office space, fundraising and organizational conference.”
After seven years with no IRS filings, on May 7, 2010, Margaret Hemenway, as Treasurer, filed for 2004, 2005, and 2006, showing no donations for those years. In 2006, the American Patriot Foundation transferred its assets, $11,000, leaving a zero balance, to the Everglades Foundation, at a time when Bob Smith was Executive Director there and his wife was Administrator. However, in 2009, Smith was still involved with American Patriot Foundation, starting a sub-entity called Americans for Accountability, which concerned itself with Democrat Tom Daschle’s income tax. Both Hemenway and Jensen had been staffers in Smith’s Senate office. In 2010, the American Patriot Foundation, without Smith, again started collecting donations and introduced, as its new and exciting project, LTC Terrence Lakin.
American Patriot Foundation refers to Jensen this way in their fundraising on Safeguard Our Constitution:
American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin’s attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin’s lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin’s supporters come to his aid NOW.
Without mentioning that the “noted civilian California trial lawyer” has this ongoing leadership role in American Patriot Foundation. So what did Jensen do, hire himself for $500,000? Nice work if you can get it.
An interesting thread on the military justice blog, CAAFLog, about the poor quality of Lakin’s civilian legal representation, has a comment from former JAG defense attorney, Charles Gittins:
I told LtCol Lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. I gave him my (very) candid advice. I told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. He is where he is for a reason. I am very sad for him. He has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.
It appears Lakin shopped this around, then, and he still ended up with a “legal team” of Paul Rolf Jensen, who, with Margaret Hemenway, runs the American Patriot Foundation; and a military lawyer, whose advice Lakin is apparently not following, supplied by the Army. So what do they need a half-million dollars for exactly and why should donations to this legal fund to pay Paul Rolf Jensen be tax-deductible? It’s at least a curious situation and one I hope somebody more expert in this sort of thing addresses at some point.
Jensen is long associated with GOP Dirty Trickster, Roger Stone, as well. And this is the motley crew Lakin chose for his legal representation. It can only be because of the shared political agenda, since Lakin received a military lawyer gratis. It couldn’t possibly have been for the legal expertise: Jensen’s law practice is in dog bites, seat belt failure, and asbestos cases.
While the days when General Washington would have had him shot at sunrise are behind us, on the advice of the American Patriot Foundation, Lakin has forged a straight path to years in prison, professional devastation, burned-over reputation, and a financial loss in salary and pension of something more than a million dollars; unless something radical happens, this is his future. What will happen to the people who led him there? Nothing. They will go on to the next schmuck, the next political op, the next adventure in disrupting a democratically elected government, and call it saving the Constitution.
Well, they make me sick. But Lakin likes them fine and that’s all that matters. He’ll just have to take what comes of it. No pity party for LTC Lakin. Save it for the family of the physician who had to go to Afghanistan in Lakin’s place or the soldier who died when Lakin might have made the difference. Save it for the proud military tradition, in this country, of respect, honor and obedience to civilian leadership, he has disgraced. Save it for the culture of good order and discipline in the armed services he has undermined. He wants to be a martyr to the Birther cause? Hey, schmuck, you’re a martyr!
Retired US Navy Commander, presently a military litigator in private practice, Phil Cave, was a guest on Reality Check blog talk radio and cleared up one confusing point being spread around right wing sites, concerning the judge’s use of the term “embarrassment.” Cave attended the Article 39(a) UCMJ pretrial motions hearing at Ft. Meade in Maryland on Thursday, covering the story for his blog, Court-martial.com.
The military judge DENIED all of the discovery requests and witness requests related to the birth controversy. This was not unexpected. But what was unexpected was the breadth and detail of the rulings, because of the obvious impact on the lawfulness motion. Clearly the findings and rulings anticipated the next motions session. At the end of the military judge’s reading of her findings, Jensen appeared beaten down. He seemed so affected that for some time he failed to stand when talking with the military judge on the record. LTC Lakin remained impassive as always. …
Basically the documents and witnesses are neither (at times she interspersed logically) relevant nor material. … The military judge found that Congress through its power to regulate the armed forces appointed the service secretaries and their service leaders to carry out functions such as order people to deploy, etc. She found there was substantial independent authority in law, regulation, and custom to support the issuance of orders in this situation. She gave passing reference to the de facto officer doctrine and focussed more on the political question doctrine as a justification for denial of discovery and witnesses on the strawman that the presidents status might be relevant in some fashion. …
The defense conceded that with the military judge’s rulings, the orders were otherwise lawful. With that this case is back to the standard case one sees where a Soldier has missed movement and disobeyed orders. …
At this point it seems LTC Lakin will be left to wriggle while his fate is decided in the normal course of business. No doubt there will be some who will try to continue the political aspects of the case but for all intents and purposes LTC Lakin is dead meat. The real question will be sentencing.
As is often the case, the misperception in Birfistan about the judge’s use of the word “embarrassment” in her ruling, stems from reporting on World Net Daily:
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.
As Phil Cave explained on Reality Check, the judge was not talking about embarrassing the President in the sense of shaming him personally, and wasn’t even talking about the President. Rather, as a factor in the Political Question Doctrine, the Judiciary cannot embarrass itself, on one level, by issuing orders it could not enforce, since it is the function of another branch of government, Congress, to impeach a sitting president. Even if she had been talking about embarrassing the President, she would have meant the Executive Branch, because the term is used in the law in relation to other branches of government, not individuals. But in the context, it is Congress, with its specific charge by the Constitution, who would be “embarrassed.”
Dwight Sullivan on CAAFlog cited the SCOTUS decision in Baker v. Carr:
The Supreme Court has long recognized the principle of “nonjusticiability”: meaning that courts of law should decline to exercise their authority to decide matters where judicial intervention is deemed inappropriate. Based upon the Constitutional principle of separation of powers in the three branches of Government, judicial review of “a political question” is precluded where the Court finds one or more of the following:
a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Sullivan also commented:
It’s not that the evidence that LTC Lakin seeks is relevant but won’t be produced due to the political question doctrine. Rather, under the political question doctrine, it’s inappropriate for a court-martial to opine on the constitutional eligibility of the President. And because a court-martial can’t say the President is ineligible, no amount of evidence regarding the President’s eligibility would be admissible (and, hence, it’s not discoverable) because it couldn’t affect the case’s outcome.
Furthermore, the legal usage of “embarrass” has a different meaning than in common English: to obstruct or hinder or hobble. It’s not the Judiciary’s job, in other words, to get in the way of other branches of government doing their jobs. Legal scholar William R. Long wrote an amusing essay in 2005, in which he explored the use of the word “embarrass” as employed in law:
One of the most embarrassing things about language is when you think you know what a word means but then are repeatedly brought up against a different and unfamiliar usage of the term–a usage which turns out to be better attested than the usage you assumed was the “only one” there was. Well, I will take this out of the stratosphere and come right down to earth. I was embarrassed to learn that the way I used “embarrass” in conversation and writing, though correct, was so limited as to be misleading. …
“Embarrass” is derived from the French, where embarrasser means to “block” or “obstruct.” Thus, the first meaning in the OED, going back to 1683 is “to encumber, hamper, impede (movements, actions, persons moving or acting). “The Character of Ambassador, which would delay or embarrass me with Preparations of Equipage.” Or, from 1734, “Hannibal..ran to the assistance of his troops, who were thus embarrassed.” One might also say, in 19th century form, that the contours of the country would embarrass the enemy to a considerable degree. This doesn’t mean that it would make them feel ashamed of themselves; it suggests, rather that it would set up a road block, an impediment, a hindrance, a difficulty.
In a criminal case in the following term, the Court could say:
“This is a criminal case. The motion to advance is made on behalf of the United States, upon the representation of the Postmaster-General, in substance, that the questions in dispute will embarrass the operations of the government…” (91 US at 558).
