What is the bottom line here?
There are a lot of issues, I can't answer all the questionsl. Some people like Sternguard are sternly keeping guard and some people like Res Ipsa are saying Res Ipsa Loquitor, let the facts speak for themselves: be it with Berg or Obama. Stern might be holding the line so sternly, because he might have a cotractual obligation to do so, Res might simply want to know the truth.
With Berg you have an attorney who is continuouslyknowingly and maliciously using a forger and thief Lisa Liberi, who with her together is submitting multiple documents to multiple courts and doing Nation-wide fundraising. They filed a frivolous and unconscionablew 800 million law suit against the whistle blowers, they accused innocent people of horrific crimes, such as trying to hire a hit-man and kill Liberi. All of this was done to cover Liberi's true identity. On the stand on 20th Liberi admitted that indeed she is a convicted felon from CA, that she was convicted of theft in 2008. L:isa Ostella admitted that she made a stamp with my signature and cut and pasted my signature on multiple documents. These actions are so horrific, that not only Berg needs to be disbarred, he needs to be in prison together with Liberi and Ostella.
In regards to Obama litigation. Are you better and more experienced lawyers, than I am? Sure. Did you have your great court victories in all those years, when I raised my 3 kids and schlepped them to piano, art and TaeKwonDo? Sure. Did you have your great court victories when I ran my dental practices to help my husband pay the mortgage? Sure. So what
At the end of the day Obama needs to win every case. I have to win only once. I don't even need to be a licensed attorney, I can continue pro se here or in DC. I can keep bringing actions from different angles and keep this issue alive. As long as it is alive, people are wondering: why he does not have a SSN from HI? Why doesn't he have a valid long form BC? When decorated army doctors like Lakin go to prison, curiosity turns into anger.
This is a chess game. Think a couple of steps ahead. What will this anger cost you come 2012? Not only you will lose the presidency, you will lose more than that. Are you prepared for another blood bath? Are you prepared to lose 63 more seats in the House and 6-10 more seats in the Senate?
It seems to me you are much better off if this issue is resolved soon versus it festering for much longer. Don't rush into answering me, it will be a knee jerk reaction. Take some time, simmer on it a bit and you will realize that being anal retentive on this issue is not in your best interest. If you agree with me, call me 949--683-5411

Admittedly knee-jerk, but as I read your reply, you feel it's okay for you to run around the country filing frivolous lawsuits, violating ethical tenets of attorneys, that the courts should continue to allow you to do so, wasting time and money, as long as the end objective is accomplished, Obama not being re-elected in 2012, and you don't care how many lies you have to tell to do it.

Did I miss anything?

I probably did, but it's admittedly a knee-jerk reaction.

I thought just Estevio was gonna post here for now.

Dr. Taitz,

Though I have dozens of questions for you, I'll keep it down to one at a time, and continue in the vein of Estiveo's question. You seem to take pleasure in pointing out Berg's association with Lisa Liberi and her criminal record. But you have never answered the questions of your associations with convicted felons and a disbarred attorney.

How is your association with, and accepting documents from, convicted felon and forger Lucas Smith any different?

Orly, I know English isn't your first language, so let me help you a little.

Using horrific in this context is hyperbole. Horrific is - war, a family murdered in their beds, what Michael Vick did to those poor dogs. I think "dishonorable", "egregious", or " felonious" work better. You run the risk of sounding hysterical when you use the wrong words.

Estiveo's question is still up for repsonse by Dr. Taitz. As further clarified by Jez.

Why do you criticize Phil Berg for his association with one felon while you have surrounded yourself with them? (Lincoln, Sinclair, Lucas Smith, Manning and the follower who harassed Estiveo and his 78 year old mother.) Isn't your criticism of Phil Berg on account of his "associations" hypocritical in that light?

Your turn, Dr. Taitz.

Edited: worded stupidly

For Estiveo and Orly:

Estiveo, you offered to conduct your conversation with Orly through PMs. If you choose to handle it that way, please just let other posters know so that we can move on to another topic.

