Skip to comments.Court to hear Berg's motion for restraining order against Orly Taitz
Posted on 12/15/2010 12:24:33 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2010, upon remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 10, 2010 and Plaintiff's having satisfied the requirement of filing a formal motion, it is hereby ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is SCHEDULED for December 20, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 11A, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
I should have known. She has been such a black eye for the tea parties. I don’t expect to hear about in in the news ( since they probably hired her) I can’t help thinking that if they trew her into the mix to delegitamize the birther theory, there must be something to it. I keep looking for nuggets in the news but can’t find much.
I do now...
You do realize that some people really are crazy, right?
ping of interest
Orly Taitz is certainly headstrong, and she may be prone to making an error, major or minor depending upon your point of view, like most other people. To suggest in any way whatsoever that she is somehow psychotic and needs to be restrained with a straightjacket for exercising her right to free speech and petitioning the government for the purpose of redressing an apparent criminal wrong is far far beyond any reasonable criticism. Such talk amounts to the character assasination employed by the Bolshevik Communist Soviet Government to destroy a dissident’s personal reputation, incarcerate the sane dissident in a Soviet Gulag insane asylum, and sometimes murder and disappear them with or without notification to the person’s surviving family.
Orly Taitz was born into the Soviet nightmare, so she knows full well its capability for disinformation, subversion, and murder. While people may not like her exuberance and tenacity, they will be murderously foolhardy to lightly dismiss her concerns for the American freedoms and U.S. Constitution. She knows from personal experience what can happen when Marxists gain control of governments. Whether or not a person agrees with Orly Taitz in any given instance, that person owes a great degree of respect for her experience in the Soviet Union and consequent viewpoint in regard to American Constitutional freedoms.
If anyone here sees the need to suggest psychiatric care for persons exercising political free speech, they should perhaps focus on the people in the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party who are advocating what amounts to genocidal policies for redistribution of wealth, healthcare rationing under their own political management, racial bias, vote fraud, and worse. For real examples of people who need psychiatric care for the public welfare, consider how sane it was for Bill Ayers and his accomplices in the Weathermen domestic terrorist group to carry out their murderous bombings and their plans to overthrow the Constitutional Government and hand it over to the Soviets and Cubans to operate reeducation camps that would liquidate millions of American citizens who were of the wrong races, occupations, and political persuasions. Then take into account these same people are associated and affiliated with the people responsible for the Obama Administration policies from Obama on down.
You might want to ponder the question of whether the people who wish to destroy the reputation of Orly Taitz and deny her free speech are themselves afflicted with neurotic or psychotic behavior? Ask yourself, how same is it to adopt political and social policies from a society which murdered, massacred, deliberately starved to death, and otherwise killed tens of millions of himan beings for the sake of establishing a Marxist style utopian society?
False premise. Nobody said she was crazy BECAUSE she excercised her rights. You are confused. You are acting as if one can't call a crazy person crazy if that crazy person is protesting. That's wrong. Once can be both crazy and a protester.
False premise. Nobody said she was crazy BECAUSE she excercised her rights. You are confused. You are acting as if one can’t call a crazy person crazy if that crazy person is protesting. That’s wrong. Once can be both crazy and a protester
That is exactly the kind of argument the Soviet KGB intelligence services used to defame and destroy the reputations of dissidents who were treated as political enemies. The Soviet Union first used a formal medical opinion to declare the insanity of the dissident, sane or not.
In your case, you publicly declare the insanity and mental illness of Orly Taitz, whether or not she is in fact perfeclty sane, without the benefit of a psychiatric examination or qualified medical opinion, faked or not. You are effectively digging yourself ever deeper into a hole of your own disrepute. It has been noted by mental health professionals that an inability to recognize when doing the same act over and over and over again with the same negative results is a possible indicator of mild neurotic or psychotic mental illness. How would you like it if your sanity and right to freedom outside of a straightjacket and insane asylum were brought into question after you questioned the mental health of Orly Taitz?
TITLE: Another Soviet Dissident Committed to an Insane Asylum
COUNTRY: Soviet Union
ORIGINAL SUBJECT: Dissent
-— Begin -—
RADIO FREE EUROPE Research
This material was prepared for the use of the
editors and policy staff of Radio Free Europe:
21 August 1970
ANOTHER SOVIET DISSIDENT COMMITTED
TO AN INSANE ASYLUM
(See end for Summary)
Two Western news agencies have reported yet another
instance of a Soviet citizen committed to an insane asylum
for exercizing the rights of freedom of speech and press
as guaranteed in Article 125 of the Soviet Constitution.