Rather than focus on the word embarrassment readers should consider that the military judge was using different words to express the same prong of a political question doctrine analysis. The correct focus, as it was for the military judge, is the phrase, “or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.” That’s what the military judge said along with an analysis of a number of other factors relevant to her application of the political question doctrine to the issues before her. This was all clearly in the context of her other statements that a court-martial is not a forum to raise and litigate political issues. Whether or not the president has properly served since 20 January 2010 is at this point clearly a matter for political discussion with no place in a military court-room.
Mere earthlings such as we, of course, are not conversant in such arcane legalistic folderol, so the confusion by non-lawyers is understandable. However, you can bet your sweet bippie the myth that the judge in LTC Lakin’s court-martial pre-trial hearing said she didn’t want to embarrass President Obama will be with us until the end of time. Have the false claim emails started yet? I told my sister-in-law I would block her email address, if she sent me a single one more, so I don’t know.
Bearing in mind that Lakin’s crack legal team is calling Birther Alan Keyes as a constitutional law expert for the defense, someone you might think knows something about the Political Question Doctrine, his ignorance of the legal use of the term “embarrassment” is shocking:
She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama. Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?
Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part. How has she reached the conclusion that the evidence in question may be embarrassing to Obama? Has she privily received communications to that effect? If so, why did she not publicly indicate the source or sources of these communications, so that Lt. Col. Lakin could claim his constitutional right to confront, in a proper hearing, the witnesses against him?
Whoa, just as I am about to take a month off from blogging, thinking summer doldrums and all, the Birther v. Birther case, Liberi v. Taitz has turned very hot. I made an update this morning to a post about Orly Taitz’s War On Court Clerks, related to this filing by her in Liberi v. Taitz:
07/29/2010 136 RESPONSE to the 7/26/10 Emergency MOTION by the plffs to keep transcripts under seal and motion for clarification and motion-reuqest for oer to show cause, why sanctions should not be assessed against parties defrauding the courts, etc., filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(gn, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
Well, here is Berg’s response to that:
07/30/2010 137 [RECAP] REPLY to Response to Motion re 135[RECAP] Emergency MOTION for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration Memorandum; and Certificate of Service filed by EVELYN ADAMS, PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
07/26/2010 135 Emergency MOTION for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration filed by EVELYN ADAMS, PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG.Memorandum of Law; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
Lisa Liberi is under a domestic protection order of some sort against an ex-spouse, as well as I can gather, living to some extent anonymously and in possible danger from that man. This didn’t stop Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. yesterday from posting to her website* a photograph of Lisa Liberi, and asking her flying monkeys to dig up information on Liberi, which she will no doubt make public. Orly Taitz is a real piece of fly-covered shit that way. She’s publicized Liberi’s Social Security Number again and again and again, even sending it to her email list. Blech.
Ed Hale has decided to help out by posting the photo to his own forum and asking:
Do you know who this is?
Someone sent me this picture and I have no idea who it is. tell me if you know who it is.
So “someone” sent him the picture? Ed Hale was face to face with Lisa Liberi in a Philadelphia courtroom last summer, when Orly Taitz left him swinging in the breeze and he had to do his own cross-examination of the other side. But he has “no idea” who it is in the photo. I swear, if there is a bigger bunch of liars than Birthers, I haven’t run into them.
This is from Taitz’s post with the photo on her website*:
This is Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA in 2008 of 10 counts of forgery and theft
Posted on | July 30, 2010 | No Comments
This is a picture of Lisa Liberi, who was convicted in CA in 2008. there were 23 charges, she was convicted in 10. She got 8 years prison term, which was reduced to probation. According to the terms of her probation she is allowed to live only in CA or NM, she is not allowed to live in any other state. This woman assists Attorney Philip Berg with preparation of documents. …
A year ago this woman appeared in the courtroom in Philadelphia, PA and claimed that she is a different person. All the pleadings and documents are filed below in PDF files. …
I also need anyone with knowledge about this woman to contact me at 949-683-5411
* Just as pointed out in Plaintiffs’ previous filings, Defendant Orly Taitz is stalking Lisa Liberi; her son; Lisa Ostella; and Lisa Ostella’s children.
* Defendant Taitz has threatened to destroy Plaintiff Liberi and get rid of her, which Defendant Taitz in one of her filings with this Court has admitted; Defendant Orly Taitz has also threatened to have Plaintiff Lisa Ostella’s children professionally kidnapped; and on June 25, 2009 drove around where Plaintiff Ostella and her family reside and where Plaintiff Ostella’s children attend school. See Affidavit of Charles Edward Lincoln, III previously filed with this Court.
* Defendant Orly Taitz’s has obtained the photographs of the Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi; Lisa Ostella; their husbands and children, by her (Defendant Orly Taitz) own admissions to this Court.
* The picture that Defendant Taitz filed with her July 28, 2010 Response, was only located on Plaintiff Liberi’s computer. NO one else had possession of this photo, and that is why Defendant Taitz and Defendant Neil Sankey only have a black and white print-out copy. The only way Defendant Taitz and Sankey could have come into possession of this photo is if they in fact illegally entered Plaintiff Liberi’s computer and illegally downloaded it. Suspicions of Defendants Taitz and Sankey illegally entering Plaintiff Liberi and Plaintiff Ostella’s computer have already been turned over to the FBI and local enforcement on previous occasions. This picture in question is now all over the Internet, for no legitimate purpose.
* Defendant Taitz attempted to hire Ruben N[redacted--OFGS], a convicted felon with convictions of Aggravated Assault as well as other crimes for no apparent legitimate purpose” or “for obvious violence against the Plaintiffs herein. Ruben N[redacted--OFGS] on two [2] separate occasions attempted to get paid $25,000.00 from Orly [Defendant Edgar Hale’s website] Taitz through PayPal, on May 25, 2009, see EXHIBIT “1” and May 29, 2009, see EXHIBIT “2”.
* It is important for this Court to note the requests for payment by Ruben N[redacted--OFGS], were done with three [3] consecutive requests sent simultaneously, two [2] in the amount of $8,000; one [1] in the amount of $9,000 totaling $25,000.00, to keep the amounts under $10,000.00 which are automatically reported to the Federal Government pursuant to the Patriot Act.
* Due to the facts that Defendant Taitz’s behaviors have now escalated to an extremely dangerous level against the Plaintiff, their husbands and children, e.g. Felony Stalking across state lines and what appears to be Defendant Taitz’s attempt to hire an individual with a violent background to physically harm Lisa Liberi; her son and husband; as well as Lisa Ostella and her children, it is imperative that this Court refer this matter to the United States Attorney’s Office or the United States Department of Justice immediately, before one of the Plaintiffs’ are physically hurt and/or killed.
* Plaintiff Liberi is not a resident or citizen of the State of California as Defendant Orly Taitz falsely claims, nor is Plaintiff Liberi a resident or citizen of the State of Texas.
* Defendants Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey only want verification of Plaintiff Liberi’s actual residency in order to carry out their violent, serious threats to destroy and get rid of Plaintiff Liberi. The entire docketing system of this case gets published all over the Internet by Defendant Taitz.
This Court must refer this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and/or U.S.
Department of Justice for immediate investigation into the illegal behaviors of Defendants Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey, including but not limited to: Felony Stalking, across state lines; Felony Harassment across state lines; Threat to destroy and get rid of Plaintiff Liberi, across state lines; Threat to professionally kidnap Plaintiff Ostella’s children, across state lines; attempt to hire an individual to do bodily harm upon Plaintiffs, across state lines; illegal access into Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella’s computer systems, across state lines; and the other illegal activities of these Defendants. Defendants Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey must be stopped before, Plaintiffs Liberi; Ostella; their husbands; and children are physically harmed and/or killed.
