Oh, Orly, Just Awesome

 Birthers, Lawsuits, Military, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 262009
 

“This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney,” says a new filing by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. in Rhodes v. MacDonald in Georgia. You know the one that was dismissed with the brightest of judicial flame trails; the one where the Plaintiff, Dr. Connie Rhodes, submitted the notorious Office Max Fax on her way to Iraq, wherein she fired the Birther Queen for filing a Motion to Stay Deployment the day after the case had been dismissed. That would be Document 18, which Orly did her damnedest to behave as if she had heard of only in passing. I guess she is finally admitting the Rhodes letter was not a forgery, eh?

Now Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. announces her intention to break attorney-client privilege. I’ve never heard of this before. I know a client can do it, but an attorney? How Taitz gets to withdraw as counsel from a client who already fired her as counsel is something I don’t understand, as well, but that’s what she’s trying to do.

Highlighting interesting bits:

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client relationship existing between them.

This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.

(Gee, unsigned again.)

Mind you, Document 17 dated September 18, is Judge Clay Land’s denial of the Motion to Stay Deployment Taitz filed on September 17, Document 15.

In Judge Land’s Order to Show Cause:

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.

While the response filed today is supposed to be to the Order to Show Cause why she should not pay the ten thousand bucks for filing a “frivolous” motion, her being fired by Rhodes didn’t enter into that. The Order to Show Cause would have been issued whether Rhodes fired Taitz or not, so I don’t see how anything to do with her being fired by Capt. Rhodes warrants a breakage of the privilege.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is licensed to practice law by the state of California, where Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 says this:

(e)(1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.

Capt. Rhodes may be in a position to file a whopper of a complaint with the California Bar. If she does that, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. may then be in a position to break the privilege in the course of defending herself with the California Bar against some future disciplinary action:

The duty to honor the secrets and confidences of a client also applies to former clients and only the client can release the attorney from this duty. … Privileged communications do not become discoverable solely because they are related to issues raised in litigation. … However, an attorney may divulge confidential client communications as a “self-defense” in actions brought by the client.

Again, today’s response is to Judge Land’s Order to Show Cause should be related to “issues raised in litigation,” which expressly do not cause privileged communication to become discoverable; and not to “actions brought by the client.”

There is subsection (e)(2), which is interesting:

… an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.

Remember, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. always says President Obama is out and about murdering witnesses, so she may think linking Documents 17 and 18, the court sanctions and the Rhodes letter, is going to open up for her another shot at spouting her Birfer cause, or having witnesses do so.

Judge Land has shown himself to be very prompt in his rulings, so we may see very soon what he thinks of this latest tactic.

I am very curious about something regarding a different Birther case, Barnett v. Obama in California. Capt. Rhodes was added as a plaintiff in that case on August 20 when Taitz filed a First Amended Motion for Letters Rogatory and Initiation of Discovery. The last I remember hearing about this, the Motion had been returned to Magistrate Judge Nakazato on September 10, after Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. made a crazy ass attack to have him recused from the case.

Early this week with her Preliminary Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, Taitz filed an Exhibit indicating Rhodes might be called as a witness in Barnett v. Obama. Having already alienated two witnesses, Rhodes would make three.

But Rhodes’s status as a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama has always been unclear to me. As I understand it, you can’t just plop down plaintiffs whenever you feel like it, without formally petitioning the court, and I don’t believe Judge Nakazato has yet ruled on the August 20 Motion, which he has to do before Judge Carter agrees to hear it. But if, for some reason, Rhodes were accepted by the court as a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama, it makes today’s filing in Rhodes v. MacDonald that much more clueless.

Part of me is tempted to say Connie Rhodes gets what she deserves; she did, after all, of her own free will, get herself into this mess. But there’s another part of me that says, Damn Orly Taitz to Hell, a soldier in Iraq has enough to contend with, without this phony baloney maneuver coming at her.

 Posted by at 1:49 pm

Separating Hyped-Up Birther Rubes From Their Money

 Birthers, Bloggers, Lawsuits, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 262009
 

Josh Marshall zeroing in on Gary Kreep:

…The mix of nihilism, know-nothingism and racism fueling the birther movement is shocking to behold. But as to funny or shameful, my only quibble is that I’m not sure we have to choose. And it turns out there’s a third option.

You don’t have to look to hard at the informercial to see that while it may be shameful and it may be funny, it pretty clearly looks like an effort to separate a lot of hyped-up birther rubes from their money, quite possibly to pad the wallets of those in the rube hyping business. First of all, the pitch in the informercial is that for a mere $30 you will receive a birther bumper sticker and your name added to a spam fax sent to the Justice Department and the 50 state attorneys general.

But that’s not the only reason.

The guy at the center of the informercial is a California lawyer named Gary Kreep, the head of something called the United States Justice Foundation. But it turns out this is not the first time TPMmuckraker has come across the work of the aptly named Kreep.

Back in March 2008 we found him running a robocall operation called the Republican Majority Campaign, then running a scattershot campaign of robocalls against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The RMC also seemed awfully similar to and had a lot of weird connections to those bogus groups has-been Republican luminary Linda Chavez and her husband had recently been discovered running — the ones that actually did little to nothing in the way of political work but provided Chavez and her family a steady income.

