Orly Taitz Attempt to Sabotage the Obama Ballot Challenge - Full Text of Response to Orly's Skulduggery

Orly Taitz Attempt to Sabotage the Obama Ballot Challenge - Full Text of  Response to Orly's Skulduggery

Ms. Taitz:

As we previously stated, you have made multiple defamatory statements about Larry Klayman and some supporters, including us, causing severe harm. We supported you for years, because you were about the only game in town, after Apuzzo and Donofrio concluded that the federal courts would not hear any argument, no matter how logical, how grounded in fact and law.

Now, there are many ballot challenges granted instant “standing” and new attorneys are joining the fight. Obama State Ballot Challenge has helped to focus attention on the challenges and facilitate activity. We do not appreciate your non-productive infighting with other patriots in the movement. In fact, you are actively and maliciously attempting to hurt our efforts, in a manner nearly indistinguishable from that of the “Obama” forces. We know that they are enjoying sitting back and watching you do their work for them.

We had stayed quiet and counseled others not to get involved in the fray with you. George tried speaking to you twice earlier and again on 2/23/12, but, you would not even allow him to complete a sentence without interrupting. But, you have crossed into libelous action, so it has come to this and now we must reluctantly speak out. It’s bad enough that you routinely attack movement patriots, but now you are damaging the efforts of one of the finest attorneys in the nation. And that is unacceptable. Unlike others you have bulldozed, we will not be so passive, especially since you have ignored letters from our attorney.

You have little or no idea what you are even talking about, flinging around allegations, slyly implying misconduct and did not make a competent, good faith effort to ascertain the truth. In any case, it is none of your business how we conduct our campaigns, since we are complying with all laws and answer any legitimate questions to donors and patriot allies. We are writing this only to document your offenses and inform the public of what is really going on.

It is obvious that you feel threatened, are jealous of any other activity in the eligibility movement, are fearful of any “competition” and believe that a dollar contributed anywhere else but to you is a dollar stolen from you.

We specifically reference some of your inflammatory, defamatory, misleading and fallacious blog postings. It is quite clear that you have an “agenda” to discredit Mr. Klayman and us. Our response to the postings is below and we have also marked up some of them in Appendix A:


- It seems as though we committed the unforgivable sin of helping to raise money for the Hatfield/Swensson Atlanta challenge and publicity/education activities. After that, you, who we were on excellent terms with, became an even worse enemy than “Obama.” More recently, we started fundraising for Larry Klayman’s planned work. The attacks only increased.

- All of your absurd “concerns” and inaccurate statements could have been avoided, simply by calling and asking before recklessly writing in your blog. Your failure to exercise due diligence prior to posting falsehoods, incomplete and one- sided information, has resulted in creating a highly misleading impression that we are dishonest, possibly taking money and failing to use it as advertised—all untrue. You also dredged up and presented only negative statements about Larry Klayman, including various defamatory statements which hold him in a false light. For instance, Klayman’s PA law license expired. He has not done any work there in two decades. He was not subjected to any disciplinary actions there. He has not been convicted of any crime and can enter cases in California pro hac vice, as you know.

- Article II PAC is not involved in collecting money for legal defense. Pamela Barnett and George Miller are no longer with Article II SuperPAC or Article II Legal Defense Fund, but we maintain a strategic alliance, since we have closely aligned goals, but different approaches and activities.

- Pamela Barnett, George Miller and Sam Sewell have never taken a penny from Article II PAC, Article II Legal Fund, or any other similar fundraising efforts. We have only paid in. I’m not aware that others you have named have taken any money either, except for a few who had legitimate expense reimbursements for travel, living and assigned activities, you know, like you take. I am informed by the Treasurer that none of that came out of the legal fund.

- ObamaBallotChallenge.com has not collected any money at all, although we have heavily promoted multiple such campaigns for others, such as Kerchner, Swensson/Hatfield, Klayman, Arpaio, you, etc.

- Klayman has never been associated with the Article II SuperPAC, but we were/are still using the Article II Legal Defense Fund to raise money for his ballot challenge efforts.

- Article II Legal Defense Fund will be sending funds to Klayman.

- RE: Taitz statement: The question is: who is lying? Was Klayman paid or not? If he was paid, than he needs to refund the donors, as he did not file law suits as he was supposed to.