The American Patriot Foundation, run by a group of long-time GOP ops, where funds for Lakin’s legal defense are solicited, tax-deductible, so they say, has posted a press release to its website Safeguard Our Constitution:
Testimony Sought of “Custodian of Records” AND Production of all records relating to President: Decision to be made by Army Major General
Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010. The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.
The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu. Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino the head of that agency has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the Department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the Department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.
The United States Constitution requires that a person be a “natural born citizen” to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a “natural born citizen”. An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008.
While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.
Last month, Lakin waived his right to an Article 32 pre-trial hearing, which had been scheduled for June 11. The “former Hawaii elections clerk” being used as a pretext for DISCOVERY, was a short-time temp worker in the Honolulu City Clerk’s elections office, where supervisors deny he would have had access to Obama’s health records.
In a discussion on the milblog CAAflog, a comment:
I’m as defense-hacky as they come, and it this were a wild swing during an otherwise valid case, I’d say go for it.
Put another way, government-hacks hate it when trial counsel do really dumb, improper things that mess up what would have been an otherwise valid case.
Well, us defense-hacks hate it when a guy is so poorly represented that not only does he make matters worse for himself thanks to defense counsel’s advice, but arguably, but for someone buzzing in his ear about this (likely his current civ counsel) he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place and thrown away his career.
I have little sympathy for the LTC, but what I do have is extreme anger at the civ defense counsel which I guess also engenders a tinge of sympathy for the LTC.
Defense counsel are like docs, first, do no harm. This guy didn’t just cut the wrong leg off, he cut it off knowing the guy didn’t need surgery at all, and he’s now leaving the sponge sewn up inside.
For a very full examination of United States v. Lakin, follow along with Court-martial.com here and here.
I’ve been holding off on this post, hoping the Taitz-Mouth spew machine* would power down for five whole minutes, but there is not even a moment of peace in sight for US Supreme Court personnel, under daily assault by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has got it in her spacious brain cavity that Supreme Court Justices personally, physically sign every bit of paper that crosses their clerks’ desks. But a clerk of the Supreme Court having now “slammed the phone” in Orly Taitz’s “face,” according to her, it seemed like a good time to catch up.
Desperately trying to get out of paying the American taxpayers the $20,000 she owes, Taitz filed an emergency petition for a stay with SCOTUS earlier this month in Rhodes v. MacDonald; recaptioned Taitz v. MacDonald, since this is an appeal of Taitz’s $20,000 sanction, levied for her bad behavior as the attorney in Rhodes v. MacDonald, not an appeal of the case Rhodes v. MacDonald. Her petition was Denied by Justice Clarence Thomas on July 15.
Court clerks have long been the bane of Orly Taitz’s existence. Too often, when a judge does something she doesn’t like, Taitz creates a conspiracy centered around a court clerk, so perhaps she is a little hard for a court clerk to appreciate.
Last year, her favorite law clerk to hound was Siddharth Velamoor of Judge David O. Carter’s district court in Orange County, California, where Taitz’s case Barnett v. Obama was Dismissed by Carter last October, and is now under appeal.
But before him, came Danny Bickell, Staff Attorney to the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter.
Taitz made an improper attempt just recently to indirectly approach Justice Thomas, through his wife’s web site, just before filing the emergency petition in Taitz v. MacDonald. What I believe was her second improper approach to a Supreme Court Justice, took place in Idaho in March 2009, (she had already improperly approached Justice Scalia at a book-signing), regarding an early Birther case Lightfoot v. Bowen. At the confrontation with Chief Justice Roberts in Idaho, Taitz made accusations of “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States” by Danny Bickell.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States? I have submitted my Lightfoot vs. Bowen case to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all nine justices on January 23rd.”
“Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord, refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief that he has hidden from you and refused to post on the docket. Additionally, my case was completely erased from the docket one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. I saw Justice (Antonin) Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. “It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice
Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the president of the United States.”
The Birthers’ campaign of harassment against Danny Bickell actually pre-dates Taitz, but she happily will pick up any Birfoon standard and run with it.
She has now hooked up with an outfit called Human Rights Alert, (which I don’t think is associated with the Scientology site of the same name), apparently devoted to going after court personnel on behalf of unhappy lawyers.
History repeating itself, Taitz is once again riling up her Birther minions to harass the Court*:
You have to go to each and every lecture, each and every appearance of these judges and demand answers, demand signatures on the orders, so they can be held liable if they violate our constitution. When judges violate the law, they can be prosecuted as well, and surely the clerks can be prosecuted as well.
I resubmitted my application to justice Alito.
I talked to the court today, they confirmed that they got the application, but I waited all day long, and they did not post on the docket, that it was resubmitted to Alito. You can call the Supreme Court tomorrow morning and demand an answer, when will they docket the submission to justice Alito. The clerk’s number is 202-479-3000 or 202-479-3472. You can demand transparency and demand an explanation from the chief clerk William Sutter, why there is no signed order from justice Thomas. Why there is no signed order from the conference on my prior case Lightfoot v Bowen.
Even though she has legally sworn she never does such a terrible thing.
Taitz posted to her website*:
Today, 07.26.10 at 8:15 PST/11:15 EST I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States, with an employee of the Clerks office by name Eric Fossum. I requested a copy of the order actually signed by Justice Thomas, denyng my application for stay of sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald #10A56.
Mr. Eric Fossum admitted that there is no order actually signed by Justice Thomas. He stated that it was reviewed by his chambers and denied. Not only they are not even claiming that Justice Thomas ever signed the order to deny my application, now they are not even claiming that he ever saw the application, now they are saying that it was reviewed by his chambers, meaning there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed by Justice Thomas himself. So who reviewed it and denied? A clerk? A piece of furniture in the chambers?
There is no order, because an order comes after an application has been referred to, and granted or denied by, the full court–which Justice Thomas did not send and was under no obligation to do, as he was denying her application from the get-go. What Taitz received is a disposition notification letter, the responsibility of the Clerk’s office. Justices do not send disposition notification letters, which have no place on the Orders List, anyhow.
Nevertheless, she has been howling at the moon* ever since.
Does any attorney know of a case where there is a pattern in the Supreme court or any other court, where a case disappears from the docket, somebody deletes it from the docket. Later an entry appears on the docket on the weekend, when judges are not there and clerks are not there, where judges don’t have a clue about the most important case on their docket?
Here it is, Orly, the not-disappeared, not-most important case on their docket. (You have to search for the correct case number.)
I highlighted the part, where it says, that the Justice denying the application will note the denial thereon. Do you see, that it says that the justice needs to note the denial, not some faceless clerk. My application was never denied, since there is no signature from Justice Thomas, there was only a docket entry made by the clerk on Saturday the 17th, when the court was closed, Justice Thomas was in Utah, and it was backdated the 15th, even though there was no such notation on Friday, July the 16th and it is not noted on the log. We downloaded the log, it is missing. There has to be a criminal investigation of what is going on. Can you help me reach the Civil rights commission, the department of Justice public integrity unit and your congressmen and senators.
All of this for $20,000 she probably has for walking around money.
But it seems our Lady of Liberty is driving these poor clerks past all forbearance:
In regards to my Application for stay, I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court. One of the clerks, who refused to give out his name, stated that the clerk for the stays, Danny Bickel, is too busy and can’t talk to me, but that he is returning my application sent to Justice Alito without docketing it and without giving it to Alito. I asked, why. This is totally against the rules, as one can resubmit the application, if one justice denies it. Theoretically I can resubmit it 9 times. The clerk refused to give me any answer and slammed the phone in my face.
As she grows more and more extreme in advocating sedition and violence:
It is frightening that the courts are so obviously in Obama’s corner. Was there a payoff, a threat or a promise from Obama to the courts? It’s hard to determine until we have a Conservative majority in the House and the Senate. When we do, the Senators and Congressmen, MUST pursue the truth no matter where and to whom it may lead.
