In today's dispatches, Dr. Orly continues to be a vile, contemptable excuse for a human being. She gets told "No" by the courts, has the court TELL her they caught her lying to the judge, gets told again, has the defense granted more time to deal with her crap, AND is told that she'll have to correct her subpoenas before they'll be acted upon. Not to mention getting help from another James Manning.
And her response? Lies, harassment, threats to the courts, and death threats to elected officials. She's gutter slime.
As is Gabe Zolna. The RuSA is still around under an "Acting President", and yes, they're still crazy. Padawan Pauly wants other birther younglings to join with him on his damn fool idealistic crusade. And supposed deserter and international criminal Christopher Farrell once again calls for a Military Coup, followed by a Military firing squad for President Obama.
EDITORIAL CHANGE:
Effective immediately, any birther found to also be a "Sandy Hook Truther" will be labeled in my "Cast of Characters" as a vile and sick excuse of a human being.
16 January - Count Gabe Zolna among the other vile and sick excuse of a human being who thinks there's a conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. (I will not embed the video here)
16 January - Judge England delivers the order denying the TRO in Grinols v Electoral College.
"01/16/2013 52 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 12 . Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/16/2013. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
01/16/2013 53 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Plaintiffs attempted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) on January 16, 2013 and set a hearing on their Motion for January 17, 2013. However, Plaintiffs failed to properly file their Motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(b) and Local Rule 230 (j). As such, Plaintiffs' Motion is defective and will not be set for a hearing. For future motions, Plaintiffs must comply with Local Rule 230.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)"
(Scribd link here)
"At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that “common-sense” demands the Court interpret the United States Constitution as requiring the President of the United States to have a valid birth certificate, social security number, and selective service suspicions and what Plaintiffs claim is “common sense.”
To be clear, the Court understands that “common sense,” has its place in the political process. However, passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. Accordingly, in the present case, the Court must look to the Constitutional requirements to serve as the President of the United States. Article II provides that the President must be: (1) a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States when the states ratified the years. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.4 Article II does not require the President (or a candidate for President) to present his short-form birth certificate, long-form birth certificate, social security card, or any form of identification, to anyone.
Moreover, since 2009, when President Obama was first inaugurated, no laws have been enacted to make proof of “natural born citizen[ship]” a requirement under the law. In short, Plaintiffs have not provided any legal support for their proposition that a presidential candidate must provide a copy of his or her birth certificate or any other documentation to be eligible for office. The Court is not the popularly elected branch of government constitutionally empowered to pass new laws. Because the Court must base its decisions on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and no law exists that requires the President to present proof of natural born citizenship, the Court cannot require that President Obama present, or even possess, such documentation."
In other words, you can't try to go "Show us your papers, BOY" and expect it to work.
"Nowhere does the Constitution empower the Judiciary to remove the President from office or enjoin the President of the United States from taking office.
Constitution assigns to Congress, and not the Courts, the responsibility of determining whether a person is qualified to serve as President. As such, the question presented by Plaintiffs in this case—whether President Obama may legitimately run for office and serve as President—is a political question that the Court may not answer. If the Court principally within the dominion of another branch of government.” See Banner, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 9. This Court, or any other federal court, cannot reach a decision on the merits of a political question because doing so would ignore the Constitutional limits imposed on the courts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the Court to answer a question the Constitution bars the Court from answering.
In sum, Plaintiffs cannot show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim because they ask the Court to stretch the Constitution’s meaning to find requirements for serving as President that exist nowhere in the document, and because they ask the Court to usurp the duties of the legislative branch. There are inherent limits on judicial capabilities that limit the Court from providing the injunctive relief that Plaintiffs request."
Basically "why are you wasting the court's time??"
