this is an offer to do a debate, but I am not sure if I should?
Posted on | July 22, 2010 | 65 Comments
I don’t think I need to tell you my personal information. It is irrelevant to the issues. I am not the one who is filing all the lawsuits. I spoke with Mr. Tepper and he asked me to relay the following message:
1. I am not an entertainment lawyer. I am a business litigator; earlier in my career I was a constitutional lawyer.
2. I have no plans to file any further complaints against her.
3. The purpose of my participation is to debate the issues.
4. I have no contacts with any networks or cable TV shows.
5. We will advertise this everywhere, on right and left wing blogs, as well as middle of the road blogs. So, she will have a HUGE audience of every political stripe, and probably lots of federal law clerks listening in. (“Probably” because we don’t know for sure.)
6. Dr. Taitz will also get to test her ideas about the merits, something she has never been able to do with any of her eligibility cases, with someone who will be able to address those issues directly.
7. As a trial lawyer for 38 years I have an interest in discussing the merits of the dispute. And that I think on the merits she will not do well.
Regards,
RC
Comments
65 Responses to “this is an offer to do a debate, but I am not sure if I should?”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
He is just looking for more ammo to use against you and I am sure he expects to rip you to shreds using his legal ‘expertise’.
If he was truly an expert on the Constitution he would know you are correct instead of insisting that you are wrong.
If I were you,Orly,I would laugh in his face and tell him to go peddle his tripe to those stupid enough to listen and brain dead enough to believe what he spouts.
As far as the ‘mock’ trial goes,I would have to have more knowledge about who will be involved before giving any opinion on it
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
You definitely should. Debating the opposition can only benefit you and should provide for some great entertainment. If your case is as tight as you claim, you should embrace showing up the obots who obviously don’t understand.
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
Lady Liberty – What do you have to lose? If they’re rude or unfair you can simply stop participating. But this is a great way to get the word out.
Be sure to talk about what has happened recently at the Supreme Court.
I think it’s a great idea. The sooner the better. We can advertise this on Free Republic, WND, Post & Mail, all over. We will have thousands of friends listening. We can call in. Also.
Jim
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
With 102 days before the November 2nd election, the Harvard left-wing radicals are desperate to get some traction because it is obvious that Obama has been a purposeful failure on every front that Americans consider important. Just look at the dictatorial methods they have used to stuff things down our throat on so many issues. The Obama administration has used every trick in the Rules for Radicals in an attempt to implode/overload American from within. Do you still believe what Obama says? This debater is from the same psychological mold and he has repeatedly demonstrated his bad faith toward you by his actions. For this reason, I do not think he has your best interest in mind or that of the American people in mind for this debate. The issues you are attempting to get the courts to do their job by proceeding into discovery has nothing to do a mock trial on the same level as Pastor Manning’s. Was there any outcome difference after all of his well intended efforts? The bottom line question to me is, if this guy is such a great lawyer/person, why isn’t he helping you on this case instead of trying to tear you down in a debate? These are serious times and they are not times to debate with persons who hate America, want to trash the Constitution and the American way of life. The latest poll shows that all of 11 % of the people appreciate Congress and their dictatorial pattern of stuffing unwanted things down American’s throat. BS/BO’s polls continue in the 40’s in its continued decline as Americans realize transparency issues with him. The race-baiting and TEA Party bashing is not working like BS/BO would like. The New Black Panthers voting intimidation case is just the cap of the iceberg from which more ACORN cases will appear. For these reason and for lack of finding any positive outcome events from this kind of a debate, it would seem that letting this Harvard left-wing radical lawyer fester in all of his Saul Alinski stuff and look at the numerous examples of what socialism and communism has done in so many other countries would be the most productive choice.
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
I think there is little upside to doing anything with this “gentleman” as he has already revealed his malicious intent.
If it were an honest debate with someone who would be respectful that would be a different story.
Just my opinion.
Thank you so very much for all that you do, Dr. Taitz!