As for guns, etc. if it comes to that, then I have no guilt. I and millions of us did not start this, but we are going to finish it. God help us and hopefully we won’t ever have to come to that conclusion.
The Supreme Court generally waits for a Federal District or local Bar to disbar or suspend a lawyer, before they disbar the lawyer from practice before SCOTUS, but maybe that’s just when they want to be polite?
Update: Alan Riquelmy of the Ledger-Enquirer has a new piece up today. In it, he hears from an experienced attorney in Georgia, the location of the original case, Rhodes v. MacDonald:
Columbus attorney William Mason, who taught law at Columbus State University, said Taitz raises issues that someone would bring up in a writ of certiorari. To Mason, “writ of certiorari” is the key component. Taitz’s filing is an application for stay. …
A request for stay is done under extraordinary circumstances once a case has been appealed properly by filing a writ of certiorari, which hasn’t happened. If it had, the issue should have been whether the court could sanction her $20,000. Instead, Mason said, Taitz appears to challenge the underlying argument that Obama can’t legitimately be president.
“There’s no logical way to address what she’s doing,” he said. “I have written certs to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not how you do it.”
Putting the horse before the cart is normal for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has no business being a lawyer in the first place. She just can’t be bothered with proper legal procedure, professional behavior or respect for the highest court in the land. She should be disbarred; should have been a long time ago.
Riquelmy also reports:
Taitz said she’s received a letter from a Georgia U.S. attorney asking if she would pay the money.
She replied that she’s chosen to exercise her rights to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Stop wasting everybody’s time, Orly, and pay up.
Update 7.31: Somewhere still in the Pennsylvania courts, packing for California, court personnel in Liberi v. Taitz don’t escape her wrath:
Due to the great importance of this matter, and fraud being perpetrated on the US District Court as well as the Court of Appeals, and due to the fact that the plaintiff here Lisa Liberi is currrently on probation in the state of CA as a result of 10 felony convictions of forgery, forgery of an official seal and grand theft, this motion is addressed to the presiding judge The Hon Eduardo Robreno; as well as the Chief Judge of US District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania The Hon Harvey Bartle, III; and the Chief Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The Hon Randall Ray Rader. It is cc-ed to the Public Integrity Unit ofthe Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Commission in Washington DC, the PA State Bar, the Philadelphia DA, Audrey B. Collins.. the Chief Judge of the Central District of CA, Judge David O. Carter Central District of CA, San Bernardino County, the California Probation Department, and the San Bernardino County District Attorney James Secord …
It is a known fact that FBI, Department of Justice use convicted criminals as informers and agitators. Recent trial of talk show host Hal Turner gave public a glimpse of how “patriot” leaders are used as informers and agitators. Is this a situation where criminals are brazen because they know they have a back and they will not be convicted, no matter how much fraud on the court they commit, how much perjury or forgery do they commit? Taitz is requesting clarification from the court, whether indeed the court is aware of any special informer status with the department of Justice given to the plaintiffs and Berg? The defendants are requesting a clarification, if there is a “back” for Liberi and/or Berg and other defendants represented by someone in the court? … Taitz requests clarification, whether there is a individual(s) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is (are) providing a “back” to Berg, Liberi and the rest of the plaintiffs by manipulating the docket and undermining the defendants.
She always forgets about the three felons she invited into her own cases. What a hypocrite.
07/29/2010 136 RESPONSE to the 7/26/10 Emergency MOTION by the plffs to keep transcripts under seal and motion for clarification and motion-reuqest for oer to show cause, why sanctions should not be assessed against parties defrauding the courts, etc., filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(gn, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
In Liberi v. Taitz. It’s 40 pages, but half that is exhibits.
07/27/2010 Open Document ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction, for reimbursement of appeal fees, for attorney fees, to award costs, for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Certificate of Service dated 07/27/2010. (PJB)
Berg refers to a pretty wild letter faxed to the court in June by Linda Sue Belcher, one of the defendants and a former ally of his gone over to Taitz, which he accuses Orly Taitz and Pamela Barnett of having instigated.
Not a long life for this one, originally filed in February 2010, in the US District Court, Central District of California.
07/20/2010 20 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Gary A. Feess: The Court GRANTS the President’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing, and the action is hereby DISMISSED, (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (bp) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
07/12/2010 15 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case 13 filed by Plaintiff Ruth Jones. (rrey) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
Her story:
The Court is mandated by jurisdiction and review by the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution Article IV. “The Defendant’s birth father was born into Kenya’s Luo tribe”. This court is mandated by the Supreme Law which states the Judicial Court must enforce and protect the U.S. Constitution. This Honorable Court has taken an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
As a result, the onslaught of the destruction of the United States has been continuing to rain upon the head of the Plaintiff faster than rain. Only this Court may stop this bleeding of the aorta and all its arteries throughout the United States; only this court has the Judicial Power invested in it by the U.S. Constitution to uphold the laws and the Supreme Laws of Plaintiffs great nation.
She was deprived of right to have a President who had full allegiance to the Plaintiff as her President of her country.
This is an outward show of allegiance to the enemy and terrorist; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution which correlates his fathers non- American birth heritage.
The acts of allegiance to the foreign countries made the Plaintiff fearful for her safety and the coming Marshall Law through FEMA to take over the people.
The remedy the Plaintiff has requests is to remove the Defendant as the presumed president who is Illegitimate and a usurper as well; then every law and appointment made as a result of him will be null and void up through a new president being elected. The current V. President would be sworn in immediately as he too must hold the same qualifications. This is providing the Plaintiff with remedy that will address her harm.
First, the Defendant’s father, by his own admission to millions of people, was born in Kenya, Africa. The Defendant can not be a “natural born” citizen if his father was born of the Lau tribe in Africa.
Concluding:
The Plaintiff has pleaded a Constitutional controversy with an adversary Defendant for a real in fact traceable direct injury of which her requested remedy will cure. The controversy of the “natural born” threshold status comes from the Constitution; not from any political question. According to our first Justice John Jay, is has been just a matter of time until if was ripe. Now, it will always be a threat with so many non-citizens coming into the United States of America.
Sometimes I find it hard to get mad about even this kind of racist crap, because I think, what a terrified person; and I get madder at the Birther leaders and extremist conservative politicians, bloggers and media who get their kicks deluding poor souls like Ruth Jones.
With this dismissal, there are no longer Birther cases pending in any district courts in the country.
On Politijab, we’ve been entertaining ourselves with a little contest: “The Stoopidest Thing Taitz Has Ever Done.”
I thought sure it had to be the time she went to the LGBT center to find out how to file nomination papers for the Republican Primary for California Secretary of State. But it was a tough choice. There was that affidavit about Judge Clay Land conspiring against her with Attorney-General Eric Holder in a coffee shop in Georgia. Announcing on September 12, 2009 that she’d have Obama out of office in 30 days. Instead of showing cause why she shouldn’t be sanctioned, showing cause why the sanction should be doubled. Claiming the President stole the Social Security number of a 109-year old dead man in Connecticut. Or that time she took two planes and drove a hundred or something miles to crash a speaking event in Idaho of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, leaving behind a suitcase full of Birfoonery, as she was hustled out the door. Filing not one, but two different Fake Kenyan Birth Certificates in courts in several states. Being the Jew at gun shows, hanging out with Nazis. There was the sex in the dental chair affidavit. The forgery trial in Florida when her ex-lover swore to their affair under oath, which she thought was “immaterial.” Or the one about the Pancake Painter and her vagina. I mean, where do you stop?
But leave it to Orly, bless her heart, she stopped it for us.
This right here has taken the cake, the pie, and the jelly roll.
