Tales Of Suicide And Tyranny From Orly Taitz In Santa Ana

orly2.jpg
Whew, that was a long one. Laguna Niguel dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz, along with her co-counsel/nemesis Gary Kreep, spent a couple hours this morning in the Santa Ana Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse arguing why Judge David O. Carter shouldn't throw their case against Barack Obama out of court.

Carter's verdict? Eh, give him more time. No ruling today.

The courtroom discussion rambled across a range of topics, from John McCain's birth in Panama to Taitz's oppressed family in Siberia. But basically, there are two issues for Carter to decide.

The first is standing. Who has a right to ask the courts to determine Obama's eligibility to be president? In order to have standing, you've got to prove you've been harmed and could potentially obtain some kind of redress from the court. In this case, who has been damaged by the Usurper's alleged usurper-ness? The lawyers for the government say none of the four dozen plaintiffs meet the criteria. Taitz's cohort of retired military officers aren't likely going to be called into active duty. Her and Kreep's failed presidential candidates -- Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake among them -- didn't have a chance of hell in winning in the election, regardless of which Democrat was running for president. Taitz countered that all taxpayers have been standing to enforce the Constitution.

The second is justiciability. Hilariously, Judge Carter can't pronounce that word at all and apologized a few times for trying. The government's main argument is that courts have  no business hearing a matter that might eventually remove a sitting president from office. The Constitution vests congress with the "sole" power to impeach, and the 25th amendment lays out the procedure by which a president is declared unfit for office. If one judge ruled a president ineligible, U.S. Attorney Roger West argued, the country would sit in a state of "disastrous" crisis while the decision worked its way through the appeals system. Kreep said that Congress has no power to impeach Obama, because Obama never was president in the first place.

Carter seemed genuinely perplexed by the issue of standing. A plaintiff claiming harm must prove that that harm is not "speculative and hypothetical." Again and again, he asked Taitz and Kreep to explain why that wasn't the case for their plaintiffs. After returning from a twenty minute recess, Taitz was armed with a compelling answer: Because she came from the USSR!

Taitz's question to the court: "Have you ever heard of a lawyer being able to challenge Stalin?" She then launched into the story of how her great uncle was sent to a labor camp in Siberia, and lawyers weren't able to free him. Her great aunt, stricken with grief, slit her own wrists but was rescued by a neighbor. After years and years in Siberia, Taitz's uncle returned to his family, only to die soon after. The moral of the story? "That's what happens when citizens don't have the power to enforce their constitutional rights given by God and given by the Constitution."

It was the biggest applause line of the day.

Taitz went on to say that she knew Obama was bad news from the moment she saw him open his mouth, and that she has since dedicated herself to working "25/7" for justice.

Quietly, calmly, Carter replied that he didn't want to "chill" the audience's enthusiasm, but the America that Taitz alluded to was not the America he grew up in: one where opposing parties could confront one another in a "thoughtful" manner in the courts and in the legislature. He said that he had heard that Taitz had exhorted followers on her blog to contact the court, and that his receptionist had to take as many as forty calls a day from Taitz's supporters. "I can assure you that during the proceedings, the government or President Obama haven't contacted me," he said. "If there's any undue pressure [on the court], it's from you." Carter said Taitz was welcome to have her followers continue to contact the court -- it wouldn't sway his decision either way -- but that phone calls would be sent straight to voice-mail and deleted.

Earlier, Carter seemed to do some rambling of his own. Unprovoked, and in reference to John McCain's birth in Panama, he said that the notion that an American who gives birth while traveling in another country couldn't have that child run for president was "insulting" to "mothers." He went through the various defendants and requested depositions listed in Taitz's lawsuit, expressing confusion as to why foreign governments had to be subpoenaed and Barack Obama called for testimony. "He doesn't have any memory of his birth," Carter said. Taitz conceded that she, too, doesn't remember being born.

Carter also wondered whether anyone in Congress had brought up the eligibility issue. Taitz read what sounded to be like a form letter from Senator Jeff Sessions saying that he couldn't involve himself in pending litigation. Kreep pointed out that Senator Tom Coburn has talked publicly about eligibility. But still, Carter wondered: Why had no one pushed for impeachment or investigation?

Some time spent on this website might help clear that question up for Carter.

At the end of the nearly three-hour session, the spectators sitting in the courtroom and the overflow viewing room looked around at each other. Was it really over? Carter ended things saying he needed time to consider the arguments made in court today. He gave no real indication of when he'd issue a ruling, but he did close with a joke: They'd hear from him within a day to a year.

Comments (16)

Mrs. Polly says:

Thank you for both the clarity and priceless details in your account, Mr. Kornhaber. Today's happenings sound like a combination of a Marx Brothers movie and out-takes from the Battleship Potemkin. Your courtroom tweets are an invaluable service to a large community of Orly addicts.