"Courts across the country have uniformly rejected claims that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President because his Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake or is forged. See Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010); Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 180 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd, 368 F. App’x F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn.), stay denied, 129 S. Ct. 775 (2008); Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed several similar lawsuits alleging that President Obama is ineligible to hold office as President. Each and every one of these lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed. See Taitz v. Astrue, 806 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D.D.C. 2011) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration), aff'd, 2012 WL 1930959 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 2012); Taitz v. Ruemmler, No. 11-1421 (RCL), 2011 WL 4916936 (D.D.C. Oct.17, 2011) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissing plaintiff’s suit with prejudice), aff'd, No. 11-5306, 2012 WL 1922284 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 2012); Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (granting government’s motion to dismiss, denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot, and dismissing case), reconsideration denied, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2010); Cook v. Good, No. 4:09-cv-82 (CDL), 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009) (dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2009 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (denying plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 918 (2011); Barnett, 2009 WL 3861788 (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss), aff'd sub nom. Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011), and order clarified, No. SA 189 Cal. App. 4th 647, 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 99 (2011) (upholding on appeal a state Superior Court’s ruling sustaining demurrers without leave
In light of the previous decisions, as well as Plaintiffs’ attorney’s lengthy track record of repeating similar arguments in courts throughout the country, Plaintiffs simply cannot, in good faith, argue that their case is likely to succeed on the merits.(5)"
OUCH!!
And notice that footnote….
"(5) Plaintiffs’ counsel has other “good faith” problems in this case. At the January 3 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel urged the Court to accept her oral “declaration under penalty of perjury” that Federal Defendants had been properly served as proof of compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (i)’s service requirements. One day after the hearing, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit from a process server alleging that the process server served President Obama, Vice President Biden, the Electoral College, Congress, and the Department of Justice on January 4, 2013. This affidavit casts additional doubts on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s assertion at the January 3 hearing that Defendants had been properly served prior to the temporary restraining order hearing."
In other words, "you lied to the court, and we KNOW you lied to the court."
"Plaintiffs ask the Court to do something that has never been done in the history of this nation: to enjoin the U.S. Congress from counting electoral votes and of prevent the President-elect from taking the oath of office. During the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly argued that President Obama is the “President Elect” and that the requested injunctive relief would maintain the status quo because Plaintiffs sued President Obama as the “President Elect, and not as a sitting President.” As the Court pointed out to Plaintiffs’ counsel at the hearing on her motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel is plainly wrong. The Twentieth Amendment provides that the term of the President ends at noon on the twentieth day of January. U.S. Const. amend. XX, § 1. President Obama, as an incumbent, therefore has the dual status of being both the President and the President Elect. Judge Carter, a District Judge for the Central District of California, accurately summarized the outcome of granting the relief requested by plaintiffs in a substantially similar case brought by Plaintiffs’ counsel several years ago:
*Chuckle* Yeah, someone did their homework on Dr. Orly.
"Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs failed to show that they are likely to succeed in the courts. Plaintiffs presented their case to the wrong branch of government. Plaintiffs have failed once again and not because there are “dishonest and corrupt judges” across the country, as Plaintiffs’ counsel repeated during the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order. Instead, Plaintiffs have failed in the Courts, and will undoubtedly continue to fail in the Courts, because they ask the Court to supplant the legislative branch and disregard the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers.
Despite the Court’s grave concerns about Plaintiffs’ ability to succeed on the merits, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to give Plaintiffs a chance to be heard and argue their case. At the hearing, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any irreparable injury, that the balance of harms tips in their favor, or that the public interest will be served by granting the requested injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have provided this Court with no authority to support their position, other than their own “common sense.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Dated: January 16, 2013"
There's a definite "bring it on, bitch" vibe here…..
16 January - Upside down flag disrespectfully duct-taped to the wall? Why yes, it's "patriot" Gabe Zolna.
He got a chance to see Mike Zullo, Boy Defective, in public. I'm sure he wet his pants in excitement.
16 January - Minute order about Dr. Orly's Rule 60b hearing.
(Scribd link here)
"01/16/2013
53 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Plaintiffs attempted to file a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) on January 16, 2013 and set a hearing on their Motion for January 17, 2013. However, Plaintiffs failed to properly file their Motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(b) and Local Rule 230 (j). As such, Plaintiffs' Motion is defective and will not be set for a hearing. For future motions, Plaintiffs must comply with Local Rule 230.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 01/16/2013)"
In other words, "no, you can't have hearing, not yours, and next time you stupid cow, follow the damn rules, okay??"
