TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#501

Post by Paul Lentz » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:24 pm

[highlight]William Chatfield’s reward from Obama[/highlight]5:13 PM (11 hours ago)[highlight]If you decide not to serve William Chatfield in Orange County, where he works[/highlight], here is the smoking gun with his address in North Carolina. Like Solyndra, this company and the [highlight]shares William Chatfield owns[/highlight], came from [highlight]Obama financing[/highlight]. I wonder why no one has made a big deal of this association. Maybe OxyBioMed did not get half a billion dollars so it was not worth of mention in the lame stream media? [/break1]corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1odHRwOi8vaXIuaW50Lndlc3RsYXdidXNpbmVzcy5jb20vZG9jdW1lbnQvdjEvMDAwMTUzNDI5Mi0xMi0wMDAwMDQvZG9jL094eWdlbkJpb3Ro]http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Do ... dlbkJpb3Ro"Reward?" For Chatfield? =)) Yeah, right. Chatfield was appointed Director of the Selective Service by George W. Bush on 11/29/04. Prior to that appointment, Chatfield's government jobs were during the Reagan administration. With President George H.W. Bush's election, Chatfield left government service and became a lobbyist, plying that "trade" until his 2004 appointment to the selective service job. In accordance with ordinary protocol, Chatfield tendered his resignation upon President Obama's assumption of the presidency, and that resignation was accepted effective May 29, 2009, upon the assumption of the Director's position by Acting Director Ernest Garcia, who was in turn replaced on December 4, 2009 by Lawrence G. Romo, following Romo's nomination by President Obama and confirmation by the U.S. Senate.Chatfield lost his job when President Obama assumed office. While he might well have gone on to other/bigger/better things, that would certainly not be President Obama's doing.But, happily, Oily is too stoopid to put those basic facts together for herself. Hell, she's too stoopid to file a simple lawsuit in the right federal district court. And may she continue to amuse us daily with her incredible stoopidity and gullibility. -xx


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#502

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:26 pm

I wonder how many William Chatfield's she's going to sue before she finds the right one. :lol:Just wait till she finds the Bill Chatfield in Connecticut with a Hawaiian SSN. He's in for a speshul surprise.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#503

Post by SueDB » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:26 pm

I wonder how many William Chatfield's she's going to sue before she finds the right one. :lol:Just wait till she finds the Bill Chatfield in Connecticut with a Hawaiian SSN. He's in for a speshul surprise. =)) =)) =)) =)) Come on Orly, just DO it.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#504

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:27 pm

Don't know if this is related to her re-filing in Sebelius or not, but...





:evil: [/break1]orlytaitzesq.com/?p=245910]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=245910 :evil:





Important: I need an attorney in TX to sign as a local [highlight]contact[/highlight]and I am looking for owners companies that have over 50 employees and they oppose Obamacare





Posted on | August 18, 2012 | No CommentsTWLITHOTU thinks she can replicate Newland v. Sebellius.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#505

Post by esseff44 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:24 pm

Obviously she will have to file in Maryland to include the William Chatfield's there because he would have to have a residence near D.C. for all the lobbying work with the government. She should just file in all those venues to make sure she gets the right one. :roll:



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#506

Post by verbalobe » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:52 pm

I'm not even clear on why Chatfield.





Shouldn't she be suing whoever was Director of the Social Security Administration around 1978, and was responsible for fraudulently issuing young Barack a SSN belonging to a 90-year old Connecticut vampire? And if that director is deceased, she can sue their heirs and assigns.





If she finds the right defendant, and the right venue, it should be a snap to secure subject matter jurisdiction, frame a cause of action, assert standing, articulate a remedy, and get a court to.......... what?





Grant DISCOVERY???





She's really lost her way.



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#507

Post by esseff44 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:04 pm

Why isn't she suing the current director of the SS System who refuses to do whatever it is that Sheriff Joe keeps demanding that he do? At least she has a known address for him and she is more familiar with that venue and had such success there. ;)



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#508

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:10 pm

Why isn't she suing the current director of the SS System who refuses to do whatever it is that Sheriff Joe keeps demanding that he do? At least she has a known address for him and she is more familiar with that venue and had such success there. ;)Because she's a total moron?



rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#509

Post by rosy » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:43 pm

Why isn't she suing the current director of the SS System who refuses to do whatever it is that Sheriff Joe keeps demanding that he do? At least she has a known address for him and she is more familiar with that venue and had such success there. ;)Because she's a total moron? Nailed it. There are unicellular organisms with a greater understanding of the law then TWLITHOTU. Hell, there are dead unicellular organisms with a better understanding.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14643
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#510

Post by ZekeB » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:02 pm

Why isn't she suing the current director of the SS System who refuses to do whatever it is that Sheriff Joe keeps demanding that he do? At least she has a known address for him and she is more familiar with that venue and had such success there. ;)The moron probably thinks Chatfield is still the director.




Edit: Perhaps she needs to consider [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatsworth_Osborne,_Jr.]this Chatsworth.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#511

Post by realist » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:26 pm

She's suing Chatfield for one reason and one reason only... He blew her off. It's just that simple. It has nothing to do with who should be the proper defendant.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#512

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:40 pm

She's suing Chatfield for one reason and one reason only... He blew her off. It's just that simple. It has nothing to do with who should be the proper defendant.In Orlylaw that's a valid cause of action. And ignoring Orly Taitz's ridiculous demands is a RICO violation. Especially if done by more than one person. And in a state other than California.



neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#513

Post by neonzx » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:24 pm

:evil: [link]http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=255767,h ... /?p=255767[/link] :evil:


Appointee of H.W. Bush in the Northern District of TX to rule on a case and motion for injunction against the ObamaTax filed by CA attorney Orly Taitz





Posted on | August 24, 2012 | No Comments





Press Release





Law offices of Dr. Orly Taitz





08.24.2012





H.W. Bush appointee Honorable Jorge A. Solis in Northern District of Texas is to rule on the case Taitz v Sebelius 3-12-cv-3251 and on motion to stay/ for preliminary injunction of ObamaTax brought by California attorney Orly Taitz.





