ORLY TAITZ IS NOT GOING TO BE CALIFORNIA'S JUNIOR SENATOR

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

bob wrote:

According to the FEC, Taitz's 2011 report indicates (for 2011) she received $3,688 in unitemized (i.e., small) donations. After spending $46 on operating expenses, Taitz has $3,641 [cash] on hand.
In comparison, Feinstein has $6,574,635 cash in hand (but owes $5.2M, most which is a self-loan).

Okay, then. Let the race BEGIN! -xx

borealis · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:45 pm

neonzx wrote:

bob wrote:

According to the FEC, Taitz's 2011 report indicates (for 2011) she received $3,688 in unitemized (i.e., small) donations. After spending $46 on operating expenses, Taitz has $3,641 [cash] on hand.
In comparison, Feinstein has $6,574,635 cash in hand (but owes $5.2M, most which is a self-loan).

Okay, then. Let the race BEGIN! -xx

I still think Feinstein should run Orly's carefully edited outtakes from her publicized screeches on YouTube. She wouldn't have to spend a dime.

Tomtech · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:15 pm

Go Orly, go! :cheer:

I hope Orly wins her primary, I am telling my son there that he should vote for her.

I hope Feinstein totally ignores her while Democratic super PACs, the Party, and candidates feature her as the star of "this is your Republican Party, and they aren't on dope (as far as we know)" ads throughout the country.
:twisted:

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:56 pm

tjh wrote:

How are The Obly's candidate filings going? (Expenses, contributions and such). I've forgotten the links.

Oodles and oodles of money coming in. Trust me.

"Trust me" is not to be taken in any particular way by certain young ladies who are visiting this forum.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:03 pm

LET'S NAIL ORLY, NOW.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:19 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

esseff44 · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:32 pm

I have looked for information on the candidate's statements for the Voter Information Guide. Here's what I found. The SoS seem to take no responsibility for the accuracy of the candidate's statement. The one thing they cannot do is mention any opponent. So, she can't smear another Senate candidate, but it seems anyone else is fair game. Still, a challenge would be worthwhile. If nothing else, it may prompt the legislature to restrict candidate's statements to verifiable facts about themselves and not as opportunities to smear political enemies.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-pub ... mation.pdf

In this case, O'rly considers her real opponent to be the president and not the incumbent Senator.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:41 pm

Don't forget that litigation is a rich person's hobby. Admissible evidence to disprove Taitz is obtainable, but will require the investment of time, money, and energy.

ducktape · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:41 pm

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:52 pm

esseff44 wrote:

I have looked for information on the candidate's statements for the Voter Information Guide. Here's what I found. The SoS seem to take no responsibility for the accuracy of the candidate's statement. The one thing they cannot do is mention any opponent. So, she can't smear another Senate candidate, but it seems anyone else is fair game. Still, a challenge would be worthwhile. If nothing else, it may prompt the legislature to restrict candidate's statements to verifiable facts about themselves and not as opportunities to smear political enemies.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-pub ... mation.pdf

In this case, O'rly considers her real opponent to be the president and not the incumbent Senator.

I think if you look at another of the Election Codes, it EXPRESSLY says that a challenge can be made on the grounds of false and misleading statements. That is how I prepared the petition. It says: A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the copy in question is false, misleading ...

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:55 pm

ducktape wrote:

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

ObjectiveDoubter!

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:13 pm

jtmunkus wrote:

:banana:

ObjectiveDoubter!

'
No legal help offered so far. I found out it is $395 to file. I am willing to put up the bucks. But desperately need a bitty help to polish it and get the filing ready. If you are a lawyer and want to see it so far, send me a PM and I will share. A little reluctant to share until it is in the mail, otherwise.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:30 pm

Quote:

A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the copy in question is false, misleading ...

Take care, IANAL but I would expect the courts to be extremely reluctant to intervene in a candidate's political statement (and so they should be) and if you fail to persuade them to intervene it will be trumpeted by the birthers as "proof" that the statements are true. This doesn't seem worth a candle to me.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:33 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Quote:

A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the copy in question is false, misleading ...

Take care, IANAL but I would expect the courts to be extremely reluctant to intervene in a candidate's political statement (and so they should be) and if you fail to persuade them to intervene it will be trumpeted by the birthers as "proof" that the statements are true. This doesn't seem worth a candle to me.

As was expected of Taitz by Malihi (and others), a court would expect the petitioner to present competent evidence in support of the claims alleged in the petition.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:35 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Quote:

A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the copy in question is false, misleading ...

Take care, IANAL but I would expect the courts to be extremely reluctant to intervene in a candidate's political statement (and so they should be) and if you fail to persuade them to intervene it will be trumpeted by the birthers as "proof" that the statements are true. This doesn't seem worth a candle to me.

That is my concern, clearly. That is why I ask about unintended consequences. At the same time, these statements are challenged frequently and ARE changed. Usually it is the political parties challenging them, with high power attorneys however. Also a factor -- it is NOT the Court, but the Secretary of State who changes it. Debra Bowen is already familiar with Orly, and I believe would LOVE to smack her down. The SoS is the respondent, the petition asks for a Writ of Manadate directed to her!

