DC – Taizt v Donahue – Orly Orly Orly…

Poor Orly is not doing to well. She was asked to provide feedback on a proposed schedule and instead decided to threaten opposing counsel, in violation of the the California Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 5-100 Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges

(A) A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.

(B) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “administrative charges” means the filing or lodging of a complaint with a federal, state, or local governmental entity which may order or recommend the loss or suspension of a license, or may impose or recommend the imposition of a fine, pecuniary sanction, or other sanction of a quasi-criminal nature but does not include filing charges with an administrative entity required by law as a condition precedent to maintaining a civil action.

(C) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “civil dispute” means a controversy or potential controversy over the rights and duties of two or more parties under civil law, whether or not an action has been commenced, and includes an administrative proceeding of a quasi-civil nature pending before a federal, state, or local governmental entity.

Instead, Orly insists that if the opposing counsel does not forward her ‘materials’ to a Federal Grand Jury, they will expose themselves to RICO charges… Has she abandoned all pretense to be acting as a lawyer? Or is she just a pro-se and the court will take pity on her?

Mr. Soskin,

I filed a motion seeking summary judgment/default judgment in my favor. You asked for a leave of court to file a late response. Leave of court was not given to you. You have no right to file anything until Judge Lamberth rules.

Perhaps Orly forgot about the response filed by the Government? That they were not properly served…?

For service to be effective, however, the service package must be received by a civil process clerk at the United States Attorney’s Office . . . .


Plaintiff’s argument misses the point. At most, the stamped signature of Mr. Hase could confirm that the service package was received at the Department of Justice mailroom, which Defendants have not disputed. For service to be effective, however, the service package must be received by a civil process clerk at the United States Attorney’s Office, and no one named “Eddy Hase,” or having a similar name, has held such a position at any time relevant to this case.


Orly continues:

For you to even discuss any new filing is a real hutzpah, Mr. Soskin, and I assume you know the meaning of the word hutzpah.
I, do, request though that you and Mr. Van Horn forward immediately to the Federal Grand Jury under 18 USC 3332 all of the evidence in this case, which shows that Mr. Obama is committing fraud, using a fabricated ID, that Postmaster General and Inspector General of the USPS and/or other employees of the USPS are criminally complicit in the RICO to steal U.S. Presidency using fabricated IDs, identity fraud, identity theft, fraud and a whole laundry list of other charges.
Please, forward to me a confirmation that you and Mr. Van Horn forwarded this information to the Federal Grand Jury.
If you refuse to do so, you personally and Mr. Horn will be complicit in this RICO.
I would like to remind you one historical fact: during Watergate 30 high ranking officials of Nixon administration, including Attorney General John Mitchell, went to prison for fraud and obstruction of Justice.
If you do not provide me such a confirmation within 24 hours, I am filing a notice with Judge Lamberth.
Have a nice day,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

We can only hope that she files a notice with the Judge..