TAITZ CALLS FOR SCOTUS TO ALLOW HER TO INVESTIGATE SCOTUS
REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas
1 On July 8 2010 Application for stay of sanctions 10A524 was docketed with the Supreme Court and addressed to Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.
2. On July 16, Friday 2010, around 9PM EST Applicant Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq (hereinafter Taitz) checked the electronic docket of the Supreme court, it showed no answer from Clarence Thomas.
3. On the same day Taitz has issued a press release, stating that there is no answer from Justice Thomas. Above press release was sent to some 28,000 media outlets and some 300,000 individuals.
4. On Saturday July 17, 2010 Taitz started getting comments on her website from some Obama supporters gloating about the fact that Justice Thomas dismissed her application. Originally, Taitz dismissed those as a dumb joke, but as those comments continued, she checked the electronic docket of the Supreme Court and to her amazement found, that somebody made a new entry on Saturday July 17, 2010, and backdated it for Thursday the 15th of July, stating that Justice Thomas dismissed her application.
Hahaha. The docket number was 10A56, you numbskull.
Points and authorities
Taitz cannot provide any points and authorities, as nothing like that ever happened in the Supreme Court and Taitz is requesting your Honor to review the above Motion as the matter of first impression.
Oh, dear God, help me stop laughing.
Relief requested
1. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date) and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify, that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3. Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket.
She’s copied half the goddamn United Nations, in case they want a peek into SCOTUS’s computer system, too, must be.
The automated docket system is the Court’s case tracking system. It contains information about cases, both pending and decided. The docket provided on this page contains information regarding the status of cases for both the current Term and the prior Term. … Information on the docket is updated on the day after an entry is made on the docket.
By any name, another fail, at the Supreme Court of California.
DOCKET:
Docket (Register of Actions)
TAITZ v. BOWEN (DUNN)
Case Number S184384 Date Description Notes
07/14/2010 Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filed Petitioner: Taitz, Ortiz, Dr.
07/14/2010 Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition & stay)
07/15/2010 Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition & application for stay denied
PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS:
TAITZ v. BOWEN (DUNN)
Case Number S184384 Party Attorney
Taitz, Ortiz : Petitioner
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margari, CA 92688
Bowen, Debra : Respondent
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 94244
Dunn, Damon : Real Party in Interest
10135 Gate Pkwy N. # 1111
Jacksonville, FL 32246
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is almost certain to shop for another Justice, but her first shot at getting SCOTUS to protect her from having to pay the $20,000 she owes American taxpayers is a fail. So what else is new?
No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
In the US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
07/14/2010 133 ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT TAITZ’S MOTION TO UNSEAL THE TRANSCRIPTS (DOC. NO. 128) IS DENIED. THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ARE NOT SEALED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT TAITZ’S MOTION TO STAY THE TRANSFER (DOC. NO. 128) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/13/2010.7/15/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(amas) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Taitz’s motion to unseal the transcripts (doc. no. 128) is DENIED. The hearing transcripts are not sealed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Taitz’s motion to stay the transfer (doc. no. 128) is DENIED. The Court issued a rule to show cause as to why the case should not be severed and transferred, and thereafter ruled to sever and transfer the case under applicable law. All of Defendant Taitz’s other arguments are frivolous.
Formerly captioned Rhodes v. MacDonald. Justice Thomas can deny it or send it to the full court for conference to deny it, but deny it SCOTUS is all but sure to do. This will be portrayed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. and her damned fool followers as treason.
DR. ORLY TAITZ continues to lead the way in exposing that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and is now helping LT. COL. DR. TERRY LAKIN, a 13 year veteran and his refusal to deploy to the Middle East until Obama shows his real birth certificate – and not that Hawaiian certificate of live birth.
The Power Hour with Joyce Riley” is a three-hour syndicated radio broadcast Monday through Friday, 7-10 AM CST.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has made his views known on the Birther controversy: He supports lawsuits to force President Obama to produce his birth certificate.
“I personally don’t have standing to bring litigation in court,” Vitter said. “But I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court. I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it.”
Damon Dunn beat Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. 3-1 in the Republican primary for California Secretary of State, but we can pretend he didn’t, in order to fully appreciate this transcript, courtesy of Friends of Politijab, of the emergency ex-parte hearing in California Superior Court on July 1, in Orange County, when a third attempt by her to stop certification of his election was denied.
The county elections offices were to submit their final official results to the Secretary of State’s office by July 9, 2010. Secretary of State Debra Bowen will certify the elections on July 16.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. did not make a good first impression on Judge Geoffrey Glass and received an ongoing lecture from the judge on adhering to state rules, properly serving notice and citing case law. For only one of several examples, she neglected, as she very often does, to fill in her California Bar Number, which is required by the rules.
THE COURT: BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT I WOULD REPORT ANY ACTIVITIES OF A BAR MEMBER TO THE STATE BAR.
Words to make her blood run cold.
It went pretty much this way, though, all the way through:
MS. TAITZ: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, YOUR HONOR. LET’S FIND A SOLUTION. CLEARLY, YOU WOULDN’T WANT SOMEBODY COMMITTING FRAUD AND CERTIFIED AS A WINNER OF THE ELECTION. SO I THINK WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
THE COURT: NO, MS. TAITZ, WE’RE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE.
And it ended badly:
MS. TAITZ: MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR? YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND TO THIS?
THE COURT: NO. I’VE RULED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
In between times, it might, I say might, have gotten through the thick skull of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. that to stop the vote certification in all 50 counties of California, as she wanted (but didn’t have the sense to ask for in her brief), it would have been a mite helpful to her case to sue the county Registrars of Voters, or the Secretary of State, rather than suing Damon Dunn, who couldn’t, even if he went temporarily insane and wanted to, stop his own election from being certified.
MS. TAITZ: WELL, NOW IT IS ABOUT A HALF A MILLION VOTES.
THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, THAT HAS CHANGED, THEN. I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW. WHAT IF THE REGISTRARS — WHAT IF, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY SAY YOU WIN?
MS. TAITZ: NO, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Interesting admission, since she’s been insisting all along the opposite.
THE COURT: WELL, THEN, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF I HOLD UP THE CERTIFICATION OR NOT?
MS. TAITZ: BECAUSE THE VOTES — EVEN THOUGH MR. DUNN GOT MORE VOTES, THOSE VOTES WERE OBTAINED BY VIRTUE OF FRAUD –
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I DON’T THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOUR LAWSUIT TO — IN EITHER CASE, I HAVE TO SAY THE VOTES DIDN’T COUNT. SO WHETHER THE — BECAUSE HE IS NOT ACTUALLY ELECTED TO AN OFFICE. ALL HE IS ENTITLED TO DO IS RUN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
SO I AM NOT — IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF HIM GETTING AN OFFICE. IT IS HIM HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR AN OFFICE. AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT CHANGES IF I LET THE CERTIFICATION GO THROUGH?
MS. TAITZ: IF I MAY EXPLAIN, I AM THE CONTENDER OF — I AM THE OPPONENT OF MR. DUNN. IF THE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED, THEN I WILL BE PREVENTED FROM PUTTING MY NAME ON THE BALLOT AS A CANDIDATE. I CANNOT PUT MY STATEMENT. I CANNOT PUT MY — MY NAME WILL NOT BE ON THE BALLOT. AND THEREFORE, VOTERS –
THE COURT: I AM SORRY. THEREFORE, VOTERS WILL WHAT?
MS. TAITZ: WILL BE PREVENTED FROM VOTING IN GENERAL ELECTION FOR A QUALIFIED CANDIDATE, WHICH WOULD BE ME.
So, Judge Glass burst one of Orly’s fondest bubbles here, informing her that even if Dunn were to be disqualified, she would not by default be the Republican candidate on November’s ballot, as anyone qualified to be Secretary of State would have known.
