After a string of defeats and no successes, Ms. Taitz goes to Washington! She filed a Quo Warranto lawsuit filled with her usual poor grammar and mirth-inducing claims. I would not call it hitting the "big time," but Daily Kos gets a guest appearance in the latest lawsuit.
For those who do not want to read to the middle, she mentions Daily Kos in discussing the president's birth certificate:
COLB presented on the Internet by various groups, which includes "daily Kos," [sic] the Obama campaign, "Factcheck" and others cannot be relied upon is genuine.
Taitz begins by lauding herself and her role as the lead attorney to bring these cases against the president:
Through her foundation she has popularized Constitution and fought violations of Constitution and civil liberties of US citizens.
She is referring to the supposed nonprofit Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, through which she accepts donations and of which nobody has ever found any evidence of the site being registered as a legitimate nonprofit organization.
In case you do not follow Orly and are therefore unfamiliar with the Constitution that she has now popularized, it is the document upon which all the United States' laws are based.
Taizt says Obama refused to prove his eligibility for the presidency based on "Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties."
The problem with this, of course, is that Article 2 says no such thing. Taitz, however, has an explanation for this, provided directly after sovereignties (never mind that it's not actually a sentence):
As described in the Law of Nations Emer De Vattel, Vol 1, Chapter 19, 212.
Yes, that is the whole statement.
Taitz whines that as a result of the "number of legal actions" she has brought against the president
She was subjected to vicious attacks coming from the media acting as regime official propaganda, from Obama's supporters, and from some judiciary, acting as tools to silence her and intimidate her into dropping her legal actions.
I wonder if she includes Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in that category of "regime official propaganda?" Both have been criticial of Taitz and/or the Birthers.
Several convicted criminals and document forgers were working in concert and appear to be following the same instructions, submited [sic] perjured affidavits to court and forged her signature, in an attempt to influence the judiciary and undermine her in the eyes of the community.
Now that is funny, because she submitted an affidavit from one of these alleged "document forgers" in her lawsuits, along with a document that she claims is authentic--a Kenyan birth certificate that, if true, would have an undersized 17" baby growing up to be a 6'0" tall man--something that has an extremely low rate of probability.
In discussing the person who "forged her signature," she is referring to Charles Edward Lincoln, the disbared felon she hired as a paralegal, who now claims that he had a torrid love affair with Taitz. (Yuck.)
The poor grammar in this next sentence makes it hilarious:
When she brought two legal actions in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of the members of the US military, as a form of intimidation and retaliation, she was sanctioned $20,000.
Here we have Taitz admitting in a court of law that she brought legal actions on behalf of the members of the US military as a form of intimidation and retaliation against Obama.
Taitz now believes that the President should reimburse her for the emotional distress she has suffered as a result of her poor legal skills and inability to file a lawsuit that does not get dismissed or result in sanctions. This lawsuit would be better filed against the correspondence law school that gave her a law degree: William Howard Taft University.
Taitz is seeking not only verification of Obama's legitimacy under Quo Warranto, but financial compensation for damages suffered as well as compensation for the severe emotional distress.
Taitz claims in the lawsuit that her Website has 2-8 million hits depending on the month. This is surprising and suggests a lot of people need to do an emergency virus scan on their computer, because Taitz's site is horribly infected with malware.
In her complaint, she critizies the DOJ:
Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens.
I am sorry, but I have to agree with her there. It is just wrong to slam a phone in someone's face no matter how much you disagree with them. A door, maybe, but a phone? Ouch.
This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys was infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of North West 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of the danger.
I am not sure how she concludes that all these violent incidents in our country result from the president being, in her words, an "usurper." Does this mean that Bush was also an usurper? And Reagan? I mean, somebody shot Reagan. That is a pretty serious violent crime in this country.
In the Quo Warranto, she poses the questions she wants the lawsuit to settle:
Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a "natural born citizen"?
Ooh, I know! I know! I am not even a lawyer, and I can answer this one: No. There is nothing in the law that strips a natural born citizen of the United States of his or her citizenship because he or she is adopted by a non-US citizen.
Having attained one's majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one's minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a "natural born citizen" with undivided loyalty to the USA, such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election or traveling on a foreign passport?
Huh? Since when are US citizens not allowed to go to other countries and campaign for candidates in foreign elections without it being cause to strip one of his or her citizenship? And what does "the foreign nationality of one's minority" mean, anyway? Even John Walker Lindh wasn't stripped of his natural born citizenship, though some said he should be.
Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided that he was born.
Yes, Taitz is complaining because Obama will not unseal his mother's personal medical records. I guess she does not understand that our country has a longstanding tradition of privacy, and no one is expected to release their medical records or the medical records of their parents.
She goes on at length about her claim that Obama is using a Social Security number that belongs to a Connecticut man. The man was supposedly born in 1890 and first applied for a Social Security Card between 1976 and 1979--in his late 80s. Who in the United States does not need a Social Security number until he reaches his late 80s? Was he born independently wealthy and never had to work until he was 86? Having not earned any money under his Social Security number, it would not be that useful to suddenly get one at 86. He wouldn't qualify for regular benefits if he had never worked.
Now, we get to where Daily Kos comes in, as she complains that Obama never showed his "long form" birth certificate and only the "Certificate of Live Birth (COLB):
COLB presented on the Internet by various groups, which includes "daily Kos," [sic] the Obama campaign, "Factcheck" and others cannot be relied upon is genuine.
(Note that "in" is crossed out in pen, with AS [all caps] written above it. That Taitz is VERY professional.)
I am pretty sure the Obama campaign never gave Daily Kos the birth certificate to release, which means she is referring to someone linking to the one at Factcheck.
Taitz has suffered severe emotional distress, her law licensed [sic] was endangered and her standing in the community was affected in the aftermath of this decision.
Here, she is referring to Judge Land deeming her actions frivolous. Obama is apparently supposed to pay her because she is upset that a Federal judge fined her for poor lawyership. One might wonder about the possible emotional distress and injury to standing the President and/or his wife might have suffered as a result of her continuous harassment.
Obama clearly is not 120 years old, was not born in 1890 and never resided in the state of CT.
I am not sure about the Connecticut thing, but I have to agree with her that he is definitely not 120 years old.
Plaintiff is asking for financial relief associated with time spent and costs of her pursuing the issue of illegitimacy of Obama for US presidency and fraud perpetrated by Obama in using multiple social security numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
Yes, you read that right. She wants Obama to reimburse her for filing all these frivolous lawsuits against him, as though somehow he is responsible for "making" her do this. It is a bit like shooting someone, going to jail, and then suing your victim for reimbursement for your legal expenses and distress related to your decision to shoot that person.
Plaintiff is asking for financial relief for severe emotional distress that she was subjected to when she was subjected to an orchestrated effort by this administration to stop her, to silence her, when she was subjected to sanctions for bringing forward legitimate issues of Obama legitimacy, when a group of convicted criminals, convicted, indicted and admitted forgers was used to derail her cases, undermine her and her license, while law enforcement stood idle, unwilling to prosecute and incarcerate those criminals and stop continued harassment.
Oh, well that is different. I take it all back. I did not know that Obama was in cahoots with Charles Lincoln (whom Orly hired) and the guy who forged birth certificates and claimed that Obama had people killed in Illinois. I believe she is also talking about Larry Sinclair, who claimed to have had gay sex with Obama and to have used drugs with him. It certainly sounds like the kind of guy the president would conspire with, if for no other reason than to get Taitz's claims thrown out of court.
Oh wait...that happens already, even without Sinclair's help.
I have simply never heard of an attorney relentlessly pursuing someone in Civil Court and then blaming that person for her losses and filing another lawsuit demanding reimbursement for the cost of a quest the attorney initiated.
It would be one thing if the DOJ attorneys were using the courts to harass Orly Taitz, but they have not even asked for reimbursement of their expenses. They have not made any public statements condemning her. They have not arrested her for sedition, which some would consider reasonable in these circumstances.
What will stop this woman? Losing does not seem to have any impact. Humiliation apparently distresses her emotionally but not enough to stop. Even the embarassment of having it known that she slept with someone like Charles Lincoln was not enough to take the wind out of her sails.
Maybe Obama should appoint her ambassador to Antarctica. While she is there, she can study for a mail order degree in surgery and come back after the end of his term(s) and start practicing surgery.
UPDATE:
One of the things I find ironic in all this is how much Taitz goes on about the oppressive regime in Russia under Stalin and all her relatives who suffered under it yet suggests that someone who does not exhibit the right amount of "loyalty"--apparently, as defined by her--to the country might deserve to be stripped of his/her citizenship.
In one breath she decries Stalinistic principles and in the next breath, she promotes them.