Here’s her take on US District Court Judge Roger Vinson;s order of April 8, in which he denies her motion to intervene in the cases filed by 13 US Attorneys General against the new health care reform legislation:

Orly Taitz Judge Vinson in FL states: “”As a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by the Act, she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action”- he indicates standing, which was viled as a judicial notice in DC

(I’m assuming she meant “filed” rather than “viled,” but, considering her history, what a slip, huh?)

Now, she’s filed a motion befor Judge Royce C. Lamberth in D.C. — in another of her birther cases — to take judicial notice of what she claims the Vinson decision means, namely that she has “standing” to pursue her claim that President Obama is a usurping Marxist who was not legitimately elected to his office. Standing is important, because Obama’s lawyers are asking Lamberth to dismiss her claim because she does not have standing to file it.

But as usual, this mail-order lawyer either doesn’t understand Vinson’s order, or is deliberately misrepresenting it to achieve her desired ends. (That’s a nice way of saying she’s lying). I note that in her motion to Lamberth, she references including Vinson’s order as an exhibit, but the exhibit is not attached (at least in the version on Scribd).

The snippet that Taitz provides in her Facebook post and in her motion to Lamberth is, of itself, accurate; Vinson did write that. But she neglects to include the context. Vinson writes about the four-pronged test that judges use in determining whether to allow an intervenor in a suit. He says that while Taitz satisfies the first two, she fails in three and four.

With respect to the impairment of interest (step 3), Taitz contends that her legal interests will be “immensely” and “significantly” hampered because there is the “risk that conflicting results may be achieved in the DC and Northern Florida Districts.” However, the mere possibility of inconsistent results in cases filed by different individuals in different districts does not, by itself, hamper or impair a litigant’s legal interests.

As for the fourth prong:

Moreover, Taitz has not shown that her legal interests will be represented inadequately by the existing parties in this case (step 4). She acknowledges that she and the Attorneys General in this litigation are ultimately “seeking identical relief on an identical theory.” The Eleventh Circuit has stated that courts should “presume adequate representation when an existing party seeks the same objectives as the would-be interveners.” Although this presumption is “weak,” it imposes on the proposed intervener “the burden of coming forward with some evidence to the contrary.” There is no such evidence in this case. Although Taitz states in conclusory fashion that her interests “are not being represented by the current parties to this action,” the only support she provides for this contention is her claim that — unlike the Attorneys General — she is a doctor whose “gainful employment in Dental Surgery” will be directly impacted. However, the fact that she might be affected by the Act on a more personal level than the current named plaintiffs does not constitute evidence that representation by the Attorneys General is inadequate.

Fail and fail.

Taitz also takes out of context a statement made by Vinson that:

(T)he parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible. That task will be made exponentially more difficult if all those who have an opinion and an interest in the outcome of the case were allowed to intervene and to join in these proceedings. Already this court has received many such pro se requests for intervention. Furthermore, with respect to Taitz’s motion in particular, I believe the parties to this case and the court should remain focused solely on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).

Not surprisingly, Taitz completely misstates Vinson’s intent in her motion before Judge Lamberth: here

While motion to intervene was not granted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filed their motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of the Commerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs …

and here:

Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs. Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is frivolous.

Judge Vinson made no such assertion, Orly. You’re lying.

As you are here:

Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above  ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action challenging H.R. 3590 …

To wit:

For these reasons, Dr. Taitz’s motion to intervene (doc. 17) must be, and is, DENIED.

I guess when you’re a desperate attention whore, you’ll do anything to keep yourself relevant, even outright lie in legal papers.

My only question is, when will this woman be disbarred?

Keep the faith.

SAVAGE NOW ON
XTRA SPORTS 860 AM
IN SAN FRANCISCO

SAVAGE NOW ON 6 A.M. TO 9 A.M.
AND 3 P.M. TO 5 P.M.!

SAVAGE+SAVAGE=A DOUBLE PLAY

A little research on the part of this phony Ph.D would show that a double-play is not necessarily a good thing. So why would anyone with half a brain use as a marketing slogan an image that, half the time, had a negative connotation? (That’s a self-answering question.)

Plus, in the blurb to which this headline links, he lies about his show’s standing. He says Talkers Magazine ranks him number 3 among talk radio program hosts, but, as I have already pointed out, his show is now number 4.

Lazy researcher and a liar. You fans must be so proud.

Keep the faith.

