TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:12 am

Ah well, that was quick:

Quote:

I WILL HAVE TO REFILE SEBELIUS IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT. THIS MIGHT BE A BLESSING IN DISGUISE

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=238655 :twisted:

Seems this court is the wrong venue.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:18 am

raicha wrote:

Ah well, that was quick:

Quote:

I WILL HAVE TO REFILE SEBELIUS IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT. THIS MIGHT BE A BLESSING IN DISGUISE

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=238655 :twisted:

Seems this court is the wrong venue.

Yep.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2132

It's Friday already where I live. :bwaha:

Somerset · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:29 am

raicha wrote:

Ah well, that was quick:

Quote:

I WILL HAVE TO REFILE SEBELIUS IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT. THIS MIGHT BE A BLESSING IN DISGUISE

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=238655 :twisted:

Seems this court is the wrong venue.

Legal discussions aside, I had to laugh at this little missive from O'rly:

Quote:

If it was transferred, Icould avoid paying the court fees, this way I will have to pay again and it is more of a hastle. She is saying that Nanci Pelosi (spelled in the opinion for some reason as Polosi) is not sude as a congresswoman, but as a Chairwoman of the convention.

Nothing like pointing out someone else's typo while making two of your own :lol:

Somerset · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:31 am

AnitaMaria wrote:

It's Friday already where I live. :bwaha:

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:32 am

Somerset wrote:

Legal discussions aside, I had to laugh at this little missive from O'rly:

Quote:

If it was transferred, Icould avoid paying the court fees, this way I will have to pay again and it is more of a hastle. She is saying that Nanci Pelosi (spelled in the opinion for some reason as Polosi) is not sude as a congresswoman, but as a Chairwoman of the convention.

Nothing like pointing out someone else's typo while making two of your own :lol:

That's from our girl fer shure.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2132

A great Orly malapropism from that post:

Quote:

On one hand TX is a good conservative district and I believe ultimately the stay will go to Scalia, however I believe Chatfield is a Bush appointee. Will it hurt me, if I refile in TX? will strings be pushed to protect him? I do not have an answer.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:41 am

Where to refile?; where to refile?:

Taitz wrote:

I definitely do not want to pick the northern CA, where Pelosi ir as they call her Polosi lives. The courts there are more to the left than the courts in the Communist China.

My other problem is that people do not publish their private addresses. I do not have the home address of William Chatfield. Please, look at the pleadings. I need help of those of you, who are detectives, I need to get the home addresses of those non-federal employees. I believe Chatfield lives in TX. On one hand TX is a good conservative district and I believe ultimately the stay will go to Scalia, however I believe Chatfield is a Bush appointee. Will it hurt me, if I refile in TX? will strings be pushed to protect him? I do not have an answer.

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. This is definitely a problem. I can’t afford to fly to HI every time. It is expensive and grueling, I don’t know if I can take any more flights to HI, and of course HI is far to the left. Not good for this case.

I believe one of those employees is in CO, which might be good for me, as a precedent came from CO.

Anyways, please, help me get the home addresses of every non federal employee in this case and I will go from there.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:02 am

bob wrote:

Where to refile?; where to refile?:

Taitz wrote:

I definitely do not want to pick the northern CA, where Pelosi ir as they call her Polosi lives. The courts there are more to the left than the courts in the Communist China.

My other problem is that people do not publish their private addresses. I do not have the home address of William Chatfield. Please, look at the pleadings. I need help of those of you, who are detectives, I need to get the home addresses of those non-federal employees. I believe Chatfield lives in TX. On one hand TX is a good conservative district and I believe ultimately the stay will go to Scalia, however I believe Chatfield is a Bush appointee. Will it hurt me, if I refile in TX? will strings be pushed to protect him? I do not have an answer.

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. This is definitely a problem. I can’t afford to fly to HI every time. It is expensive and grueling, I don’t know if I can take any more flights to HI, and of course HI is far to the left. Not good for this case.

I believe one of those employees is in CO, which might be good for me, as a precedent came from CO.

