Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Orly Taitz - Off the Case

In Georgia, at any rate. How she'll fare with another Birther lawsuit in California remains to be seen.

As we reported earlier on the rANT Farm, California Birther lawyer (and Dentist) Orly Taitz has been doing a magnificent job of stripping any seeming validity the "movement" had left. A mixture of chutzpah, half-truths, and legal incompetence had brought her to the point where not only was she in danger of being fined $10K for wasting Judge Land's time by filing another "frivolous" motion in his court, but her own client wanted off the train.

A short time later, Taitz publicly wondered if the fax from her client was real and not some forgery. But it would seem to have panned out, because on 9/26 she filed a motion to withdraw as Capt. Rhodes' counsel, because - get this - the trial was now turning into a "quasi-criminal prosecution" of Orly Taitz!

In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.

In other words: "I may have to roll over on my client to save my butt. Please let me get away with that." Apparently she was so worried about getting this done that she didn't sign the motion, and then didn't provide proof of service. Oops.

Judge Land allowed it, but made it clear that she was not going to get out of having to pay the $10K plus court fees if she couldn't explain why she shouldn't have to.

The Court further notes that this order shall not be construed to authorize Plaintiff's counsel to breach any attorney-client privilege that may exist due to counsel's representation of Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Court's determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.

In other words "Sure, I'll let you quit after your client fired you. But don't think you're weaseling out of your responsibility for refiling a frivolous suit in MY courtroom without checking with your now ex-client, first. Better drill some more teeth this week, lady."

But funny as all this is, we may have funnier yet to come. It has become increasingly clear that Orly Taitz has no idea what's most likely to happen in Judge Carter's court in California - the Government's motion to dismiss being granted on October 5th, that is - and how badly having her procurer of a really-real Kenyan Birth Certificate bail on her is going to look on that day. She keeps saying the Judge is about to sign for discovery, but he's indicated anything but.

Poor, poor Orly. It's like watching a train wreck. Fortunately, we at the rANT Farm are doing it, so you don't have to.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Polanski Finally Nabbed

File it under "too good to be true": After decades of thumbing his nose at the law and living as an exile, admitted kiddy-diddler (and famous Director) Roman Polanski has been arrested - in Switzerland, of all places - and will be coming back to America to face the justice he fled from all those years ago. That's provided the French and Polish governments don't succeed in getting him off the hook.

Polanski seems most likely to spend several months in detention, unless he agrees to forgo any challenge to his extradition to the United States. Under a 1990 accord between Switzerland and the U.S., Washington has 60 days to submit a formal request for his transfer. Rulings in a similar dispute four years ago over Russia's former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov confirmed that subjects should be held in custody throughout the procedure.

That means the procedure for extradition could also be lengthy for the United States. Its request for Polanski's transfer must first be examined by the Swiss Justice Ministry, and once approved it can be appealed at a number of courts.

I'm sure the glitterati of America will soon be out demanding his release because, gosh, it was all those years ago, the victim doesn't care anymore, and he won an Oscar, darn it. But they can suck it, quite frankly. You do not force yourself on a child and get to walk away from it, much less live the life he's lived since he fled for Europe.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Man Who Saved The World

It was the 26th of September, 1983, and the world almost turned into a lifeless and silent radioactive cinder, endlessly spinning through space with nothing left to notice and no one left alive to care.

The only reason we are alive, today, is because a Soviet citizen did the unthinkable: he disobeyed protocol. He didn't call his superiors when it appeared that America launched nuclear missiles at the USSR. And that was because he thought what he saw on the computer report was a glitch, and took no action.

As a result, the USSR did not launch an all-out retaliatory strike on America, leading us to doubtless do the same to them. All because one man saw the reports and didn't buy them.

And, thankfully, he was right.

That man was Lt. Col. Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov. He was praised for his decision, then slapped on the wrist for not filing the right paperwork, and then farmed out to a less sensitive post by his embarrassed superiors.

From the Wikipedia page:

Petrov has said he does not regard himself as a hero for what he did that day. In an interview for the documentary film The Red Button and the Man Who Saved the World, Petrov says, "All that happened didn't matter to me — it was my job. I was simply doing my job, and I was the right person at the right time, that's all. My late wife for 10 years knew nothing about it. 'So what did you do?' she asked me. I did nothing."

He did nothing, but he was the right man to have been doing nothing at that time. And in such small but all-important ways, the Gods are very kind to we mortal fools on this spinning ball we all call a home, but still can't share all that well. So thank them, and Petrov, tonight for our continued existence.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Shock! British National Party to Admit Non-Whites

England's notorious racist organization is being forced to "adapt" to the times and allow in the very same people they were wanting to deport not that long ago. Irony, anyone?

This has been something of a mixed year for the British National Party: a racist, anti-immigration party that wants to return England back to its ancestral racial makeup. On one hand, they got two seats in the European Parliament. "The most demonised and lied about party in British politics has made a massive breakthrough," said party leader Nick Griffin at the time. Others had much less celebratory things to say.

But then the tide started turning once again. Not long after Griffin declared that the BNP has become the "driving force for British politics," we have been shown just how hollow a claim that was. Because rather than pay the million+ pounds to fight a court case against the Commission for Equality & Human Rights, which brought them up for their exclusionary admission policies Nick Griffin has stated that the BNP may, at last, have to admit non-White members.

A full statement from Mr. Griffin can be found here.

The British National Party will have to adapt to the undemocratic Orwellian ‘equality laws’ with regards to party membership criteria, or it will die, party leader Nick Griffin warned ...

“The CEHR move is a deadly serious threat to our very existence,” Mr Griffin said in a statement this evening. He pointed out that the severe danger to the party was illustrated by the fact that the court ordered the BNP to pay the costs of today’s hearing — which amount to thousands of pounds — and yet nothing had been decided.

To pursue the case all the way to an appeal in the House of Lords could cost the party more than a million pounds, he continued. This would effectively strip the party of its ability to fight the next general election....

Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws.

In other words, the driving force of British politics can't afford a lengthy legal battle to stay true to itself, so it's turning the "No Blacks, Dogs, or Jews" sign in its "to let" window around for now.

But do not despair, boneheads! This is not the end.

Party unity is priceless, because a party of brothers standing shoulder to shoulder can be persecuted, but it can never be beaten or broken.”

Mr Griffin concluded with a promise that once the party had moved to a “truly defensible position, we will go on the attack. Not just politically, so that our enemies quickly rue the day when they broke the very stick with which they have beaten us for so long, but also legally.

“We will be going into legal battle against Trevor Phillips and the rest of the ‘curs’, but it will be fought on ground that we choose, at the time that we appoint, and with our maximum strength directed against their weakest point. Our time will come — and sooner than they think.”

And if that tactic doesn't work, and the "enemy" floods their membership, Foreign Affairs spokesman Arthur Kemp reassures us that "even if this unlikely scenario ever happens, we will just all leave and start a new party. People vote for the principles of the party, and not the name. We will do that again and again and even if we end up with something called the Ying Tong Tiddle I Po party, we will still be here."

(That's in reference to the Ying Tong Song by the Goons, btw.)

Oh what happy times we live in to see racist cockroaches scuttle away from the light on their hands and knees! This is doubtlessly not the death-knell for the BNP, but it is at least a sign that they are not as powerful as they would have liked to tell us they were.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Yes, Orly Taitz's House of Cards IS Coming Down...

"Holy Legal Reversals, Batman!" Orly Taitz is quickly becoming the gift that keeps on giving. (Unless, of course, there's something here we're not seeing).

Not that long after having her behind legally handed to her by Judge Land, Orly went on a bit of a rampage and said some very nasty things about the gentleman. And you'd think that would have been a sign that she knew where she wasn't wanted, and was talking her broken toys with her to go back home to California. Right?

Wrong! She then had the massive chutzpah to refile for a reconsideration of his decision in his own court. This led to yet another harsh thumping from Judge Land, to the effect that Orly has two weeks to give him a reason why he shouldn't fine her $10,000.

In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.” This filing contemptuously ignores the Court’s previous admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. ... Simply, put the motion is frivolous. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order.

In other words Orly Taitz, who wants the President to prove that he's a natural born citizen to her satisfaction, now has to prove that she had a legitimate reason to darken Judge Land's courtroom once more to his satisfaction. You don't get more ironic than that.

Or do you? The latest (perhaps uncertain) twist in this tale has Taitz' defendant, Capt. Rhodes, publicly disavowing herself from the appeal!

I became aware on last night’s local news cast that a motion to stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed ... With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it ... Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions."

Now, to be fair, there is some question as to whether this letter is legit or not. Apparently Larry "Coke and a Blowjob" Sinclair has been investigating on his own behalf, even if he's publicly broken with Orly Taitz over an issue of perjury. There's some question of how Captain Rhodes could have had time to fax the thing, or if that's actually her signature on the letter.

Is this a forgery aimed to discredit Orly further, as though she really needs any "help" with that? Could be. But even if it isn't, I find the language of the letter very interesting. After going to all that hullabaloo to get herself exempted from duty, she is really quick to give it all up and respect an opinion that basically says she not only wasted her time, but was doing so in a frivolous manner? How much shit can you eat with a straight face?

So I'm wondering if maybe she didn't write that letter at the behest of some of her higher-ups, who may have informed her - off the record, no doubt - that this would go a long way to repairing her standing in the military. If she's off a war zone, she's going to need all the friends she can get, and that might have been the price for getting some of those friends back, or making sure she's in a position to have them?

I should add that that's total conjecture on my part, though. However, the person who WOULD know -- Orly Taitz -- isn't saying anything on that matter. Instead she's getting her butt handed to her -- and lying yet again -- in yet another televised tour de farce.

And having yet another ill-advised go at Judge Land by way of her blog.

I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits... that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly.

I bet they did. And I wonder if they went up because of that letter Captain Rhodes wrote...?

This story is definitely developing. And for future reference on the Birther matter, amongst others, I am giving a coveted rANT Farm "six thumbs up" to Oh, For Goodness Sake, which is going a fantastic job of keeping on top of this and other developing stories, and cutting through the nonsense. Jim Bob says check em out.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Is Orly Taitz's House of Cards Coming Down?

In a move that was both somewhat expected, and yet reassuring (and darkly delicious), Judge Clay Land today threw out the case of Connie Rhodes vs. Thomas D. Macdonald, which hinged upon President Obama not being eligible to be her Commander in Chief, and, therefore, unable to order her to go to the corner to get a hotdog, much less be sent to a combat zone.

Judge Land's opinion was:

After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions

In other words, "This is bullshit, and don't ever waste my time like this again."

If you have the time, do read through the opinion, hotlinked above. It makes for an amusing read, and shows exactly how poorly Orly argues her cases, as well as how badly she's mangling the law to achieve her desired result. The following passages are particularly illuminating:

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles ....

Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Speaking of Alice in Wonderland, Orly Taitz's reaction was quite queenly: she called Judge Land "corrupt" and a "puppet of the regime," and opined "somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama."

This latest defeat leaves Orly sitting on one more lawsuit, which is sitting in the court of David Carter in California, and scheduled to have the Government argue for dismissal on October 5th. It also hinges on the question of whether Obama is qualified to be the Commander in Chief, and uses a "really real" Kenyan Birth Certificate that a certain Lucas Smith apparently stole from a hospital after paying a Kenyan official to took the other way.

But Orly might be losing Lucas Smith as an ally. On the 15th, on his Youtube Channel, he posted this cryptic note:

Im sorry everyone but, I cannot work with Orly Taitz any longer. She wants me to lie under oath.

Lie under oath? Perhaps much like Larry Sinclair, who, after trying to remain silent on the matter, has now decided to tell people what she wanted him to do.

Later today I will be faxing to the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California as well as to the U.S. Attorney's Office an Affidavit informing Judge Carter that on September 7, 2009 Orly Taitz did knowingly and intentionally ask me to appear before his Court on September 8, 2009 and give knowingly false testimony for the purpose of obtaining "expedited discovery," and to gain publicity for my book.

From the Affidavit he's made public on his site:

"Orly Taitz said "Larry I want you to testify that three (3) members of Obama's church were murder." I interrupted Orly Taitz at this time and informed her "Dr. Taitz, I told you when you contacted me in December 2008 you were spreading false claims, there was not three (3) members of Obama's Church murdered."

Is Larry Sinclair being honest? Who can say. But given how much Orly is stretching the law to try and cover her true goals - up to and including going to bat for "birth certificates" that are obvious or near-obvious forgeries - it wouldn't be all that surprising if it turned out she was getting others to lie, or not minding if they do so long as her needs are met.

Even if all the above isn't enough to collapse Orly Taitz's house of cards once and for all, we can still take hope: the Chief Trial Counsel of the California Bar has submitted a complaint against Orly Taitz and, with any luck, she will soon be disbarred. So perhaps her time as a constant source of dark amusement will come to an end - we hope.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Jello Biafra's New Band!

I often credit Jello Biafra as a major influence in my life. I grew up listening to punk, back when punk actually meant something: Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Butthole Surfers, the Sex Pistols, the Clash -- they were the chorus that sang the pages of my life as I went about my adolescent trek through suburbia, with its stupid burning hoops to jump through and meaningless rituals to attend.

If it wasn't for the Kennedys, I'd have probably joined the Air Force to nuke Commies for Jesus. Instead I joined the Anti-Censorship forces to nuke Tipper Gore for Frank Zappa. And that made all the difference. I don't always agree with Biafra's political positions, especially in the wake of 9/11, but there's no denying that his heart's in the right place, and his middle finger is (usually) pointed at the right people.

So, in the theory that there's always room for more Jello, he has a new band together! The band is called The Guantanamo School of Medicine, the album -- due out in October -- will be called "The Audacity of Hype" (yeah, laugh it up you Obama haters). And here's a sample of the album.

Musically, it reminds me of later Dead Kennedys, and it's good to see that Jello's still got his singing chops. I fully expect he will be stomping through 'Holiday in Cambodia' at the ripe old age of 134, having long-outlived his malefactors and targets, and singing to kids who have no idea where Cambodia was, who Pol Pot was, or who that Tipper Gore lady was, but can't deny that the music makes them want to go make crazy collage art and put it up all over their schools.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Birthers to Get Their Day In Court (Maybe)

As reported at Below the Beltway, amongst others, Orly Taitz's crazy-poo lawsuit to try and prove that President Obama was actually born in Kenya has been given a tentative date this upcoming January, unless the Government's motion to dismiss on October 5th is successful -- in which case Orly and company are back to square none.

The hearing was rather amusing. Judge Carter forced Taitz and her former ally, now enemy Gary Kreep to work together or risk further delays in the matter. He made them go out into the hall like grade school children to settle their dispute, and then made them push their chairs close to one another, too.

In a further moment of high hilarity, Orly tried to depose Lucas Smith, who claims he went to Kenya and, through bribery, got ahold of Obama's really-real Kenyan birth certificate, in that very hearing. While highly irregular -- testimony should be given at the actual trial, and not at a hearing to determine if there WILL be a trial -- Orly said it was vital, given that Smith believed his life was in danger. Needless to say, the Judge was not moved.

Interestingly enough, Orly's friends at Whirled Nut Daily..., excuse me, World Net Daily, are seemingly finding it hard to back her antics anymore. In the latest in a succession of articles on the subject -- which, in WND style, is mostly repeats and rephrasings of previous articles -- Jerome R. "Obamanation" Corsi points out that Mr. Smith's Kenyan Birth Certificate is most likely as fraudulent as the last Kenyan Birth Certificate that Orly trotted out for inspection. That didn't stop him from touting WND's own, self-serving take on the matter, stumping for their own, slightly less pathetic attempts to get to the "truth," and selling their own, in-house dvd on Obama's birth.

Why are the folks at WND suddenly pulling away from their friend, Orly? The cynical answer is that even they can only go so far into a windmill-tilt before it becomes obvious they're backing the wrong Spaniard. Maybe they went along initially in the theory of "enemy of my enemy," before someone at Huffington Post dropped the boom on them for using such a sad muppet for their own purposes?

Is there another reason? Over at the Investigating Obama blog, someone asks what isn't such a crazy question anymore: is Orly a saboteur, sent to make the Birther movement look bad? While it smacks of the same kind of insipid paranoia that is the hallmark of the Birther movement in the first place, you have to wonder.

Whether for filing in the wrong state, drafting her papers incorrectly, issuing phony subpoenas, presenting phony evidence, failing to abide by court procedures, releasing people's social security numbers, "tipping the hand" of potential lines of investigation, discrediting other attorneys, etc., the excuse of zeal and inexperience has worn way too thin. What is really going on -- and for what purpose?

How about we just chalk it up to "crazy is as crazy does" and leave it at that? When you look at the evidence stacked against the Birthers, you would have to wonder why anyone would keep on that unreasonable tack to begin with. But in a nation where a rather loud percentage of the population thinks 9/11 was caused by our own government, rather than Islamic terrorists, one must acknowledge that reason isn't always the deciding factor.

Monday, September 07, 2009

School Speech Detractors Owe Obama an Apology

Chalk another one up for the wingnuts: what should be a good and beneficial use of the President's bully pulpit has been morphed into a sinister plot to turn our children into Marxist zombies for Satan.

President Obama is going to be addressing the nation's schoolchildren? Well, that should be a wonderful thing, surely. After the last eight years it would be good for our nation's youth to see that someone who actually knows what they're doing, and has some inkling of what the less fortunate amongst them have been through, is in the White House looking out for them.

But no. We can't have that. That is apparently a bad, bad thing.

Why? Ask OK State Senator Steve Russell. He says "it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality ... This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Ask Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer, who says he's "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."

And they aren't the only ones up in arms about the speech which, presumably, they hadn't even heard yet. School districts in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin are declining to show it, too.

Various excuses abound, but in the end it comes down to fear over what the President might say, and what his motives may be. And maybe that shouldn't be surprising in a country were a shocking percentage of the population don't even believe Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, but it still seems a sad state of affairs when they can't even trust the man to give a pep talk to students.

Well, here is the text of the speech that President Obama will be giving. Go ahead, take a read. Read it twice if you have to.


Note the strange lack of anything resembling Socialism or Marxism, or even any kind of collectivization, except where it pertains to aiding your own country in the long run by being a productive, well-educated member of society - a goal that one would hope even this Administration's most obtuse critics could get behind at least in spirit, if not in the details.

So where did all this stuff about socialism come from? Where is there a justifiable parallel with Iraq under Saddam or North Korea under Pumpkin Boy? And where were these nay-sayers when Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush did similar things, back in their time?

If I were any one of those people who threw a hissy fit over this speech, I would be really damned embarrassed right now. Maybe ashamed, too. And with good reason.

But all is not lost. This, too, can be a "teaching moment."

Maybe all those educators and politicians who cried foul at this speech can provide a positive example for the schoolchildren whose welfare they were so concerned about, and show what mature and responsible people do when they're shown to have been wrong about something, and done and said questionable things because they were wrong - namely, APOLOGIZE.

Will the President get any? Tune in tomorrow.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Summer's Almost Over - Why Aren't We Dead?

I’m disappointed. I thought this was going to be the summer we all died at the hands of Big Brother, but he doesn’t seem to have arrived, or even shown his hand. You don’t suppose we were... mistaken? (or just bloody paranoid)

Full story at Op Ed News, here.