Birther Queen Orly Taitz, who is running for the Republican nomination for California state Attorney General, is trying to rally her Facebook friends to get them to make GOTV calls for her.

Orly Taitz Please e-mail my campaign coordinator Evelyn Bradley at ENBradley@aol.com, she will give you phone numbers of the registered voters to contact and ask them to vote for me

Taitz believes that if she gets into office, she’ll finally have standing to demand President Obama’s birth records. Funny, though; she doesn’t mention that as a campaign platform plank on her Web site, runorlyrun.org.

But can you imagine the high-larity that will ensue when these mouth-breathers start calling people up, asking them to vote for Taitz? How long will it take before the crazy reveals itself?

Can’t wait to find out.

Keep the faith

Savage on his program yesterday made the same claim. (Actually, he’s been saying that for about a year. And he’s been wrong all along.)

But as usual, this holder of a questionable Ph.D., who never misses an opportunity to tell his lap dogs what an educated person he is, fails to provide any context.

Yeah, President Obama’s approval ratings have dropped, according to a Gallup poll. Right now, according to that poll, he’s at 47 percent. But if you click on the link provided on Savage’s Web site, you make a startling discovery: the approval rating of EVERY president since Harry Truman has dropped over the course of their term.

Imagine that!

And take a closer look: You see that at a comparable point in his presidency, Day 430 or so, the Great God Ronald Reagan’s approval rate was worse, 43 percent. And that was from a high of 68 percent, which Obama has yet to achieve.

But details such as these have no interest for the “Great Sage” Michael Savage. The self-proclaimed “National Treasure.” The profligate liar.

And it won’t matter to the mouth-breathers who listen to him and swallow whole everything he says. As I wrote in my book, they play Linda Lovelace to his John Holmes.

And that’s part of the reason we’re in the condition we’re in today.

Keep the faith.

In this case, it was Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who was convicted of killing a suspected al queda member who Behenna believed was behind an IED attack on a patrol he was leading. The attack killed several soldiers and others.

Savage had Behenna’s mother on to talk about her son’s case, and the evidence she said would clear him that was not allowed to be introduced at his trial. Savage said that he would ask his listeners to send money to the Behenna legal defense fund, which had alreadybeen establishedd.

He said that he didn’t want anything to do with the money, he didn’t want to touch it. He said a link would be provided directly to the Behenna defense fund.

But now it appears that Savage has changed his mind. As of tonight, the link on Savage’s site reads, “Support Michael Behenna through the Savage Legal Fund.

In fact, there isn’t even a link to the Behenna site on Savage’s. Nothing. A letter from Behenna’s mother appears under a “Savage nation” banner, and when you click on the PayPal link to donate, there is nowhere to indicate that the money is supposed to be earmarked for the Behenna fund.

Which makes me wonder why the change was made? Savage could easily have linked to the Web site dedicated to Behenna’s defense, or even to the donationn page that is linked to from the main Behennaa page.

Why, Savage, did you change your mind about “touching” the money your listeners send in for Behenna? Don’t you think they deserve an explanation on the site?

And how are you keeping track of who’s donating money to your “legal defense fund,” and that of Behenna? Where’s the accountability, Savage?

Michael Savage and accountability. Oil and water.

Keep the faith.

When I tuned in, Savage was blathering about a program on HBO called, “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” starring “Seinfeld” creator Larry David. Apparently, Savage saw an episode in which religion was mocked.

He went on for a while about how David is a self-hating Jew, along the lines of Woody Allen, according to him. i guess if you are part of a religion and make fun of it, you’re self-hating. Whatever.

And for the record, I think Savage has the self-hate market covered. But I digress.

What caught me about this program is that Savage called for a boycott of HBO for its airing of the program. Now, parts of his rant were blocked out by WOR in New York, but you could tell what he said by the context.

This is interesting, because Savage railed about how his free speech was being abridged back when the Council on American and Islamic Relations called for a boycott of Savage’s program sponsors.

So the “Guardian of Free Speech” once again shows that he’s all for freedom of expression, as long as he’s the one doing the expressing.

You’re a hypocrite, Savage.

Keep the faith.

And to top it off, the station substituted Michael Smerconish, who usually isn’t on until after Savage, for the blowhard. The conservative commentator was on-site at Rutgers stadium in Piscataway, NJ, doing a pre-game hour.