Anyways, please, help me get the home addresses of every non federal employee in this case and I will go from there.

Edit: Blue Falcon Country

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

Quote:

What the judge is saying in her opinion (see above), is that since some of the defendants are not federal employees, I need to refile in a district where one of non-employees resides. She could tranfer, but she was nasty and dismissed without prejudice (meaning it was not decided and can be refiled). If it was transferred, I could avoid paying the court fees, this way I will have to pay again and it is more of a hastle.

And since "someone" didn't provide addresses of any non federal employees live, just how, exactly, could the Court have made a determination of where transfer would be appropriate.

Quote:

Finally, the Complaint does not allege the residence of any non-federal
defendant, much less that any such defendant resides in the Central District of
California or is otherwise subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

And as always, for anyone not wishing to brave a Taitz pdf...

2012-08-15 - Taitz v Sebelius (CDCA) - ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Venue

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:31 am

bob wrote:

Where to refile?; where to refile?:

Taitz wrote:

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. This is definitely a problem.I can’t afford to fly to HI every time. It is expensive and grueling, I don’t know if I can take any more flights to HI,and of course HI is far to the left. Not good for this case.

Ok, calling Ms Nagamine to action, please... :evil:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

RTH10260 wrote:

bob wrote:

Where to refile?; where to refile?:

Taitz wrote:

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. This is definitely a problem.I can’t afford to fly to HI every time. It is expensive and grueling, I don’t know if I can take any more flights to HI,and of course HI is far to the left. Not good for this case.

Ok, calling Ms Nagamine to action, please... :evil:

Calling to action for what? The case was dismissed. Perhaps if when she refiles she names defendants in HI again.

In the meantime, Orly judge shops.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:52 am

realist wrote:

And as always, for anyone not wishing to brave a Taitz pdf...

2012-08-15 - Taitz v Sebelius (CDCA) - ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Venue

Dear Lena,

I know a guy in Florida who is an expert on venue and he can help you write an appeal and, see, he knows about this case called Tucker v. Fianson where this guy shot an arrow in the air in one county and landed in another county so this guy could claim venue where the arrow landed see, so anyway, I think you could use it and I can put you in touch with this guy named Collette, who see, has this gifted legal mind just like you, OK?

Best regards, RC

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

Reality Check wrote:

realist wrote:

And as always, for anyone not wishing to brave a Taitz pdf...

2012-08-15 - Taitz v Sebelius (CDCA) - ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Venue

Dear Lena,

I know a guy in Florida who is an expert on venue and he can help you write an appeal and, see, he knows about this case called Tucker v. Fianson where this guy shot an arrow in the air in one county and landed in another county so this guy could claim venue where the arrow landed see, so anyway, I think you could use it and I can put you in touch with this guy named Collette, who see, has this gifted legal mind just like you, OK?

Best regards, RC

OH! OH! And he's a paralegal as well... a "real" one. $\:D/$

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:54 am

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We could have told her that she had personal jurisdiction problems with the non-federal officer defendants.

Oh wait. We did.

Now she freakin' thinks all she has to do is find a district where ONE non-federal officer defendant resides. I mean, it's as if International Shoe does not not exist in Orlylaw.

Oh wait. It doesn't.

C'mon, Orly -- choose Texas!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

Last time she filed in San Antonio, TX that worked out well. Perhaps she should try again.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:58 am

realist wrote:

Last time she filed in San Antonio, TX that worked out well. Perhaps she should try again.

Now if she files in SA again, I think I will take a little vaca with Ms SueDB's for a couple of days down to the Riverwalk.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:00 am

SueDB wrote:

realist wrote:

Last time she filed in San Antonio, TX that worked out well. Perhaps she should try again.

Now if she files in SA again, I think I will take a little vaca with Ms SueDB's for a couple of days down to the Riverwalk.

I'll meet you and the Missus in SA if that occurs. Par-tee!!!!

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:06 am

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

SueDB wrote:

realist wrote:

Last time she filed in San Antonio, TX that worked out well. Perhaps she should try again.

