Orly Taitz Motion Says Local Judge Wants to Lynch Her
|John Gilhooley, OC Weekly|
And boy is it... interesting. Some might call the motion racially and politically offensive, but, whatever. Like any battle for freedom, Orly's war has its casualties, and common decency is among them.
The entire thing, which is pretty long, is posted on her blog (which may or may not infect you with a virus; we can't tell right now. Instead, read the motion on Scribd.). Basically, Taitz is saying that every single thing that Carter's ruling said is wrong and factually inaccurate--which is explainable because, Taitz says, the entire opinion was written by a law clerk who is actually an Obama double agent.
We talked about this before: Taitz's minions have seized on the fact that one of Carter's clerks worked for a multinational law firm that has lawyers who have represented Obama. Ergo, they say, there's a conspiracy afoot. Does Taitz have any evidence of bias? No. But that doesn't stop her from putting it in her lawsuit:
A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the defendant in the above case, Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins Coie was one of the firms representing the defendants in a prior legal action filed by the plaintiffs in this very case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn't request any vital records and never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and all the other secretaries of states took his Declaration of a Candidate on it's face value. As it is a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most of the opinions for the judges, the order to dismiss this case was de facto written or largely influenced by an attorney who until recently worked for a firm representing the defendant in this case, and who currently is working as a clerk for the presiding judge, as such most of the order is tainted by bias. This is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs.
More charming, though, is Taitz's ability to tap into current events. She decided to spent a few hundred words talking about how, essentially, Judge Carter was in favor of the Ft. Hood shooting that killed 12 people last week... or that Judge Carter would have done nothing to stop it... or... really, we're not sure the relevance:
Recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood has given this question paramount importance. This order has advocated blind obedience by the members of the military. If someone were to have common sense, brains and strength of character to challenge allegiance of Nidal Malik Hasan in court, after he made numerous anti-American and antimilitary statements, maybe 12 young boys wouldn't be 6 feet under today, maybe 12 mothers and 12 fathers wouldn't had their hearts ripped out of their chests and torn apart.
Her heart's in the right place (well, let's say it is, at least), but she's gotten her facts wrong: those killed on Thursday weren't all "young boys." Ask the family of Sgt. Amy Krueger.
One more gem:
this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the power of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel...
Yes, Orly, they're trying to lynch you. Wonder who else has faced that threat?