In all seriousness I ask the question again...for those who call Orly Taitz nuts on what basis, reason or assumption do you label her as nuts? I want to know that point of view because I see an intelligent, cogent and passionate person in pursuit of truth. Tell us why she is “Nuts”.
I will acknowledge Dr. Taitz is passionate about this subject, and intelligent. Cogent, not so much. It’s admirable that she could come to the US, pass both the dental boards and the CA bar exam. All in a second language. I know I couldn’t do that.
But as to how she could be considered ‘nuts’ (which *I* didn’t call her but accept that many others do):
The first thing that came to my mind was her conduct following a hearing (in Sept as I recall) in the CA case. She misinformed the public and her client, Alan Keyes, that the case was going forward. In fact, all the judge did was set a (possible) date for a trial in case the motion to dismiss wasn’t granted.
The Clerk set the date on the court’s calendar. A purely administrative function following a hearing Taitz herself attended and should have understood. She then put out a presser, and Keyes put out a presser, over a clerical confirmation on the record of what the judge had told Taitz just a few days before at a hearing. So not only Taitz, but Keyes also, looked foolish.
Similarly, her ‘misunderstanding’ the discovery question and saying she’d have Obama sitting at a deposition in thirty days.
Her attacking the judge in GA wasn’t all that professional. Her claim that Holder was in GA, and meeting with the judge in a coffee shop near the court wasn’t particularly professional, either. It was foolish.
She acts on emotion, and not the law or precedent, which guides an attorney. It may make fun reading and long threads, but does absolutely nothing to advance the question of Obama’s eligibility; if anything, it’s counterproductive and has tarred anyone who’s raised the questions.
There are reasons the officer/client in GA fired her .. among them, as I recall, were the filing of a reconsideration motion which the client told her not to do. And, I think a few of the CA clients dropped her. She’s involved in litigation with her former assistant/drafter, with the inspector who provided the “Kenyan birth certificate” and with some other attorneys. It seems not to be just some random “after-birthers” who have come to the conclusion that the woman is either ‘nuts’ or totally incompetent.
She may be, outside this context, the nicest person on earth, but she has not in any way advanced the question of Obama’s eligibility. She has merely sucked up all the energy and brought into question the legitimacy of a perfectly legitimate constitutional question.