The publicity would probably be good but she doesn't seem to be able to do it right.
I occasionally write a column for Forbes.com, and a few months ago I wrote something about the nutballs who were then running in the California primaries. One of them was Orly Taitz, she of the perpetual quest to prove Barack Obama (or as she always calls him, "Barack Hussein Obama"—see what she did there?) isn't a "natural born citizen" and so can't be president. Here's what I wrote then:
Finally, and this is why I started this thing in the first place, famed Birther-activist and naturalized-Moldovan-lawyer-dentist Orly Taitz is running for the Senate. She hopes to run against Dianne Feinstein, and according to some polls she may actually get the chance. California has a "top-two" primary, meaning all candidates run on the same ballot and the top two then face off in November. Feinstein will be number one, and there are 23 other candidates vying for number two. As no one else has any name recognition at all, there is some concern—including in the GOP—that Taitz might eke out enough votes to stay around until November. She does have a long record of losing, but also a long record of being undeterred by it.
An official Taitz run would be amusing but also disturbing, as John Avlon writes at the Daily Beast. That piece is worth reading partly for its comical descriptions of Taitz as "almost charmingly insane," "demonstrably unhinged," "clownishly unelectable," and a candidate who "would make Sharron Angle look like Daniel Webster." As amusing as that might be, though, Taitz doesn’t deserve any more attention. Avlon says the California GOP is endorsing Elizabeth Emken, so maybe she’s the best alternative if you’re not a Feinsteinian.
That drew this comment (all errors in original):
This is Orly Taitz,
instead of wasting your time on rants of useful idiots like Kevin Underhill and John Avlon, why don’t you go on my web page OrlyTaitzESQ.com or RunOrlyRun.com and read the actual pleadings and documents, which show without a shadow of a doubt tha Obama is using a CT SSN [redacted], which as never assigned to him according to e-verify or SSNVS, read the press release by sheriff Arpaio, who confirmed that both the alleged copy of a birth certificate and Selective cervice certificate are forgeries. You can order a DVD of a trial in GA and watch a senior deportation officer testifying that if it would be anyone else with papers like Obama’s he would be seeking a warrant for his deportation. Our lap dog media simply does not report the truth. Welcome to Banana Republic with regime propaganda instead of free media
(Emphasis and link added by me.) At first I wasn't sure it was her, but then I noticed the same paragraph posted on her website under the following headline:
MY RESPONSE TO A USEFUL IDIOT IN FORBES MAGAZINE KEVIN UNDERHILL. PLEASE RESPOND TO THESE ATTACK DOGS KEVIN UNDERHILL IN FORBES AND JOHN AVLON IN DAILY BEAST
While it's a little offensive to be called "useful," frankly, I responded in what I thought were measured tones, though I did go with all caps in the headline. See "ORLY TAITZ CALLED ME AN ATTACK DOG IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS," Lowering the Bar (June 5, 2012). One of the points I made is that to be an "attack dog" or a "useful" idiot, I'd have to be an Obama supporter, and as I have often said (including in the Forbes post) I am not really a fan of the President. But rather than worry about where he was born, I tend to focus on stuff like the three citizens he's blown up without a whiff of due process, his signing of the odious NDAA under which citizens could be detained indefinitely, and the complete blowing-off of his promise to run the "most transparent administration ever." See, e.g., "President Receives Transparency Award in Closed Meeting," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 1, 2011, but not a joke). Welcome to Banana Republic, yes, but not for the reasons Orly says.
Anyway, it appears that she has now filed, or tried to file, yet another lawsuit, and that this one has my name in it. At least, she has filed paperwork that is partly a challenge to the California results, mostly another iteration of the Obama charges, and in one small part accuses me of defamation for the post above. (I've asked her if there is anything in it that isn't an accurate statement of fact, and will let you know what I hear.) There is a document that is labeled a "complaint," that is, although so far as I can tell it has never actually been filed in any court, and I am named as a defendant along with 31 others, ranging from the President, Nancy Pelosi, and both candidates for the California Senate seat, to various state officials, Chris Matthews of "Hardball," the U.S. Postmaster General, and the "John and Ken Show" on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles.
Yes, she sued a radio show.
Or, that is, she's trying to. There's not room in this post to list everything she's done wrong pertaining to this case, so for now I'll just give two: (1) a complaint generally has to be actually filed with a court—you can't just write "COMPLAINT" on a piece of paper; and (2) she appears to have removed the case herself to federal court. That second one will amuse lawyers, anyway, or at least those who know that only a defendant can do that. You cannot file in state court, lose, and then "remove" your own case to federal court and try again. That is not a thing you can do.
I admit having mixed feelings about having someone try to sue me, but you never know what could come of it. I mean, maybe I'll finally get to meet the Postmaster General.