Orly Taitz’s brain function is truly a curiosity, and trying to follow her thought processes could confuse just about anyone. In this latest episode of “The Crazy Daze Of Tin Foil Taitz”, after receiving denial of her request to horn in on the States AG’s case against Healthcare Reform, she has flipped the court’s denial into proof that her cause is justified.
Well, I guess that would be perfectly logical with terminal brain blur.
Lets attempt to sort this thing out from the begining. In January Orly filed a case (QW) against Obama claiming he was a criminal, not a natural born American, and ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. She immediately followed that with an application for preliminary injunction to recuse the US attorney’s office. Her rationale for that was that as soon as Obama was found guilty of all her charges that the US attorney’s office would be the ones to have to prosecute him, so defending him in this case would cause a conflict of interest.
On February 26, 2010 the defendant flied a “motion to dismiss and an opposition to her motion for preliminary injunction”. It was 96 pages long outlining Orly’s rambling ignorance and her lame pursuit to repackage and repackage again the same old tripe that had been dismissed in every court she’d ever stepped into.
Well, that really pissed her off. She followed that with a “Reply to Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Oral Argument”, where she requested that the US attorneys be added as defendants to her complaint and accused them (basically) of racketeering.
Then as healthcare reform was just about to be signed into law, and various states AG’s started talking of suing over the healthcare bill if passed, Orly jumped on that bandwagon. She filed another amendment to her case on 3/20/10 claiming “violation of commerce clause and of plaintiff’s rights to gainful employment as a doctor of dental surgery upon defendant’s immanent signing of the health bill”, among 145 pages of her other repackaged tripe.
This was of course followed by another motion to dismiss by the defense outlining her idiocy yet again.
Meanwhile, she heads to Florida and files her motion to horn in on the AG’s case against healthcare reform. Which of course was denied, and here is where her brain blur gets a bit blurrier and seems to blend two different issues. The AG’s case against H/C reform (though equally ignorant) is based on their claim that the law itself is unconstitutional. There is nothing in their case even remotely close to making any claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible as POTUS. Orly on the other hand is claiming that the reform law is not legal simply because Obama “is” an illegal president and has no right to sign it.
In Judge Vinson’s order denying Orly’s motion to horn in he states:
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al. v U.S. DHHS, et al - 18 - ORDER - Denying Dr. Orly Taitz's (in pro se) 17[RECAP] ...
“ Taitz contends and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery who will be affected by the Act, she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action. Her claim fails however, at steps (3) and (4). With respect to the impairment of interest (step3), Taitz contends that her legal interests will be “immensely” and “significantly” hampered because there is the “risk that conflicting results may be achieved in the DC and Northern Florida Districts”. However, the mere possibility of inconsistent results in cases filed by different individuals in different districts does not, by itself, hamper or impair a litigant’s legal interests. This is especially so in a case such as this one, where it would appear that appeals are quite likely.
Moreover, Taitz has not shown that her legal interests will be represented inadequately by the existing parties in this case (step 4). She acknowledges that she and the Attorneys General in this litigation are ultimately “seeking identical relief on an identical theory.” The Eleventh Circuit has stated that courts should “presume adequate representation when an existing party seeks the same objectives as the would-be interveners.”
(But if you look at the motivation behind Orly’s quest and that of the AG’s, they are not identical.)
“”Although this presumption is “weak,” it imposes on the proposed intervener “the burden of coming forward with some evidence to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis added). There is no such evidence in this case.”
The Judge concludes:
Furthermore, with respect to Taitz’s motion in particular, I believe the parties to this case and the court should remain focused on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).
For these reasons, Dr. Taitz’s motion to intervene must be, and is DENIED.”
So our girl Orly takes that denial and files yet another motion in her QW case, “First Motion Judicial Notice by Orly Taitz”. She points out his statement, “ Taitz contends and I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery who will be affected by the Act, she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action”.
An interest in the “subject of this action”, and the subject of the action is to question whether the healthcare reform “law” is constitutional. Not to question whether Obama’s is eligible as POTUS. Taitz however makes a lame attempt to spin that statement:
TAITZ v OBAMA (QW) - 19 - First MOTION Judicial Notice by ORLY TAITZ - dcd-04502934377.18.0
“Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action challenging HR 3590, which to a great extend serves as an opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing.
Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous.”
First of all, nowhere did Judge Vinson state that he “did not” consider the Obama eligibility issue frivolous. His only reference to the subject at all was his comment that “the court should remain focused on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).” If you ask me that sounds more like “lets stick to the real issue here and keep your bullshit out of the way”.
And how in the hell does she conclude that as a dentist who may have interest in the outcome of the challenge to HR3590, that fact also gives her standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship? She also states in her motion that Judge Vinson said; “ Parties to this litigation, and indeed, the citizens of this country have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as possible”, implying that the Judge is referring to “her” allegations of Obama’s ineligibility as being legitimate. When in fact if you read the order what he is saying is just the opposite. He wants to just deal with the case at hand without cluttering it up and prolonging it with her nonsense.
Is her brain so blurred that she truly believes that Judge Lamberth will swallow her “interpretation” of Judge Vinson’s order hook line and sinker?
Oh, I am sooooo looking forward to Judge Lamberth’s reply to all her delusional claims and allegations. Especially the one where she stated in no uncertain terms that if he does not grant her everything she asks, he will be criminally guilty of aiding and abetting and probably be the next name on her list for RICO charges!