Robert
July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
Lady Liberty:…
Interesting post. Since you have posted some info on what this Tepper is all about…Please let me suggest that you NOT give this guy the time of day!!!! I wouldn’t go onto any show to debate this person! His politics will create nothing but havoc for you!! And…
If he is someone that has harassed you, caused you problems, made your life very difficult, then, I’d tell him to back off, or you will discuss this with “your attorney”…in court…!
And that would be the only place you would “debate” with him!!! Don’t let him goad you into something he tries to set-up to try to destroy you!
(SEE IF HE WANTS TO GO TO COURT FOR HARASSMENT? AND TO “discuss his behavior” with a [JURY] ON WHAT HE HAS DONE TO MAKE LIFE DIFFICULT FOR YOU???) Then, ask him if he wants a (“REAL…’REALTY’ CHECK”???)
I’ve tried to send you an email tonight, to discuss this further, but of course, the “children of the corn” have to play games with “freezing up” my emails, to make this difficult for me, here at my end! So I fully understand the B.S. your putting up with, from the “Dark-side”!
So…Tepper…”go home, drink you kool-aid” and leave Dr Taitz alone! As this type of behavior is NOT adult behavior! That invition is nothing but “teen-age” bravado! (GROW UP!!!)
And Dr Taitz has more important matters to follow-through with. And do you know that this type of “ploy” can be “labeled “HATE CRIMES,” how many times over??????? Cause this isn’t the first time you’ve tried to cause her some distress, right?
Furthermore, why would you have some other person do your “dirty-work” for you, to post on her site?
And for someone who has a law degree and has worked in court, you would think that your actions towards Dr Taitz in the past should never have happened, right? And your actions should have some “consequences,” right?
Or that you would “wake up” and STOP! attacking her, just cause you don’t agree with her cause or activities! Do you know how to act like a “decent, normal citizen”?
Do you actually realize that you are inviting a lawsuit, just for your continued and constant annoyance of her? Where do you get off?
(Lady Liberty…I wouldn’t give this invitation an second thought! And it wouldn’t prove anything, except how much he can “create havoc” for you, IMO!!!
Remember, he’s a left-wing (dem)…and those people cannot be reasoned with or trusted!!! You’ve already seen too much of this on your site!~
Davey Crockett…
July 22nd, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
Forget it. It’s a trap. He’s surely well prepared for it. And has planned to make you appear like a big fool.
If he’s really interested in bringing out the truth, then let it be an open forum. He posts his points and he gives you a few days to study his points and reply to them. Then he is given a few days to study your reply and post a rebuttal. And so on and so forth.
Debates are for show. Whoever is the sneakiest wins. The truth does not really matter. The greater debater wins, the truth becomes irrelevant.
The open written forum will give a chance for everybody to study the issues, and discount illogical fallacies.
July 22nd, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
“And that I think on the merits she will not do well.”
That quote gets a NO VOTE for doing the debate. He has nulified the debate process in my opinon AND, Dr. Orly, you have already said,” …this person started by filing complaints against me everywhere.”…
It’s a “slam-dunk NO” from me. Besides we have already SEEN how you are marginalized and thrown-under-the-bus in many of the “so-called interviews, etc.” that you have graciously participated in.
I would rather see you make some “family time” than waste time with this debate. Take care and hope you make the right decision–think about it carefully and make YOUR decision. God Bless you, Lady Libery, your family and all your supporters
July 23rd, 2010 @ 12:05 am
You should definitely do it, who knows you may be able to convince this very experienced lawyer to take up a cause. From what I wave read, the character on Law and Order was partially based on this Scott J. Tepper.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:52 am
Please do it, Orly. It sounds like there will be no phoney “standing,” or other road blocks, Most of these scummy lawyers are nothing more than hot air. They know nothing about the real issues that you are such an expert on.
You’ll blow him out of the water!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:57 am
as said by a true politijabber
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:00 am
that is true, but they want to do a debate
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:03 am
I will prefer a TV program with real people there asking questions
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:04 am
that is true as well
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:05 am
No way. These scum are looking for their 15 minutes, they have contributed nothing to eliminating the fraud in the white house. Stay away from politjabo.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:15 am
Negative, No go. This is an offer to “pick your brain” and perhaps learn something to use against you in future cases. Do not be fooled, this is not an “olive branch”, but a wolf in sheeps clothing.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:34 am
politijabo? that’s funny
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:15 am
No, definitely do not do it. As for a “hearing on the merits” outside the courtroom, how is that different from what you have been doing in other debates thus far? No, this is an attempt to dampen the force of your argument by allowing them to say that, now, the issues HAVE been heard on the merits, and that you lost. (For they have something up their sleeve.)