I thought this was interesting because in the past, WOR has at least presented the first hour or so of Savage, then switched to Rutgers. But this time, the station decided to let another political commentator talk about college football instead.

Remember, WOR some time ago cut the last hour of Savage’s program. The station now presents Savage from 6-8 p.m., followed by Smerconish. I guess that’s because WOR grew tired of paying for an hour of canned programming.

I’m waiting for the day Savage is bumped for Lady Knights basketball. That will be a hoot.

Keep the faith.

Clinton and her Russian counterparts discussed a successor treaty to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in December.

According to the Fox News report, the two sides “tentatively” agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russian inspectors to “visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.”

This, Fox News breathlessly reports, “would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.”

Never one to let the thinnest of connections go unconnected, Savage on his radio program this evening declared that the agreement is a done deal, and that it would allow Russians into every US missile facility. he compared it to a Las Vegas blackjack dealer showing his cards to the players before they placed their bets. I’m still trying to figure that one out.

But my point is, Savage once again apparently did not read the story to which his Web site points. The agreement is tentative, the terms have not been confirmed, and there is no mention that the agreement includes every missile location in the country.

And as far as Fox News’ assertion about this being the “most intrusive” weapons inspection program ever; says who? Is this Fox News’ opinion, or did it come from someone who actually knows what they are talking about?

We don’t know because Fox doesn’t tell us (big surprise) and Savage doesn’t bother to do any primary research (bigger surprise).

The world’s laziest Ph.D. strikes again.

Keep the faith.

Faithful readers will recall that Savage had been invited by the Cambridge Union Society to participate in a debate entitled, “This House Believes that Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary.” Savage was going to take the opposition’s point.

Savage’s appearance was prompted by his being banned in May from entering the country. That sterling move was made by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, prompting a massive Savage pity party and a lawsuit, (Oh, and endless and shameless begging on Savage’s part for money for his “legal defense fund.” This from a man who reportedly makes $10 million a year.)

But apparently, things have changed. According to the venerable World Net Daily, Savage’s producer received an email this week, canceling his appearance.

The cancellation was confirmed by a columnist for the London Telegraph.

The Union cited legal and financial reasons for the move; WND took it at that and did not pursue the point. Which, of course, plays right into Savage’s “world against me” mindset.

What doesn’t British Prime Minister Gordon Brown want me to say? Savage mused to WND.com. Perhaps Brown is afraid that Savage will blow the lid off of why he was banned. Hmmm.

Well, probably not.

According to the Telegraph article, the main reason is that the Union could not afford the 5,000 British Pound cost for the technology. Apparently, the Union anted to do it through a low-cost Internet program called Skype, but Savage wanted high-tech equipment.

According to an email the Telegraph reporter received from the Union’s president-elect:

We proposed to Dr Savage that he speak by videophone (/Skype), but his team demanded higher spec equipment than we were able to provide and were not willing to negotiate or contribute to the costs.

The £5000 plus that this event would have cost us – following their demands – was not an expense we could justify.

So i t’s not so much pressure from the British government, but pressure from Savage himself that scuttled his big chance.

The Telegraph suggested that Savage be the bigger man and pay for the technology, and I agree. It’s only about $8,000. C’mon Savage, you throw $50,000 around like it’s Monopoly money, you can afford it.

Don’t hold your breath.

Keep the faith.

Today on his Facebook page, Savage posted an announcement about his upcoming book and the fact that he has been invited to debate by the Cambridge Union Society in England.

That’s of note because it was disclosed in May that Savage is among 22 or so people banned by the British government from entering the United Kingdom.

The debate’s topic is, “This House Believes Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary.” Savage will be speaking for the opposition.

Since May, Savage has made hay about how his “freedom of speech” has been abridged by the ban. In fact, he has regularly asked his Web site visitors and his radio listeners to donate to his “free speech” fund. By his account, many have.

So when I saw Savage’s post, I decided to take the opportunity to ask a simple question: How has his “free speech” been abridged in light of the facts that he is speaking to the Cambridge Union Society, people in the UK can log onto his Web site, they can sign up for his podcasts, and they can buy his books?

How, exactly, has he been muzzled in the UK?

I expected to be attacked by his followers, but my question didn’t last very long. Rather than just delete my comment, Savage deleted his entire post! And this is the guy who says he’s fighting to preserve our freedom of speech from those who would attack it.

Seems Savage is only interested in defending speech when it’s complimentary to him.

Hypocrite.

Keep the faith.