This case originated in the Central District of California, but was transferred to the Northern District of Texas, when initially appointed judge, Honorable Dolly Gee ruled No Venue in CA.





Judge will be ruling shortly on the Motion for Stay/ Injunction, where Taitz is seeking a stay/ injunction against the Individual Mandate/aka ObamaTax.





Taitz brought forward 2 main arguments:





1. In 2800 pages of ObamaCare, Obama administration buried a provision, where one can be completely exempt from paying even a cent in Health Care penalty/tax, if buying insurance is against his religious believes. Such aversion to insurance can be found in Muslim religion, where insurance is considered a form of gambling. That means that individuals, who are Christians and Jews would have to carry on their backs the burden of ObamaTax, while Muslims will be exempt. Taitz argued that such religious discrimination is flagrantly unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, Freedom of Religion Clause and Equal Protection clause.





2. Additionally Taitz argued that ObamaTax is unconstitutional, as it was signed into law by Obama, who is a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, who got into the White House by virtue of fraud and use of forged identification papers and a stolen CT SSN 042-68-4425. Taitz attached over a hundred pages of sworn affidavits and other evidence confirming fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs





3. The case should be entered on PACER by the end of the or on Monday.





End of Press release



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#514

Post by Piffle » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:29 pm

That's just wrong for so many reasons. But beyond wrong, it's just plain tacky.



neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#515

Post by neonzx » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:31 pm

That's just wrong for so many reasons. But beyond wrong, it's just plain tacky.It's just plain Orly. :banana:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#516

Post by realist » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:34 pm

That's just wrong for so many reasons. But beyond wrong, it's just plain tacky.Beyond tacky it's also false. The judge refused to transfer the case.That may be one of the many wrongs you are referring to, but just sayin'.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#517

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:35 pm

So Taitz has filed a new action in Texas, where the court also doesn't have venue?I suspect there may be some activity relating to the venue issue in Texas, too.The press release claims the case was transferred from California. I guess "Dismissed" in Orlylaw means "Transferred."Yulia Yun has demonstrated that, in addition to posting as several different sock puppets on Taitz's site ("Have a nice day"), she can write misleading press releases, too. A double threat.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#518

Post by bob » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:35 pm

All least she figured out which district....


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#519

Post by esseff44 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:10 pm

Wrong from the first word and all the way through. We did have a president named George H.W. Bush but Yulia does not seem to understand our system or history very well. She also does not know how to fact check before she puts out her "press releases." The foremost hook is that a Republican appointed judge will most certainly rule against Obama now that O'rly has somehow landed in a court not presided over by an Obama appointee. They really do believe that is how the system works regardless of the merits of the case.Neither of them can shake off the old Soviet corrupted way of viewing the government and the courts.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17964
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#520

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:16 pm

Well at least Judge Solis went to a real (and good) law skool. I hope he gives her the Wingate treatment. And the Land treatment on sanctions (x10).


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#521

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:33 pm

Appointee of H.W. Bush in the Northern District of TX to rule on a case and motion for injunction against the ObamaTax filed by CA attorney Orly TaitzI'm sorry, I couldn't even read the thing I was laughing so hard about good ol' HW. When I finally did read it, I see that once again, we're back to unredacted SS#. And then this gem:


The case should be entered on PACER by the end of the ??? or on Monday.





A really professional press release. Lies, a president's name confused, unredacted SS#, missing words -- It looks like Orly is creating a mini-me, with success.



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#522

Post by esseff44 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:56 pm

Some background on the H.W. appointee:http://www2.dallasbar.org/judiciary/pro ... 108Another miscalculation on the part of TWLITHOTW and her PR person.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#523

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:00 pm

Some background on the H.W. appointee: [/break1]dallasbar.org/judiciary/profiles.asp?item=108]http://www2.dallasbar.org/judiciary/pro ... p?item=108





Another miscalculation on the part of TWLITHOTW and her PR person.He sounds like a thoughtful judge. This is from the end of the bio esseff links to, with my emphasis:


After each trial, Judge Solis asks the jury to comment on their experience. The number one complaint he receives from juries is redundancy. The number two complaint is that lawyers are not professional, which is a pet peeve of his. While lawyers must be zealous advocates of the client’s case, a good advocate should not resort to gamesmanship and unprofessional conduct directed at the opposing lawyers. :twisted:



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#524

Post by raicha » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:17 pm

Eh eh eh, this could be good.



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

TAITZ v SEBELIUS, et al.

#525

Post by BillTheCat » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:49 pm

He sounds like a thoughtful judge. This is from the end of the bio esseff links to, with my emphasis:








After each trial, Judge Solis asks the jury to comment on their experience. The number one complaint he receives from juries is redundancy. The number two complaint is that lawyers are not professional, which is a pet peeve of his. While lawyers must be zealous advocates of the client’s case, a good advocate should not resort to gamesmanship and unprofessional conduct directed at the opposing lawyers. :twisted:

Oh my. Seems that Lady Liberty is not going to go over well in this court.





:muttley-snicker:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”