Save that for the courts. Let them try to say that after a REAL trial.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:21 am
Don’t do it Dr. Taitz, this Obot will only push to discredit you.
No matter what “facts” are established in the Constitution ; no matter what “proof” you have – it won’t matter to this “useful communist propaganda idiot”.
Your time is valuable and precious. This man is a NOBODY and indeed nobody will be listening.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:39 am
No don’t do it. I smell a rat. But–I do agree a tv program with live audience (for witnesses) might be a good idea. Also well taped.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:39 am
This Tapper guy sounds like a blowhard. I think he’s bluffing. Your doing this full time its just a hobby for him, he won’t know what to do when you tell him the true facts.
You should make sure first they promise you a fair debate with rules so they let you finnish and don’t interupt you and cut you off. If its fair you have nothing to be afraid of. If not you can jut walk out.
Do it! Spread the word! We’re counting on you!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:39 am
PS . You don’t need him either. Do it on your terms.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 6:01 am
No! #6 and #15 sum up my thoughts. I’ll just add that the left-wing moderator, whoever he is, will control the debate and favor Tepper. They’ll use dirty radio tricks. For example the engineer will pot you down (lower the volume of your microphone) while raising Tepper’s to give him an advantage. They can play “cuckoo” noises while you’re speaking and you won’t even know. The deck is stacked against you here Orly. It won’t be an honest debate but a trap to discredit the cause, and make you look foolish. Don’t do it.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 6:10 am
I think you should do it. You would have time to prepare and you would blow this Scott Tepper out of the water with you massive legal mind. Show them what our Orly is made of!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 6:20 am
I say ignore this offer. There is nothing to “debate.” What does he want to debate? That BO really wasn’t born a British subject? That “he already produced his birth certificate?” That he didn’t attend school in Indonesia as a citizen.” That he did not spend millions to hide his common vitals?” That his administration is “transparent?” That his Social Security number is valid? That “we are a democracy” and he won fair and square? This is some sort of “set up.” I also think you should avoid a mock trial. Your place is in a real trial. Either one day you will get your real trial on merits (likely), or this will go down in history as the most outstanding textbook example of tyranny and unlawful and illegal manipulation of a nation, justice vs. deceit. Either way, you win, and in the end the “useful idiots” will lose.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Don’t do it.
Debates are just pointless arguments with no real end value.
Discussions,that are based on factual and empirical evidence on the other hand,can lead to a meaningful and enlightening conclusion.
To this end I would agree with “Chito Papa” the open written forum is the way to go.
But then,my guess is, this guy will then back out.
Anyway,I love what you have been doing and support your resolve.
If he were born at “Bunker Hill,” he still would not be “Natural Born,” because he has already admitted his father was never a U.S. Citizen. End of story.
So why haven’t anyone of our public officials that swore oaths to support the U.S. Constitution honored their oaths?
Do you think Section III. of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-activating?
Maybe that’s our key.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:10 am
Now I remember Scott J. Tepper. He’s on facebook too.
But also he’s contributed $2,350 to “Obama for America.”
https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/scott-tepper.asp?cycle=08
Now that Obama’s in office, Obama has ignored his law firm and his contributions. Apparently he’s desperate to get noticed and he hopes this publicity will make him look good to Obama and get him a federal appointment as judge.
Nice try Tepper!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:22 am
If you are, indeed, the “Constitutional attorney” you claim to be, why are you even hesitating? Are you afraid your arguments will not hold up under the scrutiny of a debate with another attorney?
July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:36 am
Debate !?!? What is there to debate ? I believe Dr.Taitz has spoken very clearly in both action,word and deed.Personally I would offer them a “no standing ruling” 🙂 but I would not
be so presumptuous to advise Dr.Taitz on anything.I would however like to suggest that the
people wanting to debate,should try and debate,the courts,on exactly why they refuse to do their jobs ?