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:46 pm

Sorry, but if a writ of mandamus is involved then the court is involved. You seem to be assuming that Debra Bowen will discharge her ministerial duties based on her political and/or personal views and just cave in to when your petition arrives. What if she doesn't? Do you think the court will issue a writ without the candidate having her say? What if she does cave into you? Orly appeals to the courts and gets another opportunity to paint herself as victim and spew her venom. Still IANAL neither am I in California.

Clairez · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:05 pm

IANAL but I like your idea and hope one of our great legal minds contacts you shortly and helps you put it into the proper form.

I like it because I hate the idea of those lies standing as fact and I believe it would lead to Taitz losing what little she had left of her mind.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9345

I share the worries of the worriers. While I agree that the statement is a load of wank, a writ of mandamus is a form of extraordinary relief that should be used only when extraordinary harm is in the balance. I am just not seeing that from a kook candidate being allowed to issue a kook statement. I worry that even a proper denial of a writ of mandamus in this situation will be viewed by morons as an endorsement of the kooky statement by a court.

My reasoning is not changed by the fact that this kook candidate may appear on the general ballot as a result of California's kooky new primary law.

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:04 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Sorry, but if a writ of mandamus is involved then the court is involved. You seem to be assuming that Debra Bowen will discharge her ministerial duties based on her political and/or personal views and just cave in to when your petition arrives. What if she doesn't? Do you think the court will issue a writ without the candidate having her say? What if she does cave into you? Orly appeals to the courts and gets another opportunity to paint herself as victim and spew her venom. Still IANAL neither am I in California.

No, I don't assume that about Debra Bowen. I assume it because this is a common practice in California and is often successful. My comments about Debra Bowen meant to convey that I know she is fair-minded only. I have a long history with the CA Democratic Party -- although not so for the last few years. I know a lot about Debra Bowen and how she legislated. There are EASILY proven lies in Orly's statement. Those are the only ones I intend to address. But I wanted to do it in the Affirmative, something that isn't happening in the Courts right now.

But so far, it isn't an issue because I think there are too many level heads suggesting that the outcome could be bad. Plus, without help, it's moot anyhow. So I will give it up. I did write a lovely petition however. I really liked it.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:43 pm

Taitz is going to get 50 certified copies of her campaign statement and send them to the courts in all 50 states.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

Establishment operative John Fleishman is attacking me on the eve of an important CA GOP vote
:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=33013 :evil:

Quote:

Tomorrow 24 members of the CA GOP board of directors are meeting for a vote on who CA GOP will officially endorse. They know that I am the best known candidate with the strongest track record of fighting Obama regime. I am the only candidate, who was polled against Diane Feinstein. Several other candidates are unknown, PPP felt that it is a waste of their time to even pol them.

John Fleishman is an editor of FlashReport.org- he is advertising a few other candidates and wrote the nastiest article in order to defame in the eyes of the board right before topmorrows vote. A quote is listed below. While endorsement will not prevent people from voting for me, it does help the endorsed candidate to get more recognition and funding.

Please, cqall the members of the executive board of the GOP and urge them to vote for me, if they want any chance of making it not only in CA, but also exposing Obama nationwide.

Defamation attack from Jon Fleishman:”I am most interested to see what the star chamber does on the U.S. Senate race. I have yet to have any of the Republican candidates demonstrate to me that they have what it takes to retire Dianne Feinstein. Which is not to say that one could not, but that is what the next few months are for — to allow competing Republicans to demonstrate their ability to get elected. Some are worried that if one candidate does not have the ability to have their name listed in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet on a page separate from the actual sample ballot, that bizarre whack-job “birther” Orly Taitz, a gadfly running for U.S. Senate, could be the top GOP vote-getter. I don’t buy that, but perhaps some on the board will. I lament that it will be only 24 people making this decision, and not GOP voters, or at least many thousands of GOP leaders.”

ZekeB · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:59 pm

So fighting the Obama regime is the GOP's most important product? How about representing We The People, O'rly? Ya know, there is a very strong majority of people in California who have more urgent needs besides "fighting the Obama regime."

Oh I forgot, when you live in a 4 million dollar house you really don't care about the middle class, do you?

It's all about MEMEMEMEMEmememememe

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:00 pm

Apparently Typhoid Orly didn't learn in her torts "class" at Taft Law "Skool" that it's only defamation if it isn't true.

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:36 am

A couple of points:

--Agree with Stern as to the probable limitations of Oily's instruction in torts (specifically, defamation) at Taft Skool of Lawyerin' 'n' Uniboobery. I would add that it is clear that Oily is unaware of the "clearly expressed 'opinion'" general exception. For example, I can say that it is my opinion that Dan Lacey, in his Orly Taitz "Pancake Birther" paintings, flattered Oily in comparison to her living ugliness. Or, I can say that it is my opinion that Orly Taitz is a miserable, nasty, hateful, ugly, incompetent and stupid piece of shit. There's nothing actionable in those statements.

--Regarding the California Republican Party (CRP) endorsement: While I doubt that the CRP would endorse Oily, regardless, I also know that, unless Oily filled out the 2012 Candidate Endorsement Registration Form and ponied up the $500 fee to the CRP by the deadline of March 9, 2012, her name won't even be on the list for endorsement consideration at today's meeting.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

ORLY TAITZ IS NOT GOING TO BE CALIFORNIA'S JUNIOR SENATOR

Who is online