17 January - Transcript of the 3 January 2013 hearing in Grinols v Electoral College.
(Scribd link here) (43 pages)
I think the thing this shows the most is not just how effortlessly Dr. Orly will lie though her teeth to a judge, but the sheer contempt she has for the legal process.
"MR. OLSEN: No, your Honor. It's the plaintiffs' responsibility obviously to identify in what capacity she's suing a defendant. It's not clear from the petition. To the extent she's suing the President in his official capacity, our office represents the President. To the extent that she's suing the President in an individual capacity, our office would probably not represent the President in that role. But she hasn't served the President.
THE COURT: Well, that's the point. Under Federal Rule 4, there's been no service. The only service that there's actually -- it's not even service. It has been a Federal Express of the documents filed by the plaintiffs to the U.S. Attorney's Office here in the Eastern District; correct?
MR. OLSEN: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: And it's been abundantly clear that Federal Express is not registered or certified mail.
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, aside from Federal Express, I also served all of the federal defendants by a professional process server. It's Same Day Service. And you should be receiving proof of service from them as well. And I have written in my reply opposition that, indeed, a professional server in Washington, D.C. has served the defendants through personal service.
THE COURT: But you have just said I "should receive." There's nothing before this Court right now that shows that. Nothing. Correct?
MS. TAITZ: Um --
THE COURT: So you have known about this hearing for at least a week and a half to two weeks, and there's nothing before the Court that shows that there's been any type of service other than what's been shown previously. Therefore, no service has been shown to this Court.
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I'm an officer of the Court. I'm not going to be lying. I'm not going to be making up something that is not true. I have proof that I have purchased, I have paid over $500 to the Same Day Process Service that was supposed to serve. They served all of the defendants by professional service. In some instances because of the Christmas holidays, it's taking longer. But I swear under penalty of perjury that I did pay this money. I retained a professional process server, and the defendants were indeed served. And the proof of service should be received shortly.
THE COURT: Counsel, as an attorney, you should be aware that your representations, while I'm not denying anything else, are not effective. That's the whole reason for having third-party service. Your declaration under penalty of perjury here in open court means nothing.
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I'm not a plaintiff. I'm an attorney. As long as I'm not a party, my swearing under penalty of perjury is sufficient. If I would have been -- if I would be filing this case pro se, then it wouldn't be sufficient. However, since I'm not a party, I am allowed to provide proof of service.
THE COURT: No, you're not. The request is denied…"
Remember she didn't provide proof to the court until the 4th - and that it showed service HAD BEEN DONE ON THE 4TH.
So yes, Dr. Orly lied. And when the judge released his order on the 16th, he called her out on it too.
Dr. Orly committed perjury.
"THE COURT: …So the problem that I'm seeing here and the question that I've gone to is what is the case in controversy? There isn't one that you can show or that you've been able to show in the prior 13 cases that have been filed in almost the same way."
*SNORK!*
"MS. TAITZ: Might I explain?
THE COURT: No. Counsel, do you have anything further?"
Get the feeling the judge wasn't impressed from the start?
"THE COURT: Why do you keep filing these lawsuits when they keep getting rejected repeatedly?
MS. TAITZ: Because just like you, not one judge has seen any evidence, has seen any original documents…
(Snip)
…Did you look at those cases, your Honor? Do you know that all of the cases that we have brought in four years until this election were denied not because one single judge has ruled that Mr. Obama is eligible. "
Actually severall judges in almost 200 cases have said he is. Next?
"THE COURT: No. Right now, he is the President.
MS. TAITZ: Based on what?
THE COURT: He is currently the President. Had there been an election where Mr. Romney had won, he would be the President-elect. He didn't win, and so, therefore, President Obama's term continues.
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Your argument, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever."
Which is quite normal for any of Dr. Orly's arguments.
"MR. OLSEN: It's hard to respond because I'm not sure I heard any legal arguments being made. It seemed like conclusions and platitudes. So I'm not sure how helpful it would be. I think the position of the government is laid out in its opposition to the TRO."