July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:41 am
Don’t do it. I’m sure he has been rehearshing every possible response to your every answer that ther van be imagined, so as to make you look te fool,or worse someone who is to be accused of hate crimes etc.
Don’t do this unless you have the opportunity to rehearsh in like manner.
I would for go tyhis and tell this Tepper to take a LONG walk off a short pier…
July 23rd, 2010 @ 11:02 am
These people are not worthy of your time Dr. Taitz,I have to agree with everyone that says NO!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 11:19 am
no, I prefer doing the debate in front of mock jury, on camera
July 23rd, 2010 @ 11:27 am
Dance with the devil? Ask him to pick his courtroom, with a federal judge, federal grand jury and publicly filmed. He has a plan and is trying to pull you in. Perhaps Alan Keyes would be perfect for a public debate. He is used to the tangling tricksters and keeping them on track. I think you are too decent and not used to how foul people can get, and would lose your patience. I think Alan Keyes could take him down with a 1-2 punch! Verbal of course! It would help stop any racist attacks also!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
I believe Orly once said she could blow away anyone in a debate. Just insist the rules be followed once they are set. If they cheat then it will reflect badly on the host, not Orly.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
ch said:
“Dance with the devil? Ask him to pick his courtroom, with a federal judge, federal grand jury and publicly filmed.”
That would be great but what judge would agree to that? Carter? Land? Rodriguez?
July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
I would bet Ms Taitz a bottle of Imperial Vodka that she would never, never engage in a fair debate with Mr. Tepper. She would be chewed up and spat out.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
I don’t drink vodka, sorry, so inciting me with vodka would not work. cleaning up the mess, going up to sanity, when there is so much corruption and the whole country is going bankrupt , addressing that – will work
I am sure, you can see the problems. You see John Wilson and Catherine Smith burned in their cars, you see Richard Fine in prison, you see millions of people losing their jobs and homes, you see millions of NASA dollars going to appease Muslims in Indonesia instead of going to space exploration, simply because Indonesia has Barry’s BC, and the list goes on and on. You can’t tell me, that this is normal, you know it is not. So, instead of attacking me, why don’t you work with me to find a mutually workable solution. You know the whole country needs a resolution of what is going on.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
another PJ guest
Let’s do it on camera, with a mock jury. I have several tv producer willing to do it
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
This idiot has a inflated ego and appears very sure of himself.
Now that you are very well known and the eligibility issue is a popular one, I get the impression this Punch and Judy show he’s setting-up is only to feed his already inflated ego and to bring attention and the limelight on himself, at the same time using you as the tool to do it with, as well treating you as a punchbag.
It is up to you Orly if you do it or not.
Personally I wouldn’t give him the time of day and would tell him to go sling his greasy hook.
If you go ahead, which I think you will (lol), good luck lovely!
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Deal or no deal, Dr. Taitz? You don’t seem to be able to agree to anything with rules and structure. You want to makeup your own.
Typical of someone whose afrade to debate.
Youve been offered a debate but you are now talking pie in the sky TV somewhere maybe someday. Which wil nevar happen. Evar.
Do it or do you think youll be blowed away?
Also.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
you can call Producer William Wagener, I will e-mail you his phone number and we will do the debate in his studio, in CA, in front of the audience, this way I will know that my words are not cut, as it was done by NBC, and ordinary people in the audience can hear us and respond. We can agree on 12 Registered Dems in the audience, 12 Repubs. one Libertarian- 25 in all. Sounds fair?
Besides, I am not the first woman Howie (or whoever) meets. By now he should know, women and rules don’t go together (just joking)
July 23rd, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
thanks
if this one doesn;t work out, I will visit you in England and do a live audience debate there. Your director Paul Wiffen wanted to shoot a documentary anyways
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
“Let’s do it on camera, with a mock jury. I have several tv producer willing to do it.”