According to the sources, 19-year-old Olga Ioffe was committed
to a psychiatric institute yesterday after being charged
with anti-Soviet agitation.  Her commitment was the result
of a psychiatric examination that concluded she was suffering
from chronic schizophrenia. By now, the practice of committing
persons to an insane asylum because their expressed views
differ from official policy or because they criticize aspects
of the Soviet system is, unfortunately, becoming standard
(1) Reuter and AFP, 21 August 1970. Reuter and The Chronicle of
Current Events, No. 11, 31 December 1969, give Miss Ioffe1s
age as 19 while AFP lists it as 20.
Vladimir Bukovsky, another young dissident and former
student at Moscow University who s??t six years in prisons,
insane asylums and concentration camps for making critical
speeches at Komsomol meetings, protesting against the trial
of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel and supporting
Yuri Galanskov and Aleksei Dobrovolsky at the time of
their trial three years ago, recently commented, on this practice to
to a Western correspondent:
As a matter of fact, the inmates, the patients of
this hospital [the Leningrad special psychiatric
hospital] are prisoners, people who committed such
actions which are considered as crimes from the
point of view of the authorities but which do not
exist as crimes from the point of view of the Law.
And in order to isolate them somehow, in order to
punish them somehow, these people are being
declared Insane and kept in the ward of the
psychiatric hospital...to such hospitals are sent
people who basically cannot be punished, because
there is nothing they can be punished for, and
[psychiatric] hospitals are just able to get rid
of them, and take them away from sight at the
same time. 
This is the exact treatment now given Miss Ioffe.
The nature of her” “crime” is a concern that Stalinism and
the well-known Stalinist type of tyranny not be re-introduced
by the present Soviet leadership. Her activities to this effect
began in 1966 when she and another student of the No. 16 special
language school in Moscow, Irina Kaplun, together with nine
other pupils, all under 16 years of age, pasted up leaflets which
stated, “there must be no repetition of the Stalin period,
everything depends on us.”  Three hundred of these leaflets
were posted and sent to private persons in Moscow. The KGB soon
interrogated the girls at sessions lasting from four to six hours,
during which time they were asked the names of the adults
behind their activity and told: “’If you think that some things
in our country are not quite as they should be, then you ought
to come and see us at the KGB and talk it over with us.’” 
(2) Quoted from the text of an interview in Moscow by CBS
correspondent William Cole, telecast in the United States
on 28 July 1970.
(3) The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 11, 31 December 1969.
Irina Kaplun was told that “’she ought to be thankful that
her uncle  had been rehabilitated at all, they [the Soviet
authorities] might well not have done it.’”  Perhaps due
to their age, they were not subjected to legal proceedings
although two of them were expelled from the Komsomol, one
from the school, and all were given reprimands with entries
in their personal records. Similar action was also taken
against their teachers.
Last year, Kaplun and Ioffe, both of whom were continuing
their education at Moscow University, were preparing a protest
directed against the celebration of Stalin’s ninetieth birthday
[21 December 1969]. On the 1st of December, six Moscow
apartments were searched by the authorities and Kaplun and Ioffe
were arrested. During the search of the latter’s apartment
and in her presence, several samizdat texts as well as copies
of her own poetry, various papers, verses written by her
father, Yu. M. Ioffe, and a typewriter were confiscated. 
Escorted by ten men, she was taken in for questioning and
officially placed under arrest at nine o’clock that evening.
Four days later, another 19-year-old student, Valeria Novodvorskaya,
was also arrested for distributing leaflets, the contents of
which were a poem criticizing the Communist Party for the
evil it perpetrated on the country and people of the Soviet
Union.  She was also charged with anti-Soviet agitation and
propaganda (Article 70 of the RSFSR Criminal Code) and committed
by a Moscow court, the proceedings of which took place without
her knowledge, to the special psychiatric ward in Kazan prison.
This is very likely also the case with Olga Ioffe and probably
with Irina Kaplun.
Although Olga Ioffe, as well as Irina Kaplun and Valeria
Novodvorskaya were acting as individuals rather than as part
of a well-organized protest group, their activities are part
of the democratic movement in the Soviet Union which, although
as yet only a loose conglomerate of persons who protest against
(5) A revolutionary who worked in the Profintern the
international trade union organization), the Communist
International , and the CPSU Central Committee and who was a
victim of Stalin’s purge in 1938 and rehabilitated in 1956.
(8) Ibid., and The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 13, 28
the , violation of basic civil rights and maintain contact
through samizdat, continues despite official persecution.
In the words of Pyotr Yakir, a prominent dissident and
member of the Action Group for the Defense of Civil Rights
in the Soviet Union:
We see that they arrest all of us because we are
unpleasant people to the authorities and we
criticize them. The problem is, however, that
one should never go back. If we are not here,
there will be others, and there are many of
them already now, many young people. And all
people, all thinking people in the Soviet Union,
they will never return to what has been before.
They will be beaten, they will be killed, but
despite this the people will think differently. 
Summary: Two Western news agencies today
reported that Olga Ioffe, a student from
Moscow University, arrested last December
in connection with a protest she was
preparing warning against the dangers of
a return to