*Snork*
"MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, if I could briefly be heard on that. Counsel provided no notice to the Court about what witnesses she planned to present or what exhibits she planned to include. There's been no resume in support of --
THE COURT: I will give it the weight to which I believe it is entitled, Counsel."
In other words, none whatsoever.
"MR. OLSEN: Your Honor, Ms. Taitz is trying to present expert testimony. As the Court is well aware, under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the inquiry is whether it's relevant and reliable. There's been no showing that these exhibits are reliable. I don't even know what those exhibits are, who prepared them, using what technology.
To the extent they were prepared by Paul Irey, who I think is mentioned in one of the exhibits in the petition, he's not a certified forensic examiner. Ms. Taitz has made no effort to explain to the Court or to me what his qualifications are, what his background is, what his education is, what training he's received, and what document he's looking at. He obviously isn't looking at the certified birth certificate because that has not been released to the public, other than the copy that the President voluntarily put on the White House website for the public to see, which we all hoped would put this frivolous issue to rest, and obviously it hasn't."
To be fair, Paul Irey has the same qualifications that any other birther expert does. None whatsoever.
"MS. TAITZ: May I respond?
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
MR. OLSEN: That's about all I have, your Honor.
Even if this is all true, you know, in their wildest hopes, they still haven't presented any evidence that the President is not a natural born citizen. Even if they are able to establish somewhere in some forum that that birth certificate is forged, they don't have any evidence to support their assertion that he's not a natural born citizen.
And as your Honor properly started off the hearing by saying, there's no requirement in the Constitution or any federal statute that the President demonstrate to the satisfaction of Ms. Taitz or any of the plaintiffs that he is a natural born citizen."
*Chuckle*
And the judge concludes with:
"THE COURT: Well, as I have repeatedly said here, the fact that this case has even been allowed to get as far as it has to a hearing today is, I think, this Court's attempt to, as Ms. Taitz stated during the course of her closing argument, to show that this Court would look to the arguments that were presented and not be a, quote, corrupt judge and try to find someday a, quote, honest judge. And I've allowed this to be heard openly and publicly."
Yeah, the judge isn't impressed with Dr. Orly in the slightest.
"And for the reasons that I've stated previously, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, being a lack of service of any of the documents, that there is lack of standing to bring this action, there is no requirement that there be any type of identification shown at any time for any person to be the President of the United States, as required by the United States Constitution, because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony."
"Credible testimony" being a term that usually draws a blank stare in the eyes of a birther.
"The testimony with respect to the charts that have been presented, again, there is no indication that the person has any expertise in a particular area, other than they have worked for a long period of time in a particular profession. That goes for the person that created these charts. That also goes for Sheriff Arpaio who has had a long career in law enforcement and apparently has somehow taken it upon himself to find some investigation which this Court is not sure what the purpose of it is for."
*Laugh*
"There is absolutely no way that this case will survive the challenges that it faces when looking at a temporary restraining order at this time."
I suspect that Dr. Orly had the same understanding of what the judge was saying at this point that a goldfish has a nuclear submarine.
17 January - Dr. Orly gets an offer of help for her 21 Jan. protest in Washington DC. (malware and redirect warning)
"PROMINENT AFRICAN AMERICAN PASTOR JESSE LEE PETERSON WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ATTORNEY TAITZ IN PROTESTING OBAMA BEFORE THE WH AND SCOTUS ON 01.20-01.21. HE WANTS THE TRIP FOR HIM AND HIS BODY GUARD TO BE COVERED. I NEED DONATIONS
Posted on | January 17, 2013"
So she hits the cavity creeps up for more Birther Bucks.
Jesse Lee Peterson has an interesting rep. He feels that allowing women to vote was one of the "greatest mistakes America has ever made". And he also wants his fellow African-Americans "sent back to the plantation" so they can "understand the ethic of working"
In other words, he's just as self-hating as James Manning. Just has more of an audience.
17 January - *Sigh*
"A whopping 64 percent of Republicans think it’s “probably true” that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life, including his possible birthplace, according to a new nationwide survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind project examining Americans’ belief in political conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it's further proof that the current GOP has been largely successful in driving out the sane Republicans.
