Educating the Confused – Orly’s illogical ‘logic’

Orly is excited because she ‘argued’ in a draft ‘letter’ that Judge Moore could forward under 18 USC 3332, the information to a Grand Jury and all would be well. Typically, when Orly files a draft, people refrain from commenting until she has submitted, email, mailed or otherwise distributed the document. Orly however has taken strength from the ‘fact’ that she ‘knows’ that ‘Obama’s Personal Attorney’ tracks Orly’s follies on her Blog (who is Fussy btw?) and presumes that therefore, if Orly writes something which is poorly informed, that Tepper or others would properly educate her. Now I am pleased to hear that Orly recognizes the wisdom of the many Obots both those with and without (me included) formal legal training who have managed to successfully predict the outcome of all her cases, and that she is therefore looking for some help in her legal ‘arguments’.

Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper stated during phone conference to Judge Wingate in MS, in Taitz et al v Democratic Party, Obama, Pelosi, Onaka, Fussy [sic], Astrue  that he reads Taitz website daily. Taitz  knew that if she is mistaken and there is a precedent stating that the Supreme Court judge of the state court cannot forward evidence of a crime to the federal Grand Jury, Obama’s attorneys will find this precedent and will post it on one of their blogs.

Orly has an interesting ‘argument’ that if something does not have a precedent that therefore it can be legally done. More realistically would be a conclusion that if something does not have a precedent is because it makes no legal sense. Perhaps Orly has been impressed by the level of legal research performed by ‘obots’ and is hoping to leverage their help. But as usual, that is not going to help her as there are just no good foundations for her ‘arguments’.

I am not a lawyer myself and on the Fogbow, Mike Dunford, a lawyer in training, is conducting an experiment to see if those without any formal training in law, can spot the many errors in Orly’s ‘arguments’ here. After all, Orly’s legal background should provide her with a clear advantage over those with no such training.

Rather than looking for a precedent, it makes more sense to look at why Orly’s ‘argument’ fails on its face. 18 USC 3332 is a Federal Statute, secondly, it is a Federal Statute for a Special Grand Jury and finally, there is some case law which shows that the term ‘the court’, as found in 18 USC 3332, refers to the District Court which has convened the Special Grand Jury.

It is however tempting to ‘argue’ that since a statute does not ‘clearly’ prohibit something that it therefore makes it a valid legal argument.

So let’s first look at 18 USC 3332 which contains two relevant clauses.

3332(a) outlines who can present information to the Special Grand Jury

Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence.

Note that the statute does not say ‘a court’ but rather ‘the court’. Now I understand that the absence of a definite and indefinite article in Russian may cause some confusion on the part of Orly, however, the Statute clearly uses the term ‘the court’, and as a side note, it uses the phrase ‘any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States’ to describe how evidence can be presented to the Special Grand Jury by prosecutors.

So how do we determine how to interpret the meaning of the term ‘the court’? Well, there are various different ways to achieve this 1) by understanding the history of the Special Grand Jury 2) by exploring the use of terminology in the statute in question 3) by exploring the use of terminology in related statutes and 4) by looking at relevant court rulings

Thus we find for example that in Simpson v. Reno, 902 F. Supp. 254 – Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 1995, the court found that:

An individual may appear before a grand jury only at the invitation of the grand jury, the prosecutor, or the court of the appropriate jurisdiction, in its supervisory capacity. In re Application of Larry A. Wood, 833 F.2d 113 (8th Cir.1987).

The court  also found that a necessary condition is that there is indeed a Special Grand Jury impaneled in Alabama. For that we should look at 18 USC 3331 which shows that such a Special Grand Jury has to be impaneled every 18 months in districts with more than 4 million inhabitants, or

in which the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, certifies in writing to the chief judge of the district that in his judgment a special grand jury is necessary because of criminal activity in the district.

Alabama has three districts: The Northern, Middle and the Southern District. Alabama has 4.8M inhabitants, so we can reject that a Special Grand Jury is impaneled under the 4 million inhabitants rule.

But under Orly’s ‘law’ perhaps she believes that any Judge could forward any information to any special grand jury?

So let’s explore 3332(b)

Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

Now we see that the term ‘the court’ refers clearly to ‘district court’. But could this be any district court? Again, we need to look at 18 USC 3331 which explains that it is the Chief Justice of the District Court in question convenes the Special Grand Jury. It’s only this court which holds jurisdiction and supervision over the Grand Jury.

As the court found in “In Re Grand Jury Application“, 617 F. Supp. 199 – Dist. Court, SD New York 1985

18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) creates a right in every person to have information known by them concerning organized crime to be presented to the grand jury. It provides two ways for this to occur—either the court may bring it to the grand jury’s attention or a United States attorney can. Plaintiffs have requested one or the other form of relief, in the alternative.

Again reference the term “the court”

Things get worse, 18 USC 3332(a) specifies

It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.

Therefore, they can only investigate offenses against criminal laws of the United States, alleged to have been committed within that district. Again, there is no foundation for a Special Grand Jury to look in any of the ‘allegations’ by Orly or others.

She was proven correct.  Obama’s camp indeed posted a rebuttal and it showed that indeed there is no impediment to Chief Judge Roy Moore as well as Judge Tom Parker to forward the evidence of the crimes committed by Obama and his accomplices to the federal grand Jury, as well as to the state and county prosecutors and county grand jury.

State and County prosecutors have no jurisdiction on Federal matters, and the statute referred to by Orly only deals with Special Federal Grand Juries. As I pointed out, Orly’s arguments clearly fail.

In further lack of application of logic, Orly ‘claims’ that

Also, very limited response by the Obama camp tells Taitz that she has a high probability of getting positive rulings by Judge Wingate in MS, by Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinsky in Grinols, as well as by Judge Hollander in MD in the case dealing with Obama’s use of a stolen SSN of Harry Bounel, as well as by Judge Lamberth on Obama’s use of a fabricated Selective Service certificate with a fabricated postal stamp affixed to it.

ROTFL… Orly now believes that the Court’s rulings depend on whether or not the ‘Obama camp’ has responded to her filings. Needless to say that there is no reason to expect a positive ruling in MS and that the FOIA cases will similarly fail. One can only address so many quixotic quests in any given time. Orly should be very familiar with Judge Lamberth who already ruined her day by ruling against her in an earlier case and who has dismissed any foolish notion that a Common Law Grand Jury’s indictment have any legal relevance.

Orly is getting quite desperate. I can fully understand why. And I find it comforting that the little time spent by ‘obots’ on rebutting the ‘arguments’ by Orly have caused her much concern. In that context, she may want to familiarize herself with the fact that Harry Bounel’s as found in the NY Census was tracked down to be Harry Boymel, whose SSN does not match President Obama’s. It will be a pleasure to see Orly’s cases unravel, and there is nothing she can do about it. President Obama has been re-elected in spite of Orly’s efforts to block them. One of these days I will make an inventory of all the losses by Orly, needless to say she suffered sanctions in two cases, one $20,000 and another $4000. I predict that before the last suit is dismissed, Orly will have been awarded at least one additional sanction.

Orly’s pending cases (in progress)

  • Taitz v Donahue – FOIA against Post Master General – Status: No Relevance to Obama, motion for summary dismissal will be granted. USPS has shown how it met the FOIA requirements. Note: Orly filed a motion to recuse Judge Lamberth, I guess she expected the Judge to rule in her favor.

4 thoughts on “Educating the Confused – Orly’s illogical ‘logic’

  1. “Also, very limited response by the Obama camp tells Taitz that she has a high probability of getting positive rulings”
    Does “the Obama camp” reger to opposing counsel? Or to the Obots who comment on her blog?

    If the former, it might explain her ginormous filings, with all the superfluous zibits: maybe she misunderstands what the scales of Justice are used for…

  2. Typical Orly – 5.5 pages, 2.5 of which cite the law verbatim, as if Moore somehow doesn’t know it. She really knows how to tell people she thinks they’re stupid…

  3. > I find it comforting that the little time spent by ‘obots’ on rebutting the ‘arguments’ by Orly have caused her much concern

    Most of the time, birthers play Catch-22. If Obots don’t say much, they’re “hiding”. If Obots say much, they’re “panicking”. *lol*

  4. 2.5 of which cite the law verbatim, as if Moore somehow doesn’t know it.

    It is easy to cut and paste, but much harder to understand. So the trick is to let the recipient figure it all out. I have seen some of this in her filings in her lawsuits…

Comments are closed.