Here’s our piece on Kreep from March 2008.

 Posted by at 7:09 am

What Orly Taitz Thinks She Understands

 Birthers, Government, Lawsuits, National Security, Right Wing Nutzoids, Truth  Comments Off
Sep 252009
 

Is not what a reasonable person understands. We must always keep this in mind.

It is my understanding that yesterday there was an executive order issued by Obama, whereby release of presidential records will have to be authorised by the attorney general. My feeling is that Obama knows that Judge Carter is not for sale, that the motion to dismiss the complaint will be denied by judge Carter and he is gearing up for the stand of[f].

On his first day in office, January 21, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13489 related to presidential records maintained by the National Archives & Records Agency. The Executive Order, by revoking Executive Order 13233 of President George W. Bush, which limited access to records of former presidents by revoking Executive Order 12667 issued by President Ronald Reagan. That 1989 Executive Order 12667 had been in effect throughout the terms of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. President Obama, with his action, essentially made the records of past presidents easier to access than in the Bush II administration.

Somehow or other, this translated to President Obama “sealing” his own records.

With me so far?

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. now takes that conspiracy and shifts it to a new stage, to suit her paranoid delusions and those of her followers.

Obama Tightens State Secrets Standard: New Policy May Affect Wiretap, Torture Suits

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a new policy making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.

The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to “national defense or foreign relations.” In the past, the claim that state secrets were at risk could be invoked with the approval of one official and by meeting a lower standard of proof that disclosure would be harmful.

That claim was asserted dozens of times during the Bush administration, legal scholars said.

The shift could have a broad effect on many lawsuits, including those filed by alleged victims of torture and electronic surveillance. Authorities have frequently argued that judges should dismiss those cases at the outset to avoid the release of information that could compromise national security.

Not only did the Executive Order in January not “seal” the President’s personal records, it did not affect his own presidential records, one way or another, at least as long as he is in office; it had nothing to do with Birther lawsuits, and made presidential history easier to access. Now there is not even an Executive Order involved that I can see, but a policy change regarding National Security, having nothing to do with Birther lawsuits, having nothing to do with presidential records, which again potentially opens more records that would have been closed without the change.

Either Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. sincerely misunderstands; or her narcissism prevents her from seeing that every damned thing the government does is not about her; or she will stop at nothing to keep her lunatic conspiracy freak Birfer nation on the boil.

Seriously, does anyone, anyone sane, that is, think Judge Carter is going to view a change in state secrets access as a plot against the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama?

 Posted by at 10:38 am

Orly’s Got A New WordPress Theme

 Birthers, Lawsuits, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 242009
 

It looks lovely.

clapping

And in the middle of last night, guess what was filed in Barnett v. Obama? Proof of service to the court!

09/23/2009 71 OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Pamela Barnett, served on 09,23.09.. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

Only two days late, and after the judge already issued one related Order, but, hey, they’re getting there, slowly but surely.

 Posted by at 8:19 am

Poor Hawaii, Getting Sued Again By Birthers

 Birthers, Lawsuits, PUMAs, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 242009
 

A PUMA-Birther known as “MissTickly” or “TerriK,” who has been on a personal quest for Obama’s records in Hawaii, will be represented by Leo Donofrio in a new lawsuit.

On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

TerriK requested all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.

TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.

Section 92F-12(15) of Hawaii’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act: under §92F-12 Disclosure required: Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.

This would mean, so the thinking goes, that by Hawaii state public records law, any documents on file which may be searched by state employees for the purpose of making information available to the general public, must be disclosed upon request. Obama’s birth record, of course, was not collected for that purpose, it was to simply record his birth in 1961. But Donofrio seems to say that the birth record may come automatically attached to the processing of the request for another record. For example, if Obama were legally adopted by his stepfather, as many Birthers claim, but he denies, the birth certificate would have been amended to reflect that change; and someone seeking the adoption record, provided that person had “direct and tangible” interest, might be entitled to the birth record showing the adoption amendment. Or in MissTickly’s case, that which formed the basis for the DOH’s statement that he is a natural born citizen.

But there are exceptions to the Uniform Information Practices Act:

§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:

(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(2) Government records pertaining to the prosecution or defense of any judicial or quasi-judicial action to which the State or any county is or may be a party, to the extent that such records would not be discoverable;

(3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function;

(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure;

[L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §1]

Donofrio is claiming the public interest in government records overrides privacy protection.

But the statute defines what is not a government record this way:

“Personal record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency. It includes, but is not limited to, the individual’s education, financial, medical, or employment history, or items that contain or make reference to the individual’s name, identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.

That’s even before you get to the law on privacy of vital records:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.

There follows a list of those considered to have a direct and tangible interest and MissTickly is not on it, along with the rest of the general public.

While Donofrio’s blog title is, “Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended,” I don’t see where Hawaii has confirmed that anywhere, but Donofrio says he will be releasing all of MissTickly’s communications with the state of Hawaii, which presumably will show something or other.

