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.

Continue reading


Orly’s draft letter to AL Supreme Court Justice Moore

When the law fails, it’s time for flattery [Warning: Link to Orly’s blog, click at your own risk]… In a draft letter to Judge Moore she ‘observes’ that

Orly: I read your brilliant analysis in McInnish v Chapman, a case relating to Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. President while using a fabricated birth certificate.

Orly insists, without much legal supporting evidence that under 18 USC 3332, any judge may forward information to a grand jury. In fact the only legal cases she does reference have no relevance to the issue, but are meant to remind Moore of what a Federal Judge did when he forced Moore to remove a religious statue.

What Orly, and others, may have failed to realize is that there are two statutes under which a grand jury may be convened and these grand juries are very different beasts.

Continue reading

Orly totally clueless

Orly write on her site:
9th Circuit included Lindsey case in its’February 13th oral argument docket. In Lindsey the district court confirmed that a candidate who is not eligible should be thrown off the ballot, while in Grinols the same district ruled the opposite. [-( This is flagrant discrimination and bias in favor of the establishment candidate Obama

Posted on | January 20, 2014 | No Comments

Both Lindsey case and my case Grinols et al v Electoral college, Obama, Congress, secretary of State of CA, Governor of CA are now before the 9th Circuit.In Lindsey the Eastern District of Ca confirmed decision of the Se of State to throw of the ballot Peta Lindsey who was not Constitutional y eligible, but the same District refused to take action against Obama, who is even less eligible than Lindsey. Lindsey might not be 355 y.o., but she at least has papers. Obama does not have any papers verifying his identification. :^o:^o:^o

9th Circuit is in catch 22. :lol: This is a clear discrimination. [-( I believe that this discrimination in 2 similar cases will reach both the supreme Court and the Interamerican court for Human rights. =))

Orly has no grasp of reality here, which is that the two cases are clearly distinguishable. But I doubt that Orly understands these subtleties of law. Any first year law student would have no trouble, explaining the differences between these to cases.
And no neither the Supreme Court nor the Interamerican court of Human rights will ever hear this foolish argument.
Has Orly really passed the California Bar, I wonder… She appears to have forgotten so many of the basic.s

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Orly pretty confused

Orly has been making some pretty outrageous claims about the Maryland case. The Defendant is asking for additional time because the attorney on the case is retiring. Orly immediately raises the rhetoric but fails to understand the Judge’s past ruling

01/13/2014 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 1/30/2014 (Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
Orly ‘claims’ that
Department of Justice [sic] is asking Judge Hollander for additional time yet again to make up a third story about the fraud of the century. See pleadings below. When one tells the truth, it is the same story all the time. When one lies, he has to make up new stories every time he is caught in another lie.

All the Department of Justice did was to ask for additional time to respond to Orly’s claim that the search was incomplete. There is no new story, there are no lies.

It was proven time and again that the Social Security administration is hiding the application for a Social Security number REDACTED, which was assigned to Harry Bounel and later fraudulently used by Obama. :^o

Orly’s poor reading abilities may have caused her to believe that there is such an application but the facts so far show that there are no such records found. Orly is accusing the Justice Department of lying but all she has is a failed understanding of what was found.

Obama failed E-verify and SSNVS and was rejected by the Obamacare, as they also could not verify his identy.

From this Orly jumps to a conclusion that somehow Obama is using someone else’s SSN, even though there is no supporting evidence. The failure in e-verify never suggested that President Obama was not using valid SSN.

Now a new attorney was brought to handle this case and he is telling the judge that they will submit a third version of the story. :^o

That is not what the motion states.

Current attorney was an acting US Attorney for Maryland with a staff of 70 attorneys and 70 support staff. They want additional time until February 7. These people should be fighting the fraud in the White House, instead all of these resources are used to fight one civil rights attorney, [-X who is trying to restore the sanity, rule of law in the White House and stop usurpation of the presidency.

Orly may believe that she is a ‘civil rights’ attorney or trying to restore sanity and rule of law, but there is not much to support her position here.

So far Judge Ellen Hollander was the only judge (federal or state) who showed some decency and integrity and common sense and denied the prior motion to dismiss by the Feds

No Orly, she denied your motion for summary judgment and approved the motion to dismiss. Hint: Plaintiff is Orly, defendant is the acting Commissioner of Social Security.

12/13/2013 19 ORDER granting Defendant’s 7 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend; denying Plaintiff’s 9 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; setting deadline for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/13/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 12/16/13) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

How clueless can one be? And really, who is “lying” here? A fascinating mindset, to say the least.

Orly’s reading abilities are quite poor, her legal successes are of similar quality and quantity.

The Court explained in its ruling in details, the failures by Orly

One of her biggest failures is the flawed belief that President Obama’s SSN was stolen and that it belonged to Harrison J Bounel.

So be prepared for months of more entertainment.

Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 6

Orly managed to have her case removed to the Federal Circuit after she filed an attempted RICO suit. Of course, now she is on the hook to actually file a RICO statement

04/25/2012 2 RICO Notice – The Plaintiffs shall file within twenty (20) days a RICO case statement. This statement shall include the facts the Plaintiff is relying upon to initiate this RICO complaint as a result of the “reasonable inquiry” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

The other defendant is quick to move as well and both parties file their answers to the first amended complaint.

Continue reading

Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 5

Orly, perhaps unaware of what she will set in motion, files a first amended complaint on April 19, 2012

She continues to ask for declaratory and injunctive relief and adds triple damages for RICO…

She adds Brian Fedorka, Leah Lax, Laurie Roth and Tom MacLaren as plaintiffs and  extends the list of plaintiffs to include President Obama, “Obama for America”, Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, Michael Astrue (Commissioner of Social Security), Nanci Pelosi (chair of the National Democratic Party nominating convention) and many John and Jane Does.

In typical Orly-esque fashion she still does not file a RICO statement. She now has tripped the legal trap that she had set herself…

5 days after Orly set in motion the clock, the Secretary of State of Mississippi files a removal notice with the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. By adding RICO, Orly has opened up a pandora box as the defendants now have the opportunity to remove the case from State Court to Federal Court. Let the fun times begin…

04/24/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Secretary of State of Mississippi from Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, case number 251-12-107 CIV. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 34643015410)Pursuant to Rule L.U.Civ.R. 5(b): within 14 days removing party must electronically file the entire state court record as a single filing; and all parties shall, within fourteen days after the Case Management Conference, file as separate docket items any unresolved motions that were filed in state court which they wish to advance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – First Amended Complaint, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)