THE COURT: HOLD ON A SECOND. IF I WERE TO SAY TO ALL THE REGISTRARS DO NOT COUNT THE VOTES IN THIS — DO NOT CERTIFY THE VOTES IN THIS ELECTION, HOW WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE GENERAL ELECTION? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? THERE WOULD BE NO CANDIDATE, PERIOD.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO — THE ELECTION IS SUSPENDED. THERE IS NO WINNER FOR THE ELECTION. AND UNTIL WE DECIDE — UNTIL WE DECIDE WHETHER THE ELECTION — WHETHER THE ELECTION — THE VOTING SHOULD BE ANNULLED OR NOT. SO YOUR BASIS FOR SAYING YOU WANT TO HOLD UP THE REGISTRATION IS SO THAT THE VOTERS KNOW THAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE A CANDIDATE. BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE RELIEF. THE RELIEF IS NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE BALLOT. …
THE COURT: THE LAW WITH REGARD TO THIS IS CLEAR. IT IS WRONG IF I WERE TO SAY MR. DUNN — THE VOTES FOR MR. DUNN DON’T COUNT. I DON’T GIVE THE ELECTION TO YOU. IT IS A NEW ELECTION.
The transcript ends with the ruling, but following that, I understand from a reliable source, who witnessed the event, he walked off the bench, headed to his chambers, with her still hollering after him to the effect of, LET ME FINISH!!!
In the unlikely event this case, kept alive at this point (mainly to forestall Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s paying the $20,000 she owes American taxpayers), ever reached the Supreme Court, given Mrs. Justice Thomas’s winger activities of late, would Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself?
March 13, 2009 – Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. “flew and drove thousands of miles” to Moscow, Idaho to deliver a suitcase of Birther documents to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, where he was delivering a speech. She informed him there was “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States.” That would be the same Justice Roberts who delivered the Oath of Office (twice) to the POTUS when came “The Day That Would Never Come.”
Chief Justice Roberts, more likely his staff, probably had a good laugh about the crazy peroxide blond in Idaho that time with her suitcase, but nothing ever came of it. Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has now submitted directly to Justice Thomas, according to her*, an “APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions”–he is justice in charge of the 11th Circuit, so it is certainly proper, unlike accosting a Supreme Court Justice with a suitcase. Nevertheless, I wonder if she is perhaps thinking she might have an ally in Justice Thomas’s wife.
Taitz posted to Virginia Thomas’s website for the mysteriously funded Liberty Central, (which benefited financially from Justice Thomas’s vote in the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission).
orly taitz
Member
I am a Constitutional attorney and need to talk to a staff member, please call me at 949-683-5411
Posted 5 days ago
Obviously this says nothing about Mrs. Thomas–who earlier in his tenure had given up conservative activism for fear of causing a conflict of interest for her husband–or any Birther proclivities she may or may not have, and there is nothing to say the return call was ever made. While I doubt Justice Thomas would recuse himself over this, it is the lost mind of Orly Taitz we concern ourselves with, and it does point to an improper attempt by an attorney to make indirect contact with the Justice who would be receiving her petition to SCOTUS. Thomas, if he felt any conflict over Taitz’s behavior–say if it turned out his wife or her staff did call Orly Taitz and were foolish enough to discuss this with her–could simply turn the whole thing over to another Justice of the court to handle, just for appearances sake.
This can’t be what Taitz wants, but she seems to be doing her damnedest to make it happen.
Seriously, yesterday she posted to her blog, concerning a videotape in which Thomas is joking around, as he does year after year after year, with Rep. Jose Serrano about the status of Puerto Rico, for crissake:
Justice Clarence Thomas at Congressional committee hearing is stating that the Supreme Court is evading the Eligibility issue.
Posted on | July 8, 2010 | No Comments
Taitz, of course, hasn’t met a judge yet she thinks should not recuse himself. (Serving Elena Kagan with a copy of this POS, in fact, Taitz in her petition then says Kagan should recuse herself, in the event she becomes a Supreme Court Justice.)
In the petition, she lambastes Federal Judge Clay D. Land in Georgia, who dismissed Rhodes v. MacDonald before levying the sanctions, insisting he should have recused himself when she asked him to.
October 13, 2009 – Having threatened sanctions on Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of $10,000 for misconduct in Rhodes v. MacDonald in September, Judge Clay D. Land doubled it to $20,000, after she filed to have him recused and the case reconsidered, when she was supposed to respond to a Show Cause Order for the first $10,000.
But Orly was afraid Judge Land might be, horrors, “impartial,” according to this SCOTUS filing:
When there was a clear indication of bias and Taitz requested recusal of Land, it was his duty to avoid impartiality or even appearance of impartiality and recuse himself.
Haha. We can’t have that.
She is really going after Judge Land here, too:
While Taitz appreciates Land’s fondness of Lewis Carroll, it is really important for Land to wake up from his slumber and sweet dreams about Alice in Wonderland and appreciate the fact that US military did not fall in the rabbit hole and is not looking for an adventure, but is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting real Radical Muslim Terrorists, and it is important for the military officers, as well as the whole nation to know if the Commander in Chief is Legitimate, and where does his allegiance lie. While citizens of this country do not expect Caroll’s mathematical abilities to be exhibited on the bench, never the less, they do expect more than the Lilliput deductive reasoning and legal analysis…
She compares the American justice system to that of the Soviets:
Taitz was born and raised in the Communist totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, where no one single attorney was ever able to get a judgment against the Soviet Rulers and the regime. No Constitutional attorney was able to uphold any Constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, as those rights were routinely violated by the regime and the judiciary. It didn’t mean that the legal actions by the Constitutional attorneys were frivolous. It simply meant that the whole country descended in the darkness of tyranny. Similarly, allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?” This is the most dangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and not having a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.
And imposes more of her personal psychodrama to justify her paper terrorism:
Judge Land has stated that Taitz has resorted to political rhetoric. In reality, as the pleadings and transcripts have shown, Taitz has provided the court with the reasonable examples of members of the military following illegal orders. Taitz has provided the court with the example of three children, members of her husband’s family, who were killed in the Holocaust, when Nazi officers told these three young kids to dig their own graves, shot them and threw them into those graves. Judge Land called those statements “political rhetoric”, even though those were appropriate examples of consequences of members of the military following unlawful orders.
But our Orly is so brave:
If during the career of Thurgood Marshal, he would’ve encountered a judge like Clay D. Land, who would’ve fined him $20,000 for trying to protect the citizens’ constitutional rights, this would have put a stop to the civil right movement of the 50s and the 60s. Attorneys would have been scared, intimidated to represent the citizens who were trying to uphold their constitutional rights and someone like Barack Obama would have no chance of ever being anywhere near the ballot.
When she isn’t crying over Judge Land calling a Birther a Birther:
The decision and order by Judge Land shows clear bias. Judge Land has used a pejorative term “birther”, describing Taitz as the leader of the “birther” movement. It is not only not justified, but totally despicable that a Federal judge would use the technique of Saul Alinsky in trying to insult, assault and marginalize an attorney. Land used his color of authority to attack Taitz personally and, as one fighting for verification of eligibility.
And an eccentric an eccentric:
Land acted in a fashion unbecoming a judge, when he rudely tried to ridicule Taitz and assassinate her character. One of his statements was “perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the court should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.” Clearly there is a huge difference between actions of some eccentric person and attorney like Taitz bringing affidavits from licensed investigators and experts.” Affairs like Water –gate did not go unpunished. Obama-gate will not go unpunished. Land rudely called Taitz effords “antics”. In reality judge Land’s actions were antics. Massive fraud of American citizens perpetrated by Obama will be punished and history will not look kindly on judge Land’s antics and on any other judge who was aiding and abetting Obama’s massive fraud.