Also, I want to thank you for including the Orliad in your article about artistic depictions of Orly Taitz. It really made my week, even though knowing that her high-beams were turned onto my pen-and-ink version made me gulp. I can't imagine how you handle it in person.

Sunglasses?

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 3:40PM
Mrs. Polly says:

And please forgive the HTML incompetence. But FWIW, I can pronounce "justiciability."

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 3:42PM
harry says:

Sad day in America. We have a "president" who has never proven his birth and refuses to show his birth certificate to anyone. Would someone tell me why it is important to conceal information that is on a birth certificate if in fact it meets the requirement to be president?

John McCain gave Obama a free ride by not making an issue out of it, but then I don't think John McCain thought that he, John, would win the election.

Then for others to say that the issue of whether he, Obama, was legally qualified or not to be president by his birthplace was not an issue because the American people had voted and he was their choice. Excuse me, but are we just totally becoming a lawless nation of fools here? Me thinks it so! How sad to watch the greatest nation on earth go down because of the majority of stupid people that are blinded by a lying media and total disregard for the Constitution.

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 4:02PM
rikker says:

Orly's fifteen minutes are about up. As we predicted, Judge Carter listened to the merits of her case today and found them wanting. We he rules against her, she'll claim he lied about not being pressured by the government. She'll ask him to recuse himself due to his obvious "prejudice" and she will appeal.

Her followers will spin this disastrous loss into a win. They'll say that whatever Carter rules opens the door to discovery.

Typical.

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 4:40PM
misanthropicus says:

It's not over until it's over - still, fact is, that Carter follows the same technical way in discussing Obama's case that was used before, leaving the essence of the case un-addressed: is the current tenant in the WH legitimately there or not?
And from here we start splitting the hair, while the payment of a $15 fee would clear the matter rapido rapido -

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 5:37PM
rikker says:

It's over, misant. What you are witnessing is rigor mortis. What you are hearing is the dirge chant of the birthers.

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 6:20PM
Mrs. Polly says:

@harry: " How sad to watch the greatest nation on earth go down because of the majority of stupid people that are blinded by a lying media and total disregard for the Constitution"

Fortunately, the majority of intelligent people know that in America one is innocent until proven guilty, and that Obama has no need to produce anything for the perusal of fringe-group seditionists, not a grocery receipt, not a laundry list, nothing.
Throwing a confused bunch of online polls, misread databases, and hysterical letters from retired night-court magistrates at the justice system and saying, "this all ties into my theory somehow" doesn't cut it, and any competent lawyer would know that.

Giving in to the demands of every caviling armchair conspiracy nut would be absolutely the wrong thing for Obama to do, and moreover, plans are already discussed for how to disqualify the "long form" if he ever did release it, so releasing it would be meaningless as well as wrong.

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 7:07PM
GaPeach says:

If there is nothing to hide, why is he hiding?
If there is nothing to cover up, why did he sign an Executive Order sealing his documents effective 4 days before the hearing today?
If he has been using 39 different Social Security numbers, why doesn't he have one of his own. The one he has used most belonged to a deceased gentleman, who would be 108 years old today!

All his ploys are nothing more than OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Somebody needs to file a criminal complaint for fraud (are you listening, Orly) and then you will not need "standing"... give it some thought!

Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 8:23PM
rikker says:

GaPeach,

YOU are welcome to file anything you please. Obama is not hiding anything. It is the law of the State of Hawaii thay Orly is up against, not Obama. The President barely knows that Orly Taitz exists. She is a fringe looney, worthy of scant attention. Fox News has never mentioned her; MSNBC only uses her as comic relief.

Posted On: Tuesday, Oct. 6 2009 @ 2:20AM
CHS says:

Once again I ask:

If our President's birthplace were truly an issue, I think our current Secretary of State would have brought it up in early 2008.

After all, Mrs. Clinton wanted to be the President, not his errand girl.

Posted On: Tuesday, Oct. 6 2009 @ 8:21AM
The Amazing Jim says:

This all ties back to the inter-national communist gay jewish conspiracy, the tri-lateral commision and Kentucky Fried Chicken's "secret recipe". By sealing project Blue Book and the hiding of the Foo Fighters by the Masons we will no see the fruition of the Atlantians nefarious design on a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT! Keep fighting the good fight Orly and GaPeach!

Posted On: Tuesday, Oct. 6 2009 @ 10:07AM
Paul says:

The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Sanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

Posted On: Tuesday, Oct. 6 2009 @ 11:22AM
Sebaneau says:

No controlling legal authority has verified the Gray Communist's eligibility, in spite of his own admission that he was born a British subject, i.e. at least a dual citizen, which makes him automatically ineligible even if he really were born in the United States.
This is a major breakdown of the US political system and a no less major moral and legal crisis.