17 January - Haven't heard from the RuSA or the Secret cRAP masters of late, but with "President" Tim Turner cooling his heels in prison on tax evasion charges, we have "Acting President" James Buchanan Geiger.
"So, in 2010 We the People, through grand juries, gave public notice by warrant to the fifty corporate STATE governors which ordered restoration back to lawful de jure government. Once they refused, the People took lawful steps to re-inhabit the positions of the original Constitutional Republic. On September 23, 2010, elected statesmen and delegates from the free States in union gathered to establish an interim government as the 1st Congressional Assembly of the Republic of the United States of America. This gathering effectively established the first functional de jure government since the 1870s when the government was incorporated. Until 2010, the de jure Congress never had a quorum of constitutional office holders to lawfully re-convene. The Republic for the United States has lawfully fulfilled that requirement. We notified the corporation of our plans to re-inhabit the original Republic, and have lawfully done so. In short, the People have taken the necessary steps to lawfully re-inhabit our Republican form of governance."
Well, except for the fact that you have no authority and nobody outside your conspiracy takes you seriously.
"Change is here; that change is the Republic for the United States of America and is being accomplished in peace and honor. Since November of 2010, the Republic for the United States of America has been the only lawful de jure government in America, however in a provisional capacity until the majority of Americans find out the truth. "
"….to dream, the impossible dream…."
17 January - Padawan Pauly does a press release about his Sacred Sperm of Citizenship lawsuit.
"Because natural born citizenship is naturally inherited from one’s father, Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya. Because he did not have a U.S. State citizen father, he is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. Instead, Mr. Obama is actually a naturalized U.S. citizen, one who gained citizenship through positive law recognition of his U.S. citizen mother and/or his birth on U.S. soil, both of these avenues being statutorily-created privileges that are permitted to grant naturalization at birth. As a natural born citizen of Kenya, Mr. Obama is not eligible to be the U.S. President.
The distinction between natural born Citizens and naturalized citizens was built into the U.S. Constitution to prevent the establishment of a monarchy in this country. By tying the Office of President to natural law, the Founding Fathers devised a brilliant system to prevent foreign monarchies and governments from infiltrating the U.S. presidency.
Mr. Obama is a King and not a President because the Title of Nobility provisions in the U.S. Constitution are meant to prevent the offspring of U.S. citizen female mothers and foreign non-U.S. citizen male fathers from being declared natural born Citizens who can become President."
Amazing that it only takes a paragraph or two to show the world how bat-guano crazy Padawan Pauly is.
But wait, he also has ideas how people could help!
"The following is not legal advice, but is only the reasoned opinion of Mr. Guthrie"
So in other words, worthless.
"1) The filing of Guthrie v United States establishes as a fact of Nature, independent of Judges’ and Kings’ opinions, that Article II natural born Citizen is defined by the Natural Law Theory of the Father. This means that only U.S. State citizen males can pass on natural born Citizen status to their offspring. Obama is not a natural born Citizen and therefore occupies the Office as a King and not a President, all because Congress failed to apply the Titles of Nobility prohibitions in order to prevent Obama from being declared a natural born Citizen for purposes of Article II eligibility to be President.
2) As a result of 1 above, this means that anyone can now bring their own suit, to take advantage of the proper definition now on record as evidence in the Court. I will be happy to explain how to do this to anyone who wishes to join me."
Oh how nice! He's giving other people a chance to look like flaming morons too!!
"3) If you do not wish to take on Option 2, then the very least you can do is contact the civil law enforcement authorities. I would recommend calling the FBI to simply inform them to read Guthrie v United States at jedipauly.com, so that they can understand to do their job and go arrest King Obama, and also take notice of the Hate Crimes being perpetrated in the king’s name. "
I'm sure they can use the laugh.
"I would also recommend contacting Sheriff Arpaio, since he is involved with the FBI in an ongoing criminal investigation and they need this evidence that I just filed with the government, so they need to be made aware of Guthrie v United States."
And Arpaio will go "Paul who???"
18 January - Usually Dr. Orly doesn't call for revolt and uprisings against the US Government. She usually simply approves messages on her blog calling for such. However… (malware and redirect warning)
(Bold face and redaction mine)
Let's start off with the indirect threats to Members of Congress and US Senators.