No, it needs to be a neutral third party running the camera, not one of your rah rah cheerleaders. There are a number of very capable certified videographers in Southern California. (Don’t you use videography for your depositions? That is pretty much the standard in the legal profession these days. I would NEVER take a depo without a certified videographer present.)
For venue, you can rent the mock courtroom of a law school or major law firm (they all have them), and you can recruit jurors from the law school or a local community college.
What are you afraid of?
July 23rd, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
If you decide to enter into this debate, I think that #33 “ch” suggestion is worth consideration. Perhaps have your client and plaintiff, Alan Keyes, with you.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
sorry, what 33?
July 23rd, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
neutral videographer is fine. Every party can bring an additional videographer for their own recording as well.
it doesn’t have to be a studio. A city hall or a church is fine
I don’t mind a few students, but mock jury should be of different ages, just as population. School kids and students are to the left of Lenin. I have 3 young sons, I would not rely on their maturity level, even though I love them dearly.
I have some things planned between 31 of July till 12th of August. After the 12th is fne
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
Comment#33 from Ch. You do not need to post this, it was suggestion of “Ch”.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Dr Taitz, if you were to enter into any such sort of debate, who would you nominate to be a fair moderator?
Anyone with technical skill can fix a couple of film cameras onto stands, but the moderator is a crucial role affecting fairness
I’ll also asking Scott Tepper the same question if the decision to debate is made.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Why not do it?
Only reason not to is because there is nothing to back up your claims.
Perhaps you are just worried he will point out the things you state as fact are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, like having Citizen parents, or other that if if he were Muslim that this would not make him ineligible.
Some of you are right, it is a trap. Because refusing is a definate sign that Orly knows she has no ability to win this or any other debate, discussion, or legal case on the merits of this particular question.
July 23rd, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
more incitement from politijab
find a new tune already
July 24th, 2010 @ 1:09 am
Dr. Taitz, my question to you is this, what is there to debate. People either believe, defend and follow our constitution or they don’t. Obviously you do and Mr. Tepper doesn’t if he thinks there should be a debate.
You have nothing to gain by debating him, even if you smoke him in the debate, he is still going to say he is right and you are wrong and he proved it in the debate. He will not change his mind. The real question is this, who or what is pulling his chain to do this? Always look for the reason and ask yourself why.
July 24th, 2010 @ 1:45 am
“Perhaps you are just worried he will point out the things you state as fact are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, like having Citizen parents, or other that if if he were Muslim that this would not make him ineligible. ”
—————
Sigh!!!! Just more evidence of the dumbing down of America. From Article II of the Constitution:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
The grandfather clause is put in there for an obvious reason. The founders could not qualify as natural born since their parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. There was no need to define what natural born citizen was since it was well known to the writers what it meant. If natural born citizen meant the same as citizen, the clause would have just read :
“No person except a Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President”
There would be no need for the distinction between the two. There is further evidence of what the founders knew to be the meaning of natural born. You just have to look at the Naturalization Act of 1790 – written by the same people that wrote the Constitution :
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,:
That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…… and thereupon such person shall be considered as a CITIZEN of the United States. And the CHILDREN of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States. And the CHILDREN OF CITIZENS of the United States, that MAY BE BORN beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS”
Broken down it is quite simple.
Any alien residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years may become a CITIZEN
The children already alive at the time of the naturalization of their parents, become a CITIZEN
Children BORN to US CITIZENS ( in this case and the purpose for this act – out of the jurisdiction of the United States ) become NATURAL BORN CITIZENS , not CITIZENS. There is clearly a distinction between the two. The key being that BOTH parents are US citizens.
Further proof can be seen from the Naturalization Act of 1795, which among other things removed the words “natural born” from children born overseas.
“And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as CITIZENS of the United States”
The reason the 1795 Act was passed was because during the 1790’s many in the U.S. were concerned that the growth in the number of political refugees, particularly those driven out by the revolution in France, might prove harmful to American liberty. Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This reinforced the fact that the founding fathers wanted a “natural born citizen” to have no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America. At that time, British ships were boarding American ships and seizing American citizens and conscripting them into the British navy if they were born overseas in the lands under British rule. By British law, they were British Subjects – even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish a presence of influence in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to“naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status natural born citizens.
