.
Feedback

Birther Orly Taitz to Sue Joe Biden, Congress

Orange County dentist Orly Taitz has filed another lawsuit challenge Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

Dentist and lawyer Orly Taitz is suing Vice President Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress to stop the Electoral College from re-electing President Barack Obama. She made the announcement Wednesday on her website.

Taitz is representing federal prison inmate Keith Judd in the case filed before the U.S. District Court in Sacramento Monday.

This is the latest venue for Taitz to accuse the president of using forged documents, including a birth certificate she said was false because it listed the president's race as "African" and not "negro."

In May, Judd ran against Obama in the West Virginia primary. Judd took 41 percent of the vote. Taitz argues that Judd's rights have been infringed because he would have won the vote had Obama's name been removed.

The Electoral College is scheduled to meet Monday.

Taitz has had a string of unsuccessful legal challenges. She has sued both Obama and her own political rivals.

Most recently Taitz's case against Obama was delayed indefinitely by a Kansas judge.

Earlier this year, Taitz claimed she lost her U.S. Senate bid in the Republican primary because of voter fraud.

Taitz, who lives and works in south Orange County, has threatened to sue Republican party heads and the media.

"I believe it is time to hold party officials and members of the media financially accountable for fraud, slander and defamation of my character," she wrote in June.

In 2010, Taitz ran for California secretary of state. After losing in the primary, she unsuccessfully sued her Republican rival.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Shirley December 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm
OMG this NUT hasn't given up yet. She is unbelievable. Honest...if she were to be detained by law enforcement, she would be placed in a Looney ward
Charles December 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm
She's a worse dentist than she is an advocate. Zero interaction and zero rapport. And, her staff pressures you into buying into extra dental treatments. Very weird office environment.
Shirley December 14, 2012 at 01:49 am
Oh my Charles, are you admitting you went to her or are you repeating stories you heard?
Peter Schelden (Editor) December 14, 2012 at 03:09 am
So Orly is your dentist? Do you ever talk to her?
Wendy Beattie December 14, 2012 at 11:27 am
When is this woman going to shut up?
Mark B. Morrow December 14, 2012 at 12:27 pm
It is time for the California Bar to take action and disbar Orly Taitz. She has a long history of filing frivolous suits and has misused the legal process.
Dan Avery December 14, 2012 at 03:32 pm
You know, there are people in this country who have very real problems. Our society loves to turn a blind eye to those among us with real problems (think homeless and the myth that being so is their own choice). Orly Taitz has spend far too much money on this immorally Quixotic adventure of hers. That money could have done a lot of good. She is the perfect example of how selfish the rest of us are and I personally LOVE IT when she makes the news. Especially when it's so close to the annual spending frenzy that passes as the celebration of the birth of Our Lord.
And before one of Brad Morton's Mortonettes comes on here with the usual "nutzo" ad hominem argument against me, please notice that I said "us." That would include me, clearly. I bought my wife a $8,500 sweater for Xmas. What did you get yours?
Shripathi Kamath December 14, 2012 at 03:32 pm
Nah, I think they should just keep fining her, if those are frivolous suits. Increasing amounts, nothing too large, And I want her supporters to keep donating to her cause.
Shripathi Kamath December 14, 2012 at 03:41 pm
So far, I got my spouse a used book (but practically new), some cooking gadgets (my sandwiches were not up to par), and a Hallmark card. Obviously I am not selfish, but I have to first see what *I* get before I decide to splurge any more.
Peter Schelden (Editor) December 14, 2012 at 05:04 pm
Wait a second, you two--it's not even Christmas Day yet. What if your wives see this?
Shripathi Kamath December 14, 2012 at 05:10 pm
"I was led on by the treachery of others?"
Matthew Brian Jones December 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm
When are the lazy reporters going to stop reporting this meaningless CRAP and let us know about things that actually affect our lives.
Shripathi Kamath December 14, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Why do you think that her positions, supported by some 15%-20% of the population are meaningless? Such people exist, and they also do other things, is it not a concern that people are so uneducated, and live among us?
Besides, this is so much better than Matlock. There, you already know that the accused did not do it. Here, the suspense is to see if she gets fined for her frivolity, and how much.
Panglonymous December 18, 2012 at 11:40 am
Dan
What makes a sweater an $8500 sweater? Is it an art piece?
Dan Avery December 19, 2012 at 01:32 am
Panglonymous,
Beats the heck out of me. It was made of wool and for sale at Barney's.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Greg Raths announced for Congress
Shripathi Kamath June 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
"As a Republican, he will go head to head with our current incumbant [sic]" Wait, areRead More there no other contenders? John Webb on the Republican side might run, and then there was that Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang fella, who finished second. The more the merrier. The more diversity in the views, even better. I would like to hear from contenders how they would vote differently on some of the votes the incumbents have cast. Because all too often we have "an independent minded Republican" or a "progressive reformer" or "Heck, I am BATMAN himself" only to have disappointing regurgitation of ideology of what should not be done ("low taxes", "freedom", "family values", "apple pie, motherhood"). Not what will be done. And until we have that, corporate monies shall determine our representative. I mean I can imagine Mr. Raths voting for the 45th time to repeal Obamacare, but seriously, which vote that John Campbell cast would be different if Mr. Raths were in office? If 90% of the positions are the same, it looks like a remarkable coincidence that an independent thinker is so like the incumbent, does it not? Mr. Raths did offer an 'independent' idea endorsing civil unions but not gay marriage. Cool. Is he going to sponsor a bill for civil unions? Or simply insist on enforcing DOMA because "sanctity of marriage", "religious liberty". How about H.R. 1797? How about the Gang of 8 bill on immigration if it passes the Senate and comes to the House? Will his vote be different than that of Mr. Campbell's? That is the key question. But again, I welcome Mr. Raths entry in the field, we need more variety, and if we cannot get that, we at least need more people willing to run. Good luck to you, sir.
Gregory Raths June 19, 2013 at 05:30 pm
I've talked with both John Webb & Sukhee Kang and they have indicated they will not be runningRead More in 2014. I do welcome all entries into the 2014 race. GREG RATHS
Human Options' Cristi Dugger
Peter Schelden (Editor) June 19, 2013 at 09:29 am
Uncanny timing—this is especially poignant in light of this announcement:Read More http://alisoviejo.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/elder-sexual-abuse-caregiver-suspect-arrested
M June 19, 2013 at 07:32 am
Anymore info on this place? When I looked online the only location is vista, ca
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.