Dr Conspiracy has written an inspired editorial titled “The USA is not the CCCP”
Excerpt:
What Orly Taitz is trying to do through her lawsuits, public appearances and most of all on her web site is nothing less than the Sovietization of her followers. She wants Americans to believe that their government is essentially corrupt and the newspapers are all in on the conspiracy–basically imposing the milleu of the former Soviet Union on her fans’ perception of the 21st century United States.
Orly, in response to Judge Carter’s ruling asserted that
Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?
Well, let’s see
On June 9, Orly published this article:
Please call the Central district court in CA, the clerk has to issue a default today. He has been dragging his feet since the 06.02.09.
Posted on | June 9, 2009 | 17 Comments
| 06/02/2009 | 10 | Amendment to First REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against defendant Barack H Obama 7 filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Amended affidavit of the process server)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 06/02/2009) |
Since this case will generate more ‘controversy’ and contrived arguments, I have decided to bring the Docket up to date with the relevant filings, allowing a better discussion as to what happened in the early months of the case where Orly failed to properly serve and where Orly apparently forgot to prosecute the case until reminded by the Court. All docket entries for the case can be found under the “Keyes v Obama (Docs)” category.
On January 20th, several hours after President Obama’s presidency had officially started (noon, January 20th), Orly Taitz, following Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedings (FRCP), filed a complaint and summons asking for 60 days for serving people in their official government capacity. This is important as she later insists that she was suing President Obama as an individual, even though she filed after President Obama, per US Constitution, had started his official term as President (which per US Constitution starts on Noon, January 20th).
By May 12th, the Court observed lack of prosecution (FRCP Rule 4(m)) and issued an order to show cause.
Oct 312009
Orly once again appears to be woefully uninformed about the law (see below the fold). She is now accusing Judge Carter of having ‘defrauded’ her for not granting her default judgment or for taking away her opportunity to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Orly also asserts, correctly, that Judge Carter stated that the issue of Jurisdiction would be resolved and that the case would be heard on the merits. She then accuses him of shamelessly lying to her. (I believe that these examples of her continued behavior have been forwarded to the CA Bar Association).
Judge Carter dismissed the case because of Standing, not Jurisdiction. Although I can understand why Orly is confused as she may not be aware that there are three kinds of Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.
Source: Wikipedia
Anyone familiar with the law would know that the Court cannot waive subject-matter Jurisdiction. When Judge Carter was discussing Jurisdiction he was discussing personal jurisdiction which requires that the plaintiffs are properly served. What amazes me is that Orly appears to be unfamiliar with these important distinctions.
As to merits, the case was heard on its merits and rejected due to lack of subject-jurisdiction, something that cannot be waived.
Oct 302009
I have restored most of the articles but most of the pictures are missing. Comments have disappeared and I will see what I can do here.
I will occasionally comment on some of Orly’s more outrageous claims and others but I can no longer afford to spend the amount of time I set aside to research the law, facts and history.
It's time to say farewell
Uncategorized
Comments Off
Oct 302009
Now that the final lawsuit has been dismissed due to lack of standing etc, it’s time to move on with our lives.
I have very much appreciated the comments of the many people who contributed, from all sides, to the discussion.
I have no doubts that this part is on its way to the California Bar association
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
Dismissed !!!!
10/29/2009 89 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 56 : (See document for details.) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (rla) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack H. Obama, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx)
O R D E R REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants President Barack H. Obama (“Obama” or “President”), Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (“Clinton”), Joseph Biden (“Biden”), and Robert Gates’ (“Gates”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. After considering the moving, opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers, as well as the parties’ oral argument, the Court hereby rules as follows.
Orly has posted what appears to be a comment from “Bob”. “Bob” argues (sic) that since Judge Carter failed to rule on the motion for default, the motion to dismiss was premature and thus Carter’s dismissal was ‘illegal’. What our pal “Bob” appears to have forgotten is that the motion to dismiss was filed prematurely since the defendants had not been properly served. No proper service, no motions to dismiss.
Other than that, we can only hope that Orly raises this argument in her appeal or motion to reconsider. It should easily double the sanctions 
.
But really with ‘friend like Bob’ who needs enemies.
Bob, in an article titled “Bob, that’s exactly what I argued in the first place, it was a farce, it was shameless”
This whole “trial” held was illegal in the first place and thus the motion to dismiss was illegal. Let me explain:
Remember, the first hearing was for a default judgment. Therefore he had to follow Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Recent Comments