"4. Remind them that according to Obama’s school registration in Indonesia , he is a citizen of Indonesia, and aiding and abetting a foreign citizen in usurpation of the US presidency is treason.
5. Remind them that penalty for treason is a life in prison or death penalty.
6. Remind them that there are only 535 of them and there are 314 million of us"
That's a pretty open threat. (Never mind the delusion that she thinks there's 314 million birthers)
And then she ramps it up even more:
"10. Remind that that allowing a foreign national with all forged IDs in the WH in the position of the US President and Commander in Chief in control of our nuclear arsenal is treason. Remind them that if they do not go on the record and demand immediate Congressional investigation of Obama’s use of forged IDs, they will be tried by “We, The People of the United States of America” for treason and considering the most egregious nature of the crime, the death penalty is the most appropriate punishment. Maybe that will grab their attention and will wake them up. I do not know how many millions were paid off to corrupt congressmen, officials and judges, but I know one thing, no amount of money is worth hanging for treason. "
There is simply no other way to describe this. This seditious, anti-American trollop is actually THREATENING elected officials.
And then, to underscore it, in comments;
"4. dr_taitz@(redacted)
January 18th, 2013 @ 8:09 am
judges throw in the garbage decisions of the citizen grand juries. I am afraid that with justice denied in courts, the only way people will get justice in this cess pool of corruption, is by rising against the criminal in the WH and his accomplices"
You know what Dr. Orly? Naturalized citizens can be stripped of their US Citizenship for sedition. Funny thing that…..
Seditious, anti-American, lying sack of taitz……
18 January - Docket update in Grinolds v Electoral College:
"01/18/2013
55 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/17/2013 ORDERING that Defendant's 27 Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Time for Responding to Plaintiffs' Subpoenas is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to modify their subpoenas in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, allowing Defendants a reasonable amount of time to comply. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 01/18/2013)"
(Scribd link here)
"Plaintiffs filed their subpoenas on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and the day after Christmas. Id. In all but one subpoena, Plaintiffs requested documents within a week. Id. A-one week response time would be unreasonable at any time during the year, but such a quick turnaround is especially unreasonable during the final weeks of the calendar year. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to modify their subpoenas in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, allowing Defendants a reasonable amount of time to comply.
IT IS SO ORDERED"
So basically the defendants get the proper amount of time to respond to Dr. Orly's improperly-served subpoenas, and Dr. Orly has to try and modify her subpoenas to meet the requirements, and gets swatted for trying this crap during a holiday and demanding they dance to her tune AND give her a pony. Oh, and the judge pretty much quashed her improperly-served subpoenas.
We know damn well Dr. Orly is incapable of doing proper service, so I'll be surprise to see what festering pile of rotting taitz she foists off on the court.
18 January - Not surprisingly, the traitorous bitch completely misses the point (malware and redirect warning)
(Redaction mine)
"JUDGE ENGLAND GIVES OBAMA AND OTHERS MORE TIME TO COMPLY WITH MY SUBPOENAS. I AM CHECKING HOW MUCH TIME THEIR ATTORNEY OLSEN WILL NEED
Posted on | January 18, 2013"
You missed the "time to modify" your subpoenas part, didn't you?
And in comments:
"1. American Dad
January 18th, 2013 @ 11:09 am
Insanity reigns. The defendants have had 4+ years to practice their art of treason and corruption. Why give hem another minute? Providing the truth is always faster than attempting to stretch out the lie."
"Yeah! Who cares about "rule of law" and "due process" and "Constitutional rights"!! Don't they KNOW the scary black man is STILL in the WHITE House???"
"3. Joe
January 18th, 2013 @ 11:29 am
This is great news! Now Obama’s back is against the wall and his cohorts will have to answer for their treason. What does it mean when the judge says that “Plaintiffs are ordered to modify their subpoenas?” Does that mean you have to start from scratch?"
Not only does Joe miss the point completely, but Dr. Orly….
"4. dr_taitz@(redacted)
January 18th, 2013 @ 11:33 am
no, I need to give them more time, I am checking how much more time do they need"
….completely MISSED the part about having to modify her own subpoenas to meet the rules!!!