If Taitz thinks Judge Land disrespected her, I don’t know what she calls this:
Let’s imagine for a moment that someone, a janitor, decides to play a prank. He puts on a black robe and sits on the bench and signs an order for an officer to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, let’s say he signs such order when judge Land is on a bathroom brake. Say, such officer brings a complaint, that the order was illegal. Does it mean, that if the order seems to be legal on it’s face, it is actually legal, regardless of whether the person, who signed it, is actually a judge or a janitor playing a prank? Does an attorney for such officer supposed to be sanctioned $20,000 for merely bringing the claim to court and asking to evaluate it’s validity?
Or this:
Additionally Land assessed costs of litigation against the client. He never revealed, what was the amount of the costs and there is no record of Capt Rhodes ever paying those costs, so it was clear that a deal was made, whereby if Capt Rhodes decides not to pursue the appeal and if she dismisses Taitz as her counsel, costs against Cpt. Rhodes would be waived by Land and/or military. Not only this issue of costs showed bias against Taitz, and reason for disqualification under 28 USC §455 (a), it needs to be investigated by an independent counsel for purpose of Judicial Misconduct by Judge Land and violation of Taitz civil rights under the color of authority by Judge Land.
Accusing a Federal judge of collusion with, not only the Defense, but with her own client–that’s gotta go over well–but the truth is, as Orly Taitz knows as well as anyone, Capt. Rhodes fired her ass, having nothing to do with costs, but for her “reprehensible” and “unprofessional” conduct of the case. If Taitz had her way, then, Connie Rhodes, just returning from her tour in Iraq, would face an investigation brought about by a slander of her committed by her own attorney.
Taitz even threatens SCOTUS itself with felonies:
The fact that Judge Land refused to review any evidence, and attempted to intimidate Taitz with sanctions, assassinate her character and endanger her law license, means that he intentionally used his authority to aid and abet those crimes. If this court does not reverse such sanctions and does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.
Here is a laugh and a half, though, coming from her:
The whole world is looking at the United States in complete bewilderment, not understanding what mental disorder has afflicted US judges and US attorneys and other officials in allowing such insanity to go on for a year and a half now.
And blah, blah, blah, pancakes, for 26-50 pages, depending on format, which Jack Ryan Scribd has been kind enough to post, so nobody has to visit her malware-ridden website* to read it.
She already has the full brief on special!
Full brief with attachments is about 300 pages. We can have it copied, made in a book form, autographed and mailed to you for a minimum donation of a $100 or more. It will help cover our costs and fees and will help Dr. Taitz to continue fighting for your freedoms and for your children’s future.
Heh heh.
# Old Man
July 8th, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Lady Liberty, I want to buy ten copies for the Republican club at my retirement community. I read your blog posts to them every week and they love you. Can you give me a bulk discount?
# dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 8th, 2010 @ 10:51 am
yes, 10% discount for 10 books
The crux of the matter is she doesn’t want to spring for the $20,000:
Sanctions assessed by Land constitute an irreparable harm to Taitz. Land not only assessed sanctions against Taitz and verbally assaulted and insulted her, but he also submitted his order to the CA bar with the clear intent to undermine her law license and take her livelihood away from her. If sanctions are not stayed and reversed, there will be an irreparable harm to the professional license of Taitz and her ability to earn livelihood.
What livelihood is that? Has she ever had a paying client?
October 4, 2009 – Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. submits an unauthenticated affidavit in Rhodes v. MacDonald by a Birther who swears he saw AG Eric Holder in a coffee shop in Columbus, Georgia; of course, there to pressure Judge Clay Land, who had never met the man in his life. This was supposed to have happened during a hearing on Cook v. Good, on a day Holder was in Los Angeles promoting the Recovery Act.
The Coffee Shop Affidavit made a fresh appearance on Taitz’s website* this week, shortly before joining the SCOTUS appeal, and she had this to say about it:
2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 7th, 2010 @ 6:41 am
This statement is not brought to show that Holder was definitely there, but there was a possibility, this man provided me with an affidavit, I had to submit it to court. Judge Land already used inappropriate language and remarks, he showed himself to be biased, it was his duty to recuse himself, yet he didn’t.
It was her duty as an attorney and officer of the court to substantiate that charge before frivolously filing the affidavit; that’s what Orly Taitz had to do and didn’t do. Judge Land, who should know, stated that he has never met the AG Holder, so there was no “possibility”; besides, Holder was covered by the media in Los Angeles that day. Why on earth would anyone expect a judge to recuse himself over common Birfer gossip he knows for himself is untrue?
And yet, here is false evidence being filed, again, this time with a petition to SCOTUS. Irreparable harm to the professional license of Orly Taitz? One can only hope the California Bar Association will wake the fuck up one of these days.
Gary Kreep has become too ill, following back surgery, to take care of business and is replaced, for the time being, by Christopher P. Tucker, also associated with the United States Justice Foundation. I hope Gary Kreep has a good recovery.
Tucker has applied for an unopposed extension for opening brief to August 12.
07/06/2010 13 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Christopher P. Tucker for Appellants Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson in 09-56827. Date of service: 07/06/2010. [7394918] [09-56827, 10-55084] (CT)
07/06/2010 14 Filed (ECF) Appellants Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson in 09-56827 Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 08/12/2010 at 05:00 pm. Date of service: 07/06/2010. [7394933] [09-56827, 10-55084] (GGK)
This is the California case where Kreep and Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. engaged in a months long battle over plaintiffs Drake and Robinson. After the case was dismissed by 9th Circuit Judge David O. Carter, Kreep filed for an appeal for his two clients. Taitz took her time about it, filing insane motion after insane motion, but she eventually also filed an appeal for hers, which was then consolidated with Kreep’s, although Kreep wanted the two severed.
Christopher P. Tucker is a little new at the game. A graduate of Trinity Law School, he is a member of the California Bar for only six months.
Bar Number 265671
Address United States Justice Foundation
932 D St Ste 2
Ramona, CA 92065 Phone Number (760) 788-6624
Fax Number (760) 788-6414
e-mail
District District 9 Undergraduate School Fort Hays State Univ; Hays KS
County San Diego
Law School Trinity Law School; Santa Ana CA
Sections None
Status History
Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
12/1/2009 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Trinity Law School champions a Christian theory of jurisprudence in the marketplace of ideas and equips students to effectively articulate a biblical view of human law and government, for the benefit of Christ’s church and our neighbors, as lawyers, scholars, public servants, statesmen and stateswomen, non-governmental organization leaders, teachers, and other advocates.
Veteran Republican slime-slinger and Birther Floyd Brown hosts on one of his Impeach Obama websites a memorandum from Christopher Tucker to Gary Kreep re: The Potential Criminal Liability of Barack Obama.
In spite of Sharon Meroni’s hopes for 32 separate hearings in her shenanigans coming up today with the Illinois State Elections Board, (at 2 PM CDT in Room 9-040 in the James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph, Chicago, IL, if you can make it), her 32 challenges to candidates’ eligibility have been consolidated under a single Hearing Officer named Ken Menzel. This should make swift work of what has to be one of the silliest Birther gambits evah.
Illinois law requires a declaration from candidates for public office to accompany nomination certification by a political party or signed petitions in the case of an independent candidate.
I,…., being first duly sworn, say that I reside at…. street, in the city (or village) of…. in the county of…. State of Illinois; and that I am a qualified voter therein; that I am a candidate for election to the office of…. to be voted upon at the election to be held on the…. day of….,…..; and that I am legally qualified to hold such office and that I have filed (or will file before the close of the petition filing period) a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, and I hereby request that my name be printed upon the official ballot for election to such office.
There is also an optional loyalty oath which may be submitted with the candidate statement:
I, ________________________________________, do swear (or affirm) that I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois, that I am not affiliated directly or indirectly with any communist organization or any communist front organization, or any foreign political agency, party, organization or government which advocates the overthrow of constitutional government by force or other means not permitted under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this State; that I do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means.