Assumptions are being made that President Obama’s birth certificate was at some time amended, in some way unknown; by releasing his COLB in 2007, he may have waived his right to privacy; Obama’s request for the COLB is itself a record covered by the Freedom of Information Act; the records Hawaii Department of Health officials accessed in order to confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii are also public information.

All somebody has to do, I guess, according to this thinking, is ask for any public information related to private information, and they get to have the private information they are really looking for; and this gets them around Hawaii’s privacy laws, which the state has relied on throughout this time of legal Birfoonery. If it were that easy, one has to wonder why all of these Birther lawyers needed MissTickly to think of it for them.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., meanwhile, is making public demands of Donofrio:

Important
September 22nd, 2009

Whatever documents I have, I make public immediately. This is important for the whole country. When I got the registrar and hospital birth certificates from Kenya, I made those public. Leo Donofrio claims that he has information from HI, that Obama’s birth certificate was amended. He should make this information public, he needs to post the document with the statement that it is amended together with the declaration of the person, who obtained this record, testifying under penalty of perjury that it is the true and correct copy of the document . It is too important not to be disclosed. We can include it in the second amended complaint.

He obviously intends to take it all public, but she is, after all, Queen of the Birthers: Off with his head. By the way, her threatened Second Amended Complaint was knocked down today by Judge Carter.

 Posted by at 3:34 am

Judge to Orly: No, You May Not File Second Amended Complaint

 Birthers, Lawsuits, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 232009
 

On Monday, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. thought she was clever and tacked on to her so-called Preliminary Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, a casual warning that she intended to file a Second Amended Complaint in Barnett v. Obama.

(with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009).

Not so fast, Counselor.

Judge David O. Carter has issued an In Chambers Order denying what he courteously calls a “request” and getting out ahead of her doing any such thing:

09/23/2009 70 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING REQUEST TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT 69 : The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 3:58 pm

Taitz Pulls Up In A Dump Truck

 Birthers, Lawsuits, Right Wing Nutzoids  Comments Off
Sep 232009
 

In a post on Monday morning, I was confused (and confusing) about what exactly Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. was going to file in Barnett v. Obama.

It turned out that Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. later in the day backed a dump truck up to the Santa Ana Court House and dumped. I hope poor Magistrate Judge Nakazato, who never stops being abused by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., took his retirement beginning Monday morning.

In response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. filed a Preliminary Response (with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009). It’s 35 pages plus hundreds of pages of exhibits and “dossiers”—unsigned, as usual.

Those are not rights she has in real life, by the way. She has been told by Judge David O. Carter to reign this case in, rather than continue to expand it. He wasn’t all that happy with a First Amended Complaint in July, never mind a Second Amended Complaint, and was downright pissed by a First Amended Motion in September, and has told her all she is doing with these never-ending filings is dragging the proceedings farther and farther into the future. With every new one, the case is kicked off all over again as if it had just begun. A tentative trial date for January 2010 has been scheduled, but she seems to never want to get there.

09/21/2009 69 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case ; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 56 filed by Plaintiff Pamela Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from legal counsel of admiral Mulin, chairman of joint chief of staff, # 2 Exhibit Statement by Connie Rhodes, MD, # 3 Exhibit Dossier 1, # 4 Exhibit Dossier 3, # 5 Exhibit Dossier 4, # 6 Exhibit Dossier 5, # 7 Exhibit Dossier 6 redacted SS, # 8 Exhibit Cert. Mail Receipts from US Atty Taylor, # 9 Exhibit Quo Warranto, # 10 Exhibit Easterling et al rule 17, # 11 Exhibit Barnett FOIA response)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

The brief seems to argue for the Plaintiffs as a new protected class, not by race or religion, age or gender, and so forth, but by Birther politics:

…the Plaintiffs status as a discrete and insular minority (which includes an exceptionally large number of members of the U.S. Military) has made them members of a new class, scorned in the establishment press as “birthers”.

In short, the Plaintiffs ask this Court allow the Constitutionally correct but politically powerless minority to restore the majority to the straight and narrow path, not just even, but especially when this majority have lost their path midway along the road of life in a dark wood. (cf. Dante, Inferno, Canto 1, ll. 1-4).

Later for the voters who made their choice for president and won the election; the bunch of fools.

Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence allege and confirm that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in the traditional common law sense of a material misrepresentation of an important fact upon which Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional government.

But the poor pitiful Birthers, that ‘insular, discrete minority’ who are so in need of protection from the courts, are ready and able to overthrow the government if they don’t get their whining way:

As suggested above by the quote from Chief Justice Taney—this only leaves the unattractive option of armed revolution, and one primary social function and practical purpose of the Courts is to uphold respect for law and government and thereby to maintain the peace.

Interestingly, given recent events, it appears from exhibits, they intend to call Capt. Connie Rhodes and Major Stefan Cook as witnesses. I wonder how Capt. Rhodes will like this move.
Continue reading »

 Posted by at 12:50 am
Page 53 of 63 1 2 … 51 52 53 54 55 … 62 63