The idea of focusing on one subject at a time is a good one...and more likely than any other to make "A Civil Discussion with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq." at least theoretically possible. One friendly observation: In my experience, repetitive posting of the same points without responding directly to other posters' questions seldom leads to a quality discussion.

Welcome to The Fogbow.

this made me laugh...

"There is a special, very sparkly, corner of Hell reserved for people who send cards with glitter."

Yep. 50% of my previous post in this thread dealt with my criticism of Dr. Taitz' enthusiast endorsement of convicted felons and their work.

I join those who ask that Dr. Taitz answer here, publicly, and distinguish her association with multiple felons from Mr. Berg's association with Liberi.

Estiveo and others have asked questions about things you have done.

Not about what Phil Berg has done. Not about social security numbers. And not about most of the tangents in what you have posted in reply. Try to stay focused.

There are a lot of members here who would like to discuss a lot of things with you. It is not possible to discuss "everything at once", so just try to stay focused on what you, specifically, have been asked to discuss, and try to keep your responses on that subject. We try on this forum to stay focused on one topic at a time in a single thread, because it is impossible to discuss any single topic if everyone just runs off in all directions at once.

You will find extensive discussions in threads here about Obama's social security number and your blind misinterpretation of database results you were given by Neil Sankey. As you know, Neil Sankey has not been a reliable source with respect to other things he has given you, and you might want to think about that. If you want to discuss the issue of social security numbers, the members here will point you to the appropriate thread.

But, really, if Phil Berg was here, the members would certainly be asking him about his conduct.

Phil Berg is not here, and the members have questions about your conduct, which are questions you should be able to address directly. Simply because your actions are being criticized here does not mean that anyone here likes Phil Berg.

The things that Phil Berg has done are not an excuse for the things you have done, including things you have done in reaction to Berg. That's that "hyper reactivity" thing at work again.

Now, it is at this point absolutely clear to you that you should never have been sucked into the schemes of Charles Lincoln. You know that. The extent to which you allowed him to associate with you raises a question about your judgment of character. What the members are saying to you is that Charles Lincoln is by no means the only criminal and con-artist with whom you have associated.

You need to get beyond "Charles Lincoln is an awful person" to "why did I get involved with him". Because your actions are the only ones you can control.

It gets to my point about "trust" and "suspicion".

Without a sense of trust between people, nothing would ever get done. However, blind trust and gullibility are hazards.

Without a sense of suspicion, one is easily made a victim. However, outright paranoia is a hazard.

People have a tendency of bias toward accepting things with which they already agree. However, having bias, and recognizing that one has it in order to guard against it, are two entirely different things, and intelligent people can, to a great extent, consider the merit of things with which they disagree.

You will find, again in the extensive threads in this forum, that people here do not reach their conclusions because they "like Obama" or not.

Now, you have to recognize that you have worked with quite a few criminals. Lincoln, Manning, Sinclair, and Fitzpatrick are all criminals.

Do you have any insight into how this seems to keep happening?

Many of the members on this forum are attorneys, and many of us have been practicing for many years. None of us has run into this problem that both you and Berg have had, of allowing criminals to work with or for us, and vice versa.

All of the above is, of course, assuming we're actually speaking with Orly Taitz.

Just sayin'. Internet and all that.

I seem to remember at least her handle being confirmed as coming from her. Maybe you're suggesting a puppet is typing using her account This is a world of puppets and strings, after all!

Perhaps the person posting as "Orly Taitz" might confirm her identity by stating what she had to eat after the hearing and either (a) what brand of beer I had, or (b) what type of wine she had.

hows about a novel approach.. someone could simply call her and ask?

(edit) but please don't text her.. she apparently gets way to many of those...

And so accurate as well. And it's funny to hear Orly contradict her own claims.

