Keyes/Barnett v Obama – Confusion of dates in certificate of service November 12, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.trackback
Someone with far more attention to detail noticed the discrepancy between dates in Orly’s Certificate of Service
I the undersigned Orly Taitz, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, November 5, 2009, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS 9th day of November, 2009
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
I thought that it was part of the motion itself. Yes… check here
November 5, November 9… who knows, it’s just sloppiness.
You’re right, I’m wrong.
It can only be lack of proofreading. All the dates are typed and the errant “5″ comes after the date for the signature by Orly to the motion itself and before the date for Orly’s signature as the one who actually filed and served the document which is also typed as a “9″.
It is clear the document could not have been served before it was signed by Orly as counsel, regardless of what Orly as legal secretary may have done.
This is not about being right or wrong. It’s about understanding why Orly not only seems to be having problems with legal arguments and concepts as well as spelling, grammar and proof reading.
Compared to her vacuous legal claims, these are minor frustrations but I am amazed how little ownership Orly seems to take in her filings. And remember, it’s not about her but how she represents her clients. Even though she represents them pro bono, she has a duty.
But this is all about Orly now. In her motion to reconsider, she is more interested in having ‘prejudicial’ language about her performance removed. The same in Rhodes v McDonald. Of course, she knows that the defendants will not oppose her, until they are sanctioned as well.
It is clear that no one is proofreading the documents before they are sent to the Court.
1. It is highly uncommon for the proof of service to be signed by the attorney, unless the attorney has no one else in the office. From this one can reasonably infer that whatever Lincoln III is doing, it is not (a) being a legal assistant to Orly and/or (b) in the office.
2. While the rules regarding format of pleadings can be somewhat detailed, the fact that Cal state and federal courts use essentially the same rules (28line numbered and ruled, double spaced, etc) makes following the rules rather easy: you set up your format once and just keeping using that template. The only way anyone could send a single-spaced pleading to a court would be to have not had anyone look at it after it was written — absolute lack of minimal compentency.
3. That no one is reviewing, editing or proofreading Orly’s stream of conciousness screeds is evident from the fact that they are unedited stream of conciousness.
4. In short, Orly has isolated herself from anyone who could edit or proof her work. This could be due to not having the resources to have someone there, or due to being able to retain anyone (who would work for her?), or, in my opinion, because Orly is so self-absorbed that she does not see any need for her work to be critiqued by anyone else, since, in her mind, she is the best attorney in the world and her work can not be improved upon. My headshrinker friends have a few words for this: nacissism, and meglomania.
This is also the reason why to her the dicta about her is so much more important than the fact that the judge ruled against her clients.
Um, in your last sentence, did you mean to say “her client’s, the plaintiffs”, not “defendants”?
There could be several more or less innocent explanations:
1. Just a simple mistake. I could see checking the date on a wristwatch twice and one time misreading a 5 for a 9 or a 9 for a 5.
2. One date may be the date the document was sent, the second the proof of service was signed, if the proof of service had not accompanied the document. eg I sent the document on the 5th, and I’m signing the proof that I did that four days later on the 9th.
Like spelling her first name Orley in the footer of documents. Nothing big, just sloppy.