Oh, For Goodness Sake

Taitz Pulls Up In A Dump Truck

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.

On its surface, as a non-lawyer reading it, this is the clearest written brief I’ve seen yet from the firm of Taitz, Lincoln; maybe written by young Peyton Yates Freiman, Taitz’s legal assistant’s legal assistant. Except for being dated the “Equinox” and some reference to Dante’s Inferno, there’s less of Mr. Lincoln, the disbarred lawyer legal assistant, who was himself an improvement over Taitz’s mad scribblings.

They’ve all been snuggled up in one of Lincoln’s mortgage redemption properties, which is located very near Taitz’s office, in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. According to Charles Lincoln III:

I arrived from Palm Beach, Florida, via American Airlines, in Rancho Santa Margarita on Friday, September 4, 2009, and have been utilizing and occupying at the house for just over eleven days now, along with several house guests including my trustee with power of attorney Mr. Freiman who arrived on Thursday September 3, 2009, another guest Lucas Daniel Smith who arrived on Saturday September 5, 2009, and Dr. Taitz herself.

If you don’t know what mortgage redemption is, basically, it’s a method, some say a scam, where foreclosure victims turn title to their homes over to Lincoln, who does a pro se—because he is now the owner by title and disbarred, anyhow—attack on the mortgage in court; pretty much practicing law without a license, but he has Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. to cover for him. If he wins, he collects a fee for himself, in addition to legal fees for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and is supposed to turn the property back to the original owner. Maybe he does, I don’t know. I haven’t seen that he’s ever actually won one of these cases, but I haven’t fully searched it out, either.

In the case of the house where they’ve all been hanging out lately, from which they have now been evicted: He had previously rented the house to a single mother, who he is now suing for breach of contract, and with some developers who bought the property after foreclosure, at a time Lincoln describes the title as being “clouded.” She is accused by Lincoln with these others of RICO conspiracy and “real estate piracy.” (Taitz, Lincoln loves them some RICO, and maritime law is always good for right wing nutcases). They are suing for $1,650,000, which includes $125,000 in attorney’s fees, presumably for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., whose name appears beneath Lincoln’s on the court papers posted to his site.

You can read the whole thing here. I find it pretty fascinating and it always gets me off topic. But getting back to Barnett v. Obama, unfortunately, the clearer language only exposes the lack of substance, sloppy legal reasoning, failure to address the facts of the motion being responded to, almost no reliance on precedence, and overall bad law.

Lawyers use something called “Shepard’s Citations” when researching cases for citation in writing briefs.

When you Shepardize® a case, LexisNexis provides a report showing every opinion where that case has been referenced, all treatments of the case, and, most importantly, whether or not the case is “good law.” If the case has been overruled, it is considered “bad law” and may no longer be cited as a legal precedent.

There are signals for “bad law”:

It does what it looks like it does: It tells you to stop, don’t do this, bad idea. It indicates the case being considered for citation in a legal argument has been overruled, superceded, revoked, rescinded, or is otherwise obsolete.

Play a game on Westlaw or Lexis and Shepardize® this brief. See how many of these you come up with for the citations provided in the brief.

But it does not matter to Birfistan, because any half-assed roll of toilet paper issued by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is a reason for great joy. Except playing to the winger crowd isn’t playing to the judge, the only one who matters, and who wants less of this crap, not more and more and more.

Also filed Monday was a Joint Rule 26(f) Report, where each side presents their plan for discovery. Judge David O. Carter granted the Government a Limited Stay of Discovery on September 16, “except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.”

Poor guy.

The Plaintiffs have a plan: We’re discovering every last thing about you down to your 48-year old diapers and your dead mother (if she was really your mother and if she is really dead).

Plaintiffs also intend to subpoena documents including, but not by way of exclusion, the following:

a. All records in the possession of any bureaucracy in the State of Hawaii pertaining to the birth of Barack Obama.

b. All records in the possession of any bureaucracy in the State of Washington concerning the presence of Barack Obama’s mother there.

c. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the actual long-form birth certificate of Barack Obama.

d. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the passport files of Barack Obama.

e. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Harvard Law School records of
Barack Obama.

f. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Columbia University records of
Barack Obama.

g. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Occidental College records of
Barack Obama, including financial aid Mr. Obama received.

h. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Punahou School records of Barack Obama, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school.

i. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Noelani Elementary School records of Barack Obama, where Mr. Obama attended Kindergarten.

j. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Illinois State Bar Association records of Barack Obama.

k. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Baptism records of Barack Obama.

l. All documents in the possession and/or control of Defendant Barack Obama regarding (and including, but not limited to) the Adoption records of Mr. Obama.

All of which has zero to do with the Motion to Dismiss, which Judge Nakazato will surely notice.

The Defense has a plan, too: You ain’t discovering a goddamned thing.

Defendants note that the Court has granted Defendants’ Ex Parte Application and ordered that all non-jurisdictional discovery be stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in that Motion, Defendants contend that no discovery is permissible challenging the qualifications or fitness for office of the President by these Plaintiffs using the power of this Court.

But why would any of it matter? From Dr. Orly Taitz’s web site for whack jobs:

September 22, 2009 at 12:08 am

There were rumors and rumblings last night OBAMA had been given until noon today to resign, then WE heard it was extended till 6p.m. tonight.

WE now hear the Supreme Court and the World Court have today ruled that OBAMA is to be charged with 36 counts of theft, embezzlement, fraud, etc. including TREASON, a Capital Offense. And, that we will return to the Constitution and Article III Courts at midnight tonight. And, that the Corporation is dissolved and no longer exists.

Heh.