July 24th, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Debates have rules. Taitz wants a popularity contest so she can try to woo the audience with her long eyelashes. She is scared stiff to debate a real lawyer, on the issues, using FAIR rules where each proponent would have equal time. This entire TV special thing is pure fantasy and just away to avoid what she fears.
I doubt they even taught debate at Taft Law. It is not very easy to debate from home over the Internet in your jammies and slippers. All of Taitz’s live court appearances have been unmitigated disasters. We have all read the transcripts.
July 24th, 2010 @ 8:50 am
no, the issue is to bring the matter to the people, hence need for the audience and people in the mock jury. We need American public to decide on the issues, not a few Canadian Obama lovers on Politijab
July 24th, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Orly you are right about need for an audience and a mock jury. But you also need to show that you are not afraid of people who disagree with you. There wont be any kind of audience watching unless both sides have a chance to talk. Your fans love you but you know there arent enough of them to make the impact you deserve to have.
Please don’t be afraid. I think you will win. But you have to be willing to come out of the cacoon. Then the trial will be world wide news and we will finally get our wish.
July 24th, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Wasn’t I the one who faced all of the thugs on CNN and NBC? David Schuster, Kitty Pilgrim, John Avlon, Tamron Hall to name a few…
Speaking of John Avlon, he flew from NY to LA for the follow up interview, he stated that he changed, that he wants to do a truthful follow up. He spent 2 hours interviewing me. He did write, that if not for my stance on Obama I would be considered an American- Immigrant success story, becoming a dentist and an attorney, having a nice family and successful children, however he did not disclose 99% of information on Obama. He did not write on the social security issues, on the fact that the original BC was never unsealed. At the end he was the same establishment corrupt puppet, as the rest of the MSN. He is not dumb, he is simply corrupt and he committed journalistic malpractice, for which he should be held legally accountable
July 24th, 2010 @ 9:48 am
You did face them, Orly, and look at the good it did you! Its the only side of you many people have seen and they laugh at you. Thats why you need a fair forum to make things right where you wont be interupted and you can make all your points.
You just have to make sure it will be fair. Equal time for both sides. No bullying.
July 24th, 2010 @ 10:02 am
when half a million people vote for me for secretary of state of CA (and that is with all the rigging of elections and with all the attacks and insults) that is not a laughing matter and that is a lot of support and it shows that people are not laughing, they are supporting me and it shows my great resilience and standing power
July 24th, 2010 @ 10:35 am
You are right, it’s not a laughing matter. So why are people laughing? Because you havent had a fair chance to make your case about eligibility for the presidency.
If your right, if you can win Secretary of State election than maybe you can go on to fight Obama. Maybe thats the right next step for you. Because otherwise it looks like the fight is going nowhere if you won’t take the fight to the public in a major forum where it belongs.
July 24th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
This is the most comments one of your posts has gotten in a long time, showing the amount of interest there is in a debate. And your chickening out, making excuses and basically runnning away.
I think that says it all.
July 24th, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
no, I am happy to do a debate, and I will do it on live TV. They are afraid to do it before live audience and before the mock jury, it tells you all you need to know. They are afraid of the people, as they know that ordinary people support me.
by the way, changing your name and calling yourself Jimbo from GA does not change the fact that you are who you are, one of politijab pro-Obama hacks
July 24th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
the only ones that are laughing are brainwashed pro-Obama zombies
I am waiting for the hearing date in Taitz v Dunn
July 24th, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
A mock jury? How would you make sure that the jury wasn’t stacked with Obots? Wouldn’t any Obama supporter automatically be disqualified for bias? How would you make sure only real people got on that jury?
July 24th, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
mock voir dire or each side brings 12 jurors and pick one or 3 together
July 24th, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
That would be a farce wouldn’t it? You would have 12 on each side that would have already made up their minds and 3 somehow neutral jurors. How would that be done? Why not just accept RC’s proposal as is and if it is rigged everyone will know it? It seemed like a sincere offer. The show will be archived so everyone could listen and judge for themselves. You could run a poll on your blog afterward.
This TV thing sounds like pie in the sky to me.