Impeachment is for regularly elected Presidents.
Exposure by anyone, preferably a credible judicial body, is the way to unseat an illegitimate, unconstitutional usurper.
And the Supreme Court --i. e. the judiciary-- has been involved in deciding constitutional matters since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

As for standing, every denizen of the earth has an interest in the rule of law being enforced in the United States.
And in having the Gray Communist, yes, Usurper removed, even if they don't know it.

Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 7 2009 @ 2:52AM
Sebaneau says:

As for the Usurpers's alleged "privacy interest" in not having the circumstances of his birth made public (as if anything were less 'private' than the legitimacy of an alleged US President), here is the latest development on the issue
(of course, if you dont read Leo Donofrio's other posts, you may not measure to what extent the Hawaii Department of Health is LEGALLY OBLIGED to release the Usurper's birth documentation)

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
“UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio”
Posted in Uncategorized on October 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen


This morning, it dawned on me that I wasn’t aware of any previous UIPA requests to the DoH for the actual records which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961.

How could a birth have been”FILED” on “August 8, 1961″ for President Obama with the DoH “REGISTRAR” without the Registrar having been informed that he was born?

That’s not possible. Not unless clairvoyance was officially recognized by the DoH in 1961. (More secret law?)

In order for the DoH Registrar to have filed President Obama’s birth on August 8, 1961 there must be a record that came into existence no later than August 9, 1961. (I use that date to make up for any issues regarding time zone differences.)

So, I have just sent the following UIPA request to Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino.

Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 8:24 AM
From: [Leo C. Donofrio - email redacted]
To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov
cc: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
Subject: UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio

Dear Department of Health Director Fukino,

The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA:

I request to inspect and copy the record (or records) which contributed to the decision of the Hawaii Department of Health (hereinafter DoH) to have indicated that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH registrar on August 8, 1961.

President Obama has made public a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) which he alleges is an official document printed by the Hawaii DoH. That document bears the following:

“DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR
August 8, 1961″.

Various public statements made by the DoH have given the appearance of authenticating that COLB as a genuine record originally generated by the DoH.

In this, my 5th UIPA request sent to your office, please understand that I am requesting access to all records maintained by the DoH which caused President Obama’s birth to have been filed with the registrar back on August 8, 1961. Therefore, for purposes of this – UIPA request #5 – I am only requesting to inspect (and copy) records (or official copies thereof) which originally came into existence no later than August 9, 1961.

This request is not for the COLB in question as I have previously requested that record in a separate UIPA request (UIPA Request #3) forwarded to your office by myself on September 29, 2009.

Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules. If you do maintain a record (or records) which came into existence prior to August 10, 1961 which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been “FILED BY REGISTRAR” on “August 8, 1961″ and you intend to deny access thereto, please make sure your response states that you are denying access. If you do not maintain any such records, you are required by the OIP administrative rules to inform me that you do not maintain any such records.

I would prefer to inspect these records in person. If you intend to send me official copies of the records requested herein, I prefer electronic copies sent by email to [email redacted].

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

That a COLB has been presented to the nation by President Obama wherein his birth appears to have been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961 could not be more public at this point.

And the DoH has given the appearance of authenticating this document. Such authentication has been relied upon by various courts and persons in the Senate and Congress. Therefore, absolutely no privacy protection is available to President Obama as to this information.

Should the requested records also contain information which has not been made public and to which a privacy interest still exists, that information can be redacted.

The law supports my request. The law is rational in that way. The strange behavior by the DoH is irrational.

If the DoH has such a record they must either grant access thereto or deny access. On the other hand, if the DoH does not maintain such a record, then – according to the OIP administrative rules, as well as the multiple statements of OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting – the DoH must tell me if they do not maintain such a record.

If the DoH does not maintain such a record, then they do not maintain sufficient evidence that President Obama’s birth was genuinely filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961. This would bring us back to square 1.

(For more relevant discussion about the “Filed By Registrar” issue, please see the original June 24, 2008 report by Israeli Insider as well as TerriK’s latest in depth analysis.)

Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 7 2009 @ 9:09AM
Philip S. says:

and if they do not maintain such a record then there is no issue of privacy

Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 8 2009 @ 9:42AM
Paul says:

Maybe when she becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. $20K fine, is just the beginning.

Posted On: Tuesday, Oct. 13 2009 @ 9:33AM

Write Comment


Comments may not show up immediately after submission. Please wait a minute after posting a comment for it to appear.

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking "Post," you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.

Sign up for free stuff, news info & more!

Tools

General

Education

Links