Judd v. Obama (Orly Taitz)

Orly posted the following on her blog:

(I am not providing a link, to protect the innocent)

I called the USA Today at the number above and the secretary answering the phone told me that they will not be interested in publishing a story about forgery in Obama’s IDs. I asked her to transfer me to an employee, who is not criminally complicit in elections fraud. They are still looking…
Click to expand...



I don't know if she is actually trying to be funny on purpose on not, but that is hilarious in a way that she would never understand.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
I don't know if she is actually trying to be funny on purpose on not, but that is hilarious in a way that she would never understand.
Click to expand...

I don't think she's trying to be funny. This is a woman who sues judges who rule against her, accusing them of being accomplices in a vast criminal conspiracy. One doesn't sanely play with that kind of fire. According to all who have encountered her, she really is that bat-crap crazy.
 
JayUtah said:
I don't think she's trying to be funny. This is a woman who sues judges who rule against her, accusing them of being accomplices in a vast criminal conspiracy. One doesn't sanely play with that kind of fire. According to all who have encountered her, she really is that bat-crap crazy.
Click to expand...
Err...are you suggesting that was not a lame attempt at humour, but a real statement? I thought she was potty, but not that potty.
 
She's sued people for disagreeing with her many times in the past. I would take that statement as deadly serious and fully expect the poor person on the other end of the line to be named in future suits, assuming Orly was able to get her name.
 
Orly just filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus in her Mississippi case with the fifth circuit court of appeals. In it she states:

"If this court does not grant the motion, the court will become complicit in fraud and cover up of fraud and forgery of Obama's IDs."
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Orly just filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus in her Mississippi case with the fifth circuit court of appeals. In it she states:

"If this court does not grant the motion, the court will become complicit in fraud and cover up of fraud and forgery of Obama's IDs."
Click to expand...

She should really get a lawyer to write these.
 
Was wondering when she'd throw some more poo at Judge England. She's been a busy bee over the New Year, trying to serve both Congress & the Electoral College... :rolleyes:
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Orly just filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus in her Mississippi case with the fifth circuit court of appeals. In it she states:

"If this court does not grant the motion, the court will become complicit in fraud and cover up of fraud and forgery of Obama's IDs."
Click to expand...

Dare I ask what a writ of Mandamus is?
 
Trying to get all the crazy out in time for the inauguration, eh?
 
KDLarsen said:
Was wondering when she'd throw some more poo at Judge England. She's been a busy bee over the New Year, trying to serve both Congress & the Electoral College... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Moot at this point. The Electoral College has voted and Congress has certified the vote. Barack Obama is President of the United States now. The inauguration is a formality.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
She want's the appellate court to tell the district court to get a move on and rule in her favor.
Click to expand...

A lawyer always endears himself to a judicial circuit by trying to tell them what to do and how to do it, and prodding them along when he thinks they're not moving fast enough for him amid all their other work. That extra bit of courtesy arises when you threaten a court should they fail to rule in your favor.
 
IMST said:
Dare I ask what a writ of Mandamus is?
Click to expand...


When an applicant seeks a writ of mandamus, it essentially means that the applicant is asking a court to compel a lower court or a governmental body to do something that the applicant alleges the lower court or the governmental body is required to do by statute, but failed to do. The legal test for issuing a writ of mandamus is clear enough, and in this case, as will not be surprising to anyone, Orly Taitz once again fails to meet the test or even understand it.

It is unfortunate that many jurisdictions in the U.S. have thusfar failed to implement any meaningful 'vexatious litigant' rules and have thusfar failed to implement 'loser pays' rules viz civil litigation. Doing so would go a very long way towards limiting the ridiculous amount of frivolous litigation that is initiated by nutters such as Orly Taitz (and others who are similarly crazy). If such people knew from the outset that they would have costs orders made against them when they (inevitably) fail, they would be much less likely to bring these frivolous and ridiculous claims in the first place, let alone bringing the same failed claims in alternative jurisdications after they've already failed elsewhere.
 
There is currently a petition on whitehouse.gov which is looking to get a response from the administration to "Mandate the AG to seek sanctions, costs, and attorneys' fees to recover taxpayer funds used to defend birther lawsuits."

A link to the petition is here.

It will be interesting to see what the Obama administration have to say on the subject. Birthers and their ridiculous lawsuits are wasting court time and costing the taxpayers money.
 
Another day, another Orly smack down.

this was just posted in the electronic docket of one of Orly's cases:

Order Filed: On January 15, 2013, this court filed an order dismissing the instant appeal because of appellant's failure to designate the record on appeal and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement, after notice that appellant was in default. On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion is defective for the following reasons, among others: 1) The motion purports to include appellant's notice designating the record on appeal but the notice is internally inconsistent in that appellant has failed to indicate which of the alternative methods she elects to use for the record on appeal. Instead, appellant has checked each of the three alternative forms: a clerk's transcript under rule 8.122, an appendix under rule 8.124 and the original superior court file under rule 8.128. Much of the remainder of the document, which consists of handwritten notations, is illegible. 2) The motion purports to include appellant's Case Information Statement, but the Case Information Statement is incomplete. Appellant has failed to complete section A regarding Appealability, section C regarding Bankruptcy or Other Stay, and section E regarding Service Requirements. 3) Appellant's motion to reinstate the appeal does not contain a proper proof of service. The clerk of this court is directed to include with this order a copy of Judicial Council Form APP-009-INFO "Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal)." Specifically, appellant's proof of service by mail on all court documents must include a statement, made under penalty of perjury, by the person doing the serving (who is not a party). Among other requirements, the proof of service also must state the name of the document being served, the server's home or business address, and the city and state from which the document is being mailed. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court on February 14, 2013, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom