Orly, Anarchy, and the Long Wait

Just in time to keep her company as she cools her jets - and awaits what one would hope is bad news, for her anyway - the Washington Post has written an interesting article on Orly Taitz, which contains a rather interesting tidbit on who she hangs her hat with.

Inside the law office is a modest conference room with a table, eight chairs, a couple of abstract paintings and a houseplant. It is here that Taitz dreams of deposing the U.S. president, proving that he is a citizen not of this country but of Kenya, maybe, or possibly Indonesia, perhaps even -- who knows? -- that he is secretly controlled by Saudi Arabia.

"My children are so excited . . . that the president of the United States will have to appear in Mom's office in Rancho Santa Margarita," says Taitz,

...

It's a lot to take on, but she has help; assisting with her legal filings is Charles E. Lincoln III, a disbarred lawyer and self-described "anarchist." Leaving the office, Lincoln gets in the back seat and Taitz maneuvers her Lexus through the tidy "Real Housewives"-type landscape to a bakery with outdoor seating. For five hours she will discuss her legal crusade, eventually moving to lunch at T.G.I. Friday's.

Keep an eye on that anarchist. At one point in the article, when Orly starts going on about repressive regimes, he cautions:

You're sounding awfully political right now," warns Lincoln at one point. This is the sort of talk that judges could criticize her for. "And I think that's a dangerous way to go."

I find this interesting. What sort of Anarchism is Mr. Lincoln espousing: extreme Libertarianism, punk-rock anti-authoritarianism, or the kind of anti-authoritarian action that once cost us a President? There's lots of Anarchys out there, after all.

Of more interest is that Lincoln seems to have a dodgy past, consisting of "preying on victims of injustice." Is Orly his latest mark, or is she in on the game? And if he's giving her advice, then how much of her seeming incompetence is down to his influence?

A connection worth exploring, perhaps.

Meanwhile, someone at Politijab was kind enough to give an unofficial observer's transcript of yesterday's proceedings in Barnett v Obama. It's well worth the read to hear what the DoJ was arguing, what Taitz and Kreep (who showed up late) had to say, and how they said it, and what Judge Carter was asking. The word of the day was "Standing," as in "does this Court have it?" The answer is most likely no.

Of course, that didn't stop Taitz's former friends at Whirled Nut Daily from spinning the proceedings thusly: "Obama eligibility case survives 1st court test - Judge hears arguments, refuses immediate dismissal demand." Anyone paying attention to what's actually happened should see that as the hopeless fantasy that it is without any further help from yours truly ; )

And, over at Give Us Liberty, the stalwarts seem ready to call this a lost cause, but would very much like you to flood Judge Carter's office with a "redress of grievances!!" Some clown also suggested a "personal visit to his home by 100 American Patriots" in the moderated comments, but that appears to have been shot down and not acted upon (we hope)

Will we hear today? Tomorrow? A week from today or tomorrow? Stay tuned!