An angry but unfocused electorate anticipating rescue from their plight by a charismatic political figure or a litigious lawyer equally portends disaster for our Constitutional republic.
I know that some of you who come here, read Orly’s site, too. In the past, I have posted comments critical to many of her endeavors, all of which comments explain for the lay person, my opposition to the targeted scheme. But Orly now refuses to post my comments. And while avoiding any direct criticism of my work product, she has begun to denigrate me, personally. So, I have decided to occasionally devote space on my blog to de-bunking ‘information’ posted as truth, on hers.
Above all, please, before forking over money to this new foundation Orly created, be certain you know what the money is being used for. For example, just because she claims she filed suit, does not mean she did; or, if she did, that there is a legally cognizable basis for the filing of such suit. For example, a reader asks why no one is suing FactCheck for misrepresenting that BO is a NBC. Orly responds.
Dr. Orly Taitz wrote:
I am ahead of the game on this, I have already served Factcheck.org with subpoena for production of documents. They have 30 days.
But as a lawyer, she knows or should know, there is no “privity” between Annenberg Political Fact Check and us voters. In other words, this organization has no legally cognizable relationship to us that would oblige them to conduct themselves in any particular way toward us; or would entitle us to expect let alone demand any specific performance from them. So, issuing subpoenas to this organization merely represents more form without substance. Besides, the disclaimer on FactCheck.org’s web site clearly states, only FactCheck staff members are responsible for the information posted on that site. (I previously explained this in my military Complaint.)
While you are mesmerized by the latest tricks Orly, or Berg, or Leo pulls out of a hat, our elected Congresspeople are receiving a $174,000 salary for not doing their jobs. (And, again, the latest legal actions filed against members of Congress for failing to vet BO as to Constitutional eligibility notwithstanding, they are immune from lawsuit for job-related misfeasance under an ancient principle of jurisprudence called Sovereign Immunity. All of the lawyers involved in these cases know this, too.) We would produce more effective results by insisting these people who work for us, actually work for us! And our money would be spent more prudently by supporting those candidates we would have replace the current inept crop.
There is a viable fraud claim to be made against Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, qua (in her role as) the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention for Certifying BO is a NBC and for withholding the material fact, he is not, especially strong in those states where the law reads, the Party’s candidate “shall” be eligible for the office sought. Because this shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant. (Recall that, my military Complaint is the first case that shifted the burden of proof away from Plaintiff; in that Complaint, the burden would have landed on Defendant BO.) I anticipate posting the perfected fraud lawsuit tomorrow, after a trip to the law library. Drafting this fraud Complaint was more challenging than the military Complaint, which is a federal suit; because it has to be done on a state by state basis, since state laws as to fraud tend to vary state to state. But the set of viable Plaintiffs is huge, from regular voters who cast votes for BO to – and this brilliant idea was sent to me by wodiej61, a member of Team jbjd – HRC pledged delegates, who would have acted differently had they known, BO is not a NBC.