No one is lying except you- or at least badly misleading unsuspecting readers of your blog. Klayman received only partial payment of his $25K retainer, but only after he had already started work on his own initiative, without the promised retainer. He should be praised, not vilified.

- We have raised funds from other sources. We have not yet received any funds from Article II Legal Defense fund.

- The 96 hour deadline you spoke of was in our initial ads, which was in fact required to enable us to engage Klayman in sufficient time to file an initial complaint. We didn’t raise the full amount in time, but were successful in getting him to graciously start some work anyway, the same day that a citizen filed a complaint, who has subsequently worked with Larry to begin modifying it to incorporate improvements. Klayman is planning strategy, researching statutes and looking for appropriate jurisdictions to file additional complaints in.

- For you to make a leap of logic that we are somehow defrauding donors, because Klayman wasn’t able to research, write and file a complaint in the four or so hours he worked before a citizen complaint was filed on 2/16 without his input– is beyond ridiculous, but quite typical of your communications style and “logic.”

- Your comment that Klayman does not have a CA license is largely irrelevant and seems designed to imply that he cannot mount any efforts here in CA. As you know, he can enter cases in California pro hac vice, and lawyers that practice nationally do so on a routine basis. No one can be licensed in all 50 states and that is why all courts allow attorneys to enter cases pro hac vice.

- Larry, the founder of Judicial Watch, has stated publicly that he left it to run for a Florida U.S. Senate seat. At least he had the good sense to focus on one thing. Running for the Senate, if seriously, is a full-time job.

- We have already explained Klayman’s response to the child support issue, grounded in law and fact, unlike your one sided presentation, which inaccurately portrayed him as a deadbeat Dad. You did not give Klayman or us any chance to respond to your misleading assertions about him and others before that on other matters, repeatedly since January. You routinely censor our postings on your site, so we have ceased trying.

- Klayman has never been convicted of anything. He has not had a license suspended or revoked. He is following the law.

- It is interesting that “Constance Ruffley” of Judicial Watch went out of her way to attend your presentation, switching topics to comment on Klayman’s involvement in the “birther” suits and his personal life (which is none of her or your business), since Judicial Watch completely blew us off when we approached them about helping. You seem to place a lot of weight on words of an office clerk with an agenda.

- The fact that multiple Article II Legal Fund ads run on ObamaBallotChallenge.com and an Obama Ballot Challenge ad runs on Art2 SuperPAC does not mean that we are each members of the other. We left to focus on the Ballot Challenges, while Article II SuperPAC will focus mainly on education and publicity on….. Article II issues. So, there is obviously potential synergy, but different missions.

- Your seemingly obsessive interest in Klayman is fascinating. It seems that you are focused on attacking Klayman and impeding his mission, when you should instead be focused on building the movement and cooperating.

- What results have you achieved in four years of taking OPM (Other peoples’ money)? All these misstatements, if not lies, or deliberate shading of the truth, are at the very least the result of your fact-finding incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to mislead your readers, not a good attribute in an attorney.

- We can’t tell people who to support, but will only say that there are now multiple attorneys working on cases, mostly ballot challenges. We advise our readers to check their track records, qualifications and achievements before making their choices. It is not Larry’s fault that we only started working with him recently and haven’t raised the agreed upon money yet. This is more attributable to a late start and justifiable disappointment of people in the legal process, especially after the initial Georgia defeat and others before that.

- Now, we must deal with an attorney (you) seemingly intent upon sabotaging the efforts of a genuine American patriot and outstanding achiever, instead of warmly welcoming him and cooperating. The Larry Klayman projects are in progress. Same is true of the Kerchner, Hatfield/Swenson and Irion efforts. And yours. The more the merrier. You know we also promoted you vigorously, but find that far more difficult now, when you keep attacking us and others.

- You need to quickly make amends by not only deleting all inaccurate and misleading material, but by posting on your blog and sending full and unqualified retractions out immediately to all of your lists. As our attorney wrote you, you have caused ongoing and severe harm. So it would behoove you and be in your best interests to commence corrective actions immediately, rather than compounding and extending your offenses. Our group has nothing to apologize for, except not raising money fast enough. We are open for business and on the cases!

Regards,
Pamela Barnett, Director
George Miller, Communications

ObamaBallotChallenge.com