Following those words from our sponsor, we are back to the question at hand:

Why do you criticize Phil Berg for his association with one felon while you have surrounded yourself with them? (Lincoln, Sinclair, Lucas Smith, Manning and the follower who harassed Estiveo and his 78 year old mother.) Isn't your criticism of Phil Berg on account of his "associations" hypocritical in that light?

Your turn, Dr. Taitz.

I suspect that Dr. Taitz will act like brave Sir Robin.

This post made merely to subscribe to this thread.

Hi folks, sorry it took so long to get back here, but there was stuff it do and people to see today.

Dr. Taitz, thanks for your non responsive answer. The convicted felon I refer to is Mr. Martin Walt, your Facebook friend and supporter. He knows who I am because I made the stupid mistake of using my real Facebook account instead of a sock-puppet while doing battle with him on your Fans of Orly Taitz Facebook page. He was able to research me just enough to get my phone number, address and find out my mothers name. The day after telling me, on your page, that he was "coming at me like a sledge hammer," My phone started ringing at about 4 in the morning. Dozens of hang-up calls. He's pulled this same stunt with others who have angered him on your facebook pages. Then, that afternoon, the police show up at my door. There'd been an anonymous call to county social services from someone saying he's a friend of my mom's, he's been unable to contact her for weeks, and believes that I'm holding her captive and abusing her. Luckily, I was able to turn this welfare check into a filing a false report complaint against Mr. Walt, but nothing will come of it being as we're on opposite coasts. He hadn't figured on the fact that my mother and I both have a long history of volunteering with our local police department and two of the officers actually worked for my mom whem they were in college.

As to the copy of his record, I sent that to your dental office by US Mail as well as by e-mail. But you can look it up yourself by going to the Duval County court clerk's office and using the Show Case app at https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/Login.a ... fault.aspx just use the public login and search for Martin Walt. This is the man you allowed run amuck on your Facebook pages and threaten other users, even after I and other users tried to warn you. You might want to get one of your volunteers to moderate your pages.

So, please let us continue our discussion of other convicted felons with whom you have chosen to associate. People like Charles E. Lincoln, III, Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith? I appears to me that you associated with these people, some more closely than others, being fully aware of their criminal records until, when they failed to serve your purpose or fill your needs, you kicked them to the curb and only then did you have concerns about their records and veracity.

I guess what I'm asking here, ma'am, is what the heck were you thinking? You seem not to learn from your mistakes, or even be able to admit that you make mistakes. I'd really love to hear your rationale for associating with these reprehensible, low-life criminals.

Thanks.

Oh, yeah, Manning. I forgot about Manning. Him too, also, Dr. Taitz.

Orly is a very busy woman, with places to be and people to see, so she might not remember, Estiveo, but I seem to remember that she got upset with Mr. Walt sometime around May and removed him as an admin on her Facebook page. Didn't she say it was because of complaints she had received about him?

The question would be why this guy was an admin in the first place. Estiveo suggests that Orly have her volunteers manage Facebook for her, but she has consistently failed to ascertain the felony backgrounds of those she places in positions of confidence. So if she chooses yet another "volunteer", what safeguards can she expected to enact?

But again we are awaiting Orly's answer to the main issue at hand: Why does she associate with felons?

That was when Martin Walt conned one of the Admins of the Fans page (neither of whom do any monitoring of the page) that Orly had asked him to be added as an Admin. That miserable lying f==kwad was always claiming to be an admin advising Orly on both her personal page and the Fans page, claiming that he was going to have people kicked off, when he wasn't threatening them that he was going to show up at their house or workplace with a machete. He lasted about 24 hours and had his little purge of everyone he hated before Orly heard about it and had him removed as an administrator. She didn't block him though, just let him stay there, still claiming to be an advisor, and getting fawning admiration from Chito Papa and some Aussie named Norris. He hasn't posted on any of Orly's pages for a while though. One of my sockpuppets reports that he hardly ever logs into Facebook anymore...maybe too many calls from LEOs regarding his other telephone threats.

That "some Aussie named Norris" would be one MichaelN orris, IMO.