And that’s it. (Chalice, of course, advocates the overthrow of the US government every other day, but her own hypocrisy escapes her always.)
To change the procedure, you have to get the election law changed, but rather than do the hard work that would take, Chalice chooses to believe, with no legal basis whatsoever, that she can assert her preferences on everyone else, just because they are her preferences, and she can demand that candidates prove to her personal satisfaction that they are US citizens eligible for public office. Nothing but a “raised seal” birth certificate will do for Chalice.
She has now, with her grandiose sense of her own importance, had the nerve to send letters, improperly I would think, to the candidates she’s challenged, letting them off the hook if they do what she wants. Or she will continue to to harass them, I guess.
I am offering to each candidate I challenged that if you would add either a raised seal birth certificate or US Naturalization papers to your nomination papers for public access, and post a photographic link on your website – Then I will gladly withdraw my objection to your nomination papers.
It is not my intention to frustrate the process of ballot placement. I simply wish assurances my ballot has constitutionally eligible candidates on it.
I ask you, at this point- to please assist me in securing assurances that all candidates on my 2010 November ballot are constitutionally eligible by adding to your nomination papers a raised seal birth certificate and/or naturalization papers. In addition, I believe the public interest is served if you would also link to the same documents at your campaign website.
This is all in aid of eventually having President Obama prove his eligibility to the satisfaction of Chalice/Sharon Meroni in 2012, before he can appear on an Illinois ballot. But what she fails to grasp is, and it is the same for the Illinois candidates, the burden is on her to prove their ineligibility, not on them to prove their eligibility.
With regard to the substance of the objections, generally the objector must bear the burden of proving by operation of law and by a preponderance of the relevant and admissible evidence (“the burden of proof”) that the objections are true and that the candidate’s nomination papers are invalid.
I haven’t much kept up with this case since last December, when a Jeep dealer on Long Island NY, inexplicably, picked two Birther lawyers to represent him and other car dealers against Chrysler over closed dealerships. The latest developments are confusing, to say the least.
The original claim, as far as the Birther lawyers are concerned, as I understood it, began as a request for reconsideration of an earlier suit, and was expected to somehow lead to discovery of Obama’s birth certificate in a quo warranto segment, but that seems to have gotten lost along the way.
Car dealer James Anderer, who initially hired Stephen Pidgeon and Leo Donofrio, was lead plaintiff in P&D’s later suit against what is called “Old Chrysler” involving, supposedly, “hundreds” of dealers. The reconsideration was Denied in February by the US Bankruptcy Court and Appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
But Anderer and another dealer recently engaged a different law firm and made a settlement with “New Chrysler” through arbitration, apparently, at first, without the knowledge of and subsequently against the advice of Pidgeon & Donofrio. So now there are charges and counter-charges flying in all directions, as Stephen Pidgeon says his firm is entitled to part of the settlement and attempts to withdraw as counsel–while dangerously disclosing attorney-client communications–to Anderer and a second car dealer, John Hine, to which Anderer objects, because he wants to stay in their case, too, (I think).
As I said, confusing. But if you feel like puzzling it out this holiday, it’s all here:
06/30/2010 26 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen Pidgeon in Support re: 25 SECOND MOTION for Stephen Pidgeon to Withdraw as Attorney for John Hine Pontiac and Island Jeep Inc… Document filed by Alley’s of Kingsport, Inc.. (Pidgeon, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
06/30/2010 25 [RECAP] SECOND MOTION for Stephen Pidgeon to Withdraw as Attorney for John Hine Pontiac and Island Jeep Inc.. Document filed by John Hine Pontiac Mazda Dodge. Return Date set for 6/7/2010 at 09:00 AM.(Pidgeon, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
06/30/2010 24 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen Pidgeon in Support re: 21[RECAP] FIRST MOTION to Withdraw John Hine Pontiac as party/counsel for John Hine Pontiac and Island Jeep.. Document filed by John Hine Pontiac Mazda Dodge. (Pidgeon, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
06/29/2010 23 AFFIDAVIT of James Anderer in Opposition re: 21[RECAP] FIRST MOTION to Withdraw John Hine Pontiac as party/counsel for John Hine Pontiac and Island Jeep.. Document filed by Island Jeep Incorporated. (Blatt, Steven) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
06/29/2010 22 DECLARATION of Declaration of John Gentile, Esq. in Opposition re: 21[RECAP] FIRST MOTION to Withdraw John Hine Pontiac as party/counsel for John Hine Pontiac and Island Jeep.. Document filed by Island Jeep Incorporated. (Blatt, Steven) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
In the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of New Jersey, Kerchner and friends hit with costs, the case ruled “frivolous” and a panel of judges not happy with Mario Apuzzo:
JUDGMENT
This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 29, 2010.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 21, 2009, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.
This turned out, as expected, to be very much about Berg v. Obama.
The District Court concluded that Appellants lacked Article III standing. See Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 2 477, 479 (D.N.J. 2009). We agree. It is axiomatic that standing to sue is a prerequisite to Article III jurisdiction. … “An ‘injury in fact’ is ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 239 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).
The appeal in Berg presented us with a claim similar to the one here, in which the plaintiff challenged President-elect Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President. The district court in that case dismissed the suit on standing grounds because “the alleged harm to voters like [the Plaintiff] stemming from [Obama’s] failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized …. Just like the plaintiff in Berg, Appellants’ alleged injuries are too generalized to be cognizable in Article III courts. As the District Court found, the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” precludes claims based on “harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people.” …
Uh oh.
In the past, “we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants’ claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous. We therefore will order Appellants’ counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
Footnote:
We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client . . . .”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.
From Friends of Politijab, a summary of what took place at a hearing in the Superior Court of California in Orange County yesterday:
The ex parte application for expedited trial and stay of election certification in the matter of Taitz v. Dunn was denied.
The court found that Taitz was not entitled to emergency relief because she would be able to challenge the election results after certification. She was not alleging fraud in the certification process itself. Staying the certification was not necessary to her claims and knowing the actual results might be useful in narrowing the issues at trial. If it turned out that she won the primary election, then many claims would be moot, and only her damages claim would go forward.
The judge also found that he did not have jurisdiction to order the registrars of every county to halt the certification process and had no jurisdiction over the Secretary of State either. Only Damon Dunn was name in the complaint.
The judge addressed the merits of the application only after Brian Hildreth, appearing by telephone for Damon Dunn, agreed to proceed despite not having received proper ex parte notice. Taitz filed a declaration of notice but the judge found it inadequate.
He also found her moving papers inadequate in that they did not disclose that this was her third ex parte attempt on this issue. California Rules of Court require a moving party to disclose prior attempts and to explain how new fact or law justifies another attempt.
And the judge noted that the Rules also require California attorneys to put their state bar number on their pleadings. He wasn’t sure if that was required when an attorney was pro se, but he thought that it probably was. He encouraged Taitz to read this and other rules.
Hildreth was ordered to give notice of the results.
Haha. Spencer Kornhaber has had a reaction from Orly.
I was not planning to make a big deal about the next hearing in my case against Dunn, however this Marxist scum from the ultra left yellow gazette OC weekly, Spencer Kornhaber, decided to mount yet another attack on me.
First he posted a picture, where I am unrecognizable, then he called my legitimate legal action against Dunn “a jihad’ and announced to all of those Pro-Obama nutcases that the case will be heard for a motion hearing tomorrow in judge Jeffrey Glass courtroom in Santa Ana Superior court at 9am. He misrepresented the issues as always. it is no pleasure to see those brain dead Obama supporters, who support Dunn because he is a lifelong Democrat and calls Obama his political hero.
Nah. We support Dunn because he’s not you, you dumb cluck.
