Well Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. seems to have gone off the deep end on this Kansas stuff. Sane people do not threaten judges and judicial officers with Treason and Racketeering before their case is heard. They may say harsh words afterwards, but it is purely crazy to do it before your case is heard. Neither do sane people threaten to sue the tribunal before the matter is heard.
However, Orly Taitz marches to the beat of a very syncopated drummer. Here is a screenshot of her encouragements to the Kansas Objections Board. First, some encouragement:
and then, the ultimatum:
And then, before I could even finish this Internet Article, she sent them a third “offer they better not refuse”, a kind of subtle reminder (highlight by me):
Yes, that is right. Three times she threatens to sue the Kansas Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Lt. Governor if they do not do as she wishes. And today or tomorrow she is actually flying into the state and subjecting herself to their jurisdiction. I did a little research into her threats of litigation, and it does not seem to constitute extortion, bribery, or a violation of the federal Traffic Act, because she is not seeking a monetary settlement. But Kansas does have a law which covers interference with the administration of justice, K.S.A. 21-3821:
Cutting and pasting through the above, you get:
Interference with the administration of justice is harassing a judicial officer by repeated vituperative communication with intent to influence, impede or obstruct the finding, decision, ruling, order, judgment or decree of such judicial officer on any matter then pending before the officer.
And if anybody wonders what vituperative means:
scathing: marked by harshly abusive criticism; “his scathing remarks about silly lady novelists”; “her vituperative railing.”
I think threatening someone with charges of treason and racketeering fits within that definition. A judicial officer is not defined in the Kansas statutes, but here is a general definition:
A judicial officer is a person with the responsibilities and powers to facilitate, arbitrate, preside over, and make decisions and directions in regard to the application of the law.
This tribunal seems to be functioning like an administrative board. They take evidence, hear testimony, and make decisions. I could be wrong, but I think for purposes of the Kansas Objections Board, they can reasonably be considered judicial officers.
As Reader Reality Check pointed out in the comments:
Violation of K.S.A. 21-3821 is a Class A nonperson misdemeanor. This is the most serious of the three classes of misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is one year in prison. Can we have frog-marching please?
Whatever happens, Taitz is way too intense about this deal in Kansas. I wonder if she is becoming unraveled from lack of sleep or something. If she is, it is only going to get worse from here on out. Just wait until the Motions start flying at her from those 40+ defendants. My advice to her is to go and see a psychiatrist, get some counseling, and deal with this nuttiness before she does irreparable damage to her personal life and career. It is time for a time out, and thirty day’s rest somewhere in a quiet, pastoral environment.
With a lot of basket weaving.
Note 1. The Image. This was paint-jobbed by me from this cool book cover:
Note 2. Links. If you are interested in the area where threats to sue become extortion or bribery, here a few links. This article is interesting because it was frivolous or non-meritorious suit which was threatened. Threatening a meritorious suit would not have been extortion :
A person is guilty of theft” if he gets money by threatening to do any “act which would not in itself substantially benefit him but which would harm substantially any other person with respect to that person’s health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships.” Of course, threatening to file a well-founded lawsuit unless one is paid a settlement is quite legal, and generally properly so. Under the statute, that would be a threat to do an act which would in itself substantially benefit the threatener. But, the court held, a baseless lawsuit would not in itself provide a substantial benefit to the plaintiff, so threatening such a lawsuit in order to get a settlement is extortion.
This California case is interesting because it involves a famous dancer, and an attorney’s demand letter and the interplay with the Anti-SLAPP Act.
Note 3. The Title and Image Caption. For ESL’s, Flipped Out:
To flip out means to go mad, or go crazy.
Hard Cell. This is a word play on a hard sell:
hard sell (n. Informal)
1. Aggressive, high-pressure selling or promotion.
2. A person or organization that resists pressure from salespeople; a difficult sales prospect.
This contrasts with the stereotypical soft padded cells associated with asylums.
The Image Easter Egg. The word “needle” has a secondary meaning of “pestering someone.”
The Mental Traveler. Well, mental means insane or crazy, and she is traveling to Kansas. Oh, and there was a poem by William Blake. Here is a link:
And here is a separate pdf in case you want to print this out.
And here is something to help you understand it:
And something to help you understand Blake. Personally, I am surprised a Jungian analysis of Blake, and this poem didn’t pop right up.