MD – Taitz v Colvin – Second try

Orly is desperately trying again to get her doomed case back on track. After the SSA clarified that it had nothing of relevance for Orly, which Orly misinterpreted to mean that they had found Bounel’s records, the Court dismissed her case. Orly is now ‘arguing’ that the Judge should have recused herself as she is an appointee of President Obama. Good luck with that. Also, she claims that these are newly discovered facts, even though Dr Conspiracy has document that Orly knew about this in early 2014. Orly’s quixotic quest is continuing but with no hope that her case will be resurrected.

07/21/2014 43 MOTION to Reopen Case; Motion for recusal; Motion to transfer case; Second Motion for reconsideration by Orly Taitz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(jf2, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2014)


CA – Dummett v Bowen – Appeals Court Confirms

Bowen to recover cost… Non-published opinion here

Dummett et al. v. Bowen
Case Number C073763
Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 07/21/2014
Status: Final
The judgment is affirmed. Bowen shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author:     Robie, Ronald B.
Participants: Duarte, Elena J. (Concur)
Blease, Coleman A. (Concur)
Case Citation: none 

Carl Gallup reports No progress

Although he repeats the unsupported claim that the Xerox Workflow has been disproven, the embarrassing facts that a simple workflow can explain most of the artifacts which had been claimed to be evidence of a forgery, remain standing with no effort on the part of anyone to debunk them.

It seems clear to me that the claim that the PDF is a 1000% forgery is built on hot air, not on scientific evidence.

The Clown Case Posse already embarrassed itself with its “reports” which somehow overlooked a simple workflow, and since their case was based on an argument from ignorance, nothing much remained.

For over a year, all we have heard is ‘silence’…

Rodney Class – Denied again

Another bites the dust…

07/07/2014    122     LEAVE TO FILE DENIED – Pretrial Statement as Ordered by Judge Kessler on 5/15/14 as to RODNEY CLASS. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. “Leave to file without complying with 6/20/14 Order DENIED” signed by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts on 7/4/14. (Attachment: # 1 Copy of 6/20/14 Pretrial Order) (mlp) (Entered: 07/07/2014)

07/10/2014    123     LEAVE TO FILE DENIED – Motion for Disclosure: 5 U.S. Code § 552 – Public Information (FOIA); Enemy of the State, War Crime Application for Certification Alien Property Custodian by RODNEY CLASS. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. “Leave to file DENIED” signed by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts on 7/8/14. (mlp) (Entered: 07/10/2014

The Judge is refusing the sovcit nonsense. Rodney should really be preparing for a real defense.

Has the Second Battle of Athens Begun?

Despite no police report or any evidence, Fitzpatrick was convicted of “aggravated perjury” and “extortion” unanimously by 12 ignorant and possibly intimidated jurors whose names are here.


Let’s set the record straight here, so that people understand the full facts. The victim, Mr Cunningham reported Walt’s behavior to the Courts and the Attorney General and preserved the evidence. The Attorney General decided to investigate the concerns and the investigator met with Cunningham, who provided him with all the evidence and the Attorney General decided to present the evidence to a Grand Jury who indicted Fitzpatrick on four counts.

In pre-trial arguments, one indictment, stalking, was dropped by the Judge and three were allowed to go to trial. At the beginning of the trial, 12 randomly selected people were chosen to be on the Jury and to claim that these people are ‘ignorant’ makes a mockery of our Fifth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury and is an insult to the people of Tennessee and McMinn County.

Worse, the accusation is that these jurors were possibly intimidated, even though there exists no evidence and no evidence has been presented to show any such intimidation. In fact, the Jury decided against the harassment charge and found Walt “not guilty’ on that count. The Jury, having seen all the evidence, and heard all the testimony, did decide to find Walt guilty on two counts, extortion and aggravated perjury.

The evidence that was introduced during the trial includes Walts submissions to the Grand Jury, his petitions for a motion for a protective order, and likely Walt’s writings sent to the Supreme Court and the Office of Professional Accountability, in which Walt appears to have asked them to disbar and/or punish Cunningham for ‘crimes’.

Mr Cunningham and others had properly informed Walt that his submissions contained elements which were at odds with the facts and therefor could open up Walt to perjury charges, and that Walt’s attempts to remove Mr Cunningham as the foreperson of the Grand Jury could be interpreted as extortion under the Tennessee Statutes. Instead of heeding the advice, Walt decided to file motions for protective orders and other complaints, all of which would have impeded the foreperson from effectively doing his job.

Walt was also advised that his true recourse was to be found in the Courts, where he could challenge the Foreperson’s decision to no longer accept Walt’s repetitive complaints, which had been more than once been rejected by the Grand Jury. Under Tennessee law such findings are final…

So before one goes off accusing juror members of being ignorant or intimidated, it may be helpful to first look at the facts and evidence and then make a case. Until then, such claims sound like those made by sore losers who, rather than argue the facts, attack the person. In common parlance this is known as the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy.


Fitzpatrick and the Grand Jury that indicted him

During the motion hearing in June, the defense raised the issue that since the jurors who indicted Fitzpatrick in March, were told in January about his involvements in a Monroe County incident, that there may have been prejudice.

It is unclear to me if counsel raised the issue in a timely and proper fashion however.

Under the criminal procedure in this state, objection to the venire or the indictment is deemed waived unless raised in apt time by motion or plea in abatement.

In State ex rel. Lawrence v. Henderson, Tenn.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 96, 101, this court said:

“If the defendant does not object by motion or plea in abatement, to the venire or to the jurors summoned under it, before he pleads to the indictment, an objection thereafter is too late.”

Source: State ex rel. Henderson v. Russell, 459 SW 2d 176 – Tenn: Court of Criminal Appeals 1970

On a personal note, I believe that the Judge should have appointed a different Grand Jury to deal with the issue since the appearance of bias should be avoided at all cost.