Now if she files in SA again, I think I will take a little vaca with Ms SueDB's for a couple of days down to the Riverwalk.

I'll meet you and the Missus in SA if that occurs. Par-tee!!!!

Oh yea...I hope Dick's Last Resort is still there...."Ya can't kill a man born to hang". Paesanos Garlic lemon big shrimp, to die for. Also have to get up to Little Hipps in the SAC college area.

YEEE HAAA!

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10672

realist wrote:

And as always, for anyone not wishing to brave a Taitz pdf...

2012-08-15 - Taitz v Sebelius (CDCA) - ORDER Dismissing Action for Lack of Venue

The court gets some good digs in as to the FOIA and RICO actions too. Taitz will never figure this out. Venue will befuddle her more than proper service and standing have. And this is the case she intended to turn into a class action? =))

WLITHOFW.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:09 am

Taitz wrote:

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. they are Brian Schatz-former chair of the Dem party of HI and currently Lieutenant governor of HI and Lynn Matusow, former secretary of the Dem party of HI. Pelosi, Germond, Schatz and Matusow were in RICO with Obama, they conspired with Obama, as Schatz and Matusow falsified the wording in the certificate of candidate issued by the Dem party of HI for Obama, they removed the words “eligible according to the U.S. Constitution” as it is a common knowledge among the governmental employees in HI that Obama was not born there and there is no certificate of candidate, and Pelosi and Germond who added the necessary wording in order to put ineligible Obama on the ballot. This is definitely a problem.

Alec wrote:

I could be wrong, but I am quite sure I remember that HI was the ONLY state where the DNC did NOT remove “eligible according to the U.S. Constitution”. In other words, in 49 states it was removed, but not in HI.

Taitz wrote:

the whole point is that Pelosi had to include it, as the state of HI removed it. I checked prior certificates: there was n such wording for Kerry or Gore or Clinton. DNC added it as HI required it, but HI officials were afraid to commit perjury

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=238655#comments :twisted:

Sugar Magnolia · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:16 am

bob wrote:

Taitz wrote:

A couple of those defendants reside in HI. they are Brian Schatz-former chair of the Dem party of HI and currently Lieutenant governor of HI and Lynn Matusow, former secretary of the Dem party of HI. Pelosi, Germond, Schatz and Matusow were in RICO with Obama, they conspired with Obama, as Schatz and Matusow falsified the wording in the certificate of candidate issued by the Dem party of HI for Obama, they removed the words “eligible according to the U.S. Constitution” as it is a common knowledge among the governmental employees in HI that Obama was not born there and there is no certificate of candidate, and Pelosi and Germond who added the necessary wording in order to put ineligible Obama on the ballot. This is definitely a problem.

Alec wrote:

I could be wrong, but I am quite sure I remember that HI was the ONLY state where the DNC did NOT remove “eligible according to the U.S. Constitution”. In other words, in 49 states it was removed, but not in HI.

Taitz wrote:

the whole point is that Pelosi had to include it, as the state of HI removed it. I checked prior certificates: there was n such wording for Kerry or Gore or Clinton. DNC added it as HI required it, but HI officials were afraid to commit perjury

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=238655#comments :twisted:

What the hell does she know about perjury? She wouldn't recognize it cartwheeling across the floor wearing a tutu.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

Totally incompetent Orly sez to her flying monkeys...

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=240139 :evil:

I need help in confirming whether this is the right address for William Chatfield, former director of Selective Service

Posted on | August 17, 2012 | No Comments

Quote:

CHATFIELD WILLIAM A & CYNTHIA L [redacted by moi] IRVING, TEXAS 75038

I need verification, whether this is a correct address for William chatfield, former director of Selective Service, so I can serve him with the complaint.

also, I need verification in regards to a specific federal district for Irvine, TX. (TX has several districts

bob · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:22 am

I'm still working on how Schatz and Matusow conspired with Obama if, according to Taitz, they knew he was ineligible and then removed the eligibility language from the certificate.
:-k

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

Who is online