The arrogance of this evil seditionist is amazing. AND she ends on a threat:
"12, dr_taitz@(redacted) January 18th, 2013 @ 12:19 pm thay better start saving their own necks and start joining us before it is too late for them"
This is a freaking death threat, IMHO. Not that Dr. Orly is the only one making threats.
"14. Rod Riddle
January 18th, 2013 @ 1:42 pm
Francisco, the list is rather lengthy. I have over 1,000 names of individuals involved in either the original conspiracy to commit fraud & forgery or the direct attempt at covering up the crimes. If you add in all State officials involved it is probably twice that number. We will just start at the top and work our way down thru the list. All the Judges who have dealt with the cases firsthand take priority in being prosecuted as they could have ended this whole charade starting with Judge Carter years ago."
18 January - Jr. College Journalism Major (and supposed French Foreign Legion deserter) Christopher Farrell gets some pixels to play with at "Moral Matters".
"In light of the fact that Chief Justice Roberts has referred the case, (12A606) “Edward Noonan et al., v The Calif. Sec. of State, Deborah Bowen,” to a full conference to be held on February 15th, the perfect opportunity to defeat the ‘Manchurian’ Muslim from Mombasa’s assault on the 2nd Amendment is at hand.
‘The best defense is a good offense!” The Chief Justice must be persuaded to take up the case and render a decision which retro-actively abrogates the illegal election of a constitutionally ineligible candidate who fraudulently represented himself as eligible to be president. Even now Mr. Obama proceeds in a cover-up of unparalleled magnitude forging official documents and paying law firms millions of dollars to keep his true background hidden."
So basically ignore the law, the Constitution, and all past legal rulings, and issue a "Magic Reset Button" to reset everything back to the fall of 2008.
Right.
"Consider the following: Could Chief Justice Roberts have been defensively posturing for the blow-back, the “black-lash” if you please, of a decision he may have realized would be necessary to make in the future on Mr. Obama’s purported constitutional eligibility when he ruled so surprisingly on Obamacare?"
"Black-lash", eh?? Racist much Mr. Farrell??
"Could the Chief Justice be about to shock the Hell out of the world and rule against Obama as being constitutionally eligible to be president on February 15, 2013?"
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "oh hell no".
"If, after considering the evidence submitted to the Supreme Court in multiple cases which the court has turned down, the Chief Justice found it necessary to consider various paths that the Supreme Court eventually might have to take in defense of the Constitution, could the Chief Justice have strategically planned to first rule in favor of Obamacare—as a tax—knowing that such a ruling would theatrically demonstrate an apparent support for Obama—or, at the very least, demonstrate no prejudice towards the man—while still leaving Obamacare open to state by state dismantling until such time as a ruling on Mr. Obama’s eligibility would remove the law retro-actively as having been passed while Mr. Obama was in the commission of crimes and, most importantly, act as the perfect disclaimer to angry liberal entities which would scream “Racism!” as they rallied liberal-socialist Obama supporters to advance ‘Forward’ towards anything but “civil” disobedience should the Supreme Court retro-actively abrogate the illegal election of the constitutionally ineligible fraud and forger, Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack ‘King Hussein’ Obama Jr., the ‘Manchurian’ Muslim from Mombasa, a.k.a. Soebarkha, a.k.a. Harrison J. Bounel for having taken place while in the commission of a crime?"
This is like a cut and paste from his World Nut Daily and other comments. All I haven't' seen yet is his usual demand that President Obama be put to death.
"Since Mr. Obama fraudulently represented himself as constitutionally eligible to be president when he ran–both times–then he is not now and has never been president. He was in the commission of a crime when he was twice illegally elected. The fraud should be taken into custody, and since he also usurped the military rank of commander-in-chief, he should face a military tribunal and face either a firing squad or the gallows for having criminally usurped the office of the presidency, the most horrendous crime against the American experiment in ‘government of the People’ in our nation’s history. All those complicit in Mr. Obama’s crimes must be brought to justice if liberty is to be preserved."
Ah, I spoke too soon. Farrell doesn't just want to see President Obama executed, he wants to see a military coup perform the act.
18 January - How the hell could she have passed the bar, much less licensing requirements to practice dentistry, with reading comprehension this bad?? (malware and redirect warning)
"Dear Mr. Olsen,
Per order of Judge England please, advise me how much more time will you need to comply with subpoenas."
Why don't you READ THE FREAKING RULES first!
"Additionally, as you now understand that Mr, Obama was sued as an individual, as a candidate running for office and not as the President of the U. S., it is my understanding from your statement in court that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s office will not continue representing him and that he will be hiring a private attorney.
Please, confirm this today, as I need to file an amendment of the subpoena per judge England’s order ASAP."
From the transcript:
"MR. OLSEN: It's the plaintiffs' responsibility obviously to identify in what capacity she's suing a defendant. It's not clear from the petition. To the extent she's suing the President in his official capacity, our office represents the President. To the extent that she's suing the President in an individual capacity, our office would probably not represent the President in that role. But she hasn't served the President.THE COURT: Well, that's the point. Under Federal Rule 4, there's been no service. The only service that there's actually -- it's not even service. It has been a
Federal Express of the documents filed by the plaintiffs to the U.S. Attorney's Office here in the Eastern District; correct?MR. OLSEN: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: And it's been abundantly clear that Federal Express is not registered or certified mail."
Do proper service first, you stupid wretch.
18 January - So, Dr. Orly has a new expert, one Charles Coombs. (PDF here, malware and redirect warning)
(Redaction mine)
"My name is Charles Ralph Coombs. I am 71 years old and working as a semi-retired entrepreneur. I currently reside at (redacted)I have been working as an electronic typesetter in conjunction with every job I've held since 1980. I am currently using a desktop publisher to create and typeset all the information needed to start and advertise a business. Between 1976 and 1980, I sold typewriters for Olivetti Corporation. I acquired detailed knowledge of typewriters of the type I was selling and those of our competitors. Some of the typewriters I sold were to a degree self-correcting, and comparing them with competing brands gave me a detailed knowledge of the kind of errors typewriters and typists make and how to compare outputs from different machines."
So he's 71. From the time he was 34 to 38, he sold typewriters. Since then, he has worked "as an electronic typesetter" and is self-employed as a desktop publisher.
And this makes him a forensic document specialist HOW???
Yossi's business must be doing very well. His ladys hobby is not doing her any good - and whilst it is amusing watching her, how much is it costing the taxpayers????
Posted by: Greenfinches | January 18, 2013 at 06:15 PM
Patrick, I savored your epithet "stupid cow" as regards Dr. Orly, but given her manic behavior, shouldn't it be more accurate to say "stupid maniac cow?" She is he embodiment of the old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Posted by: Greg Brown | January 19, 2013 at 07:15 PM
I love your blog, read it several times a week, but it disappoints me whenever you resort to using sexist insults to characterize the despicable Orly Taitz. Epithets like "cow" and others with gender connotations distract and detract from the fine work you do here. There's a vast array of accurate terms to describe the ugliness and incompetence you diligently monitor without "going there." I hope you receive this in the context of a generally grateful reader.
Posted by: J.S. | January 19, 2013 at 07:35 PM
JS - All I will say is that, as a rule of thumb, I do try to avoid gendered or sexual insults. There are times I do better than other times.
Posted by: Patrick McKinnion | January 20, 2013 at 03:34 PM
> He's giving other people a chance to look like flaming morons too!
Ah, another DIY "can't fail" kit? Well, of course, they love to recycle failures...
> "could the Chief Justice have strategically planned to first rule in favor of Obamacare—as a tax—knowing that such a ruling would theatrically demonstrate an apparent support for Obama—or, at the very least, demonstrate no prejudice towards the man"
So he's one of the "he's secretly on our side and only pretends to be pro-Obama" crowd. This probably takes the strongest levels of delusion to maintain.
Sure, birthers are 0-200 in court simply because all judges are on their side and only need more time to prepare the ineligibility ruling they've been planning for 5 years, right...
Posted by: The Magic M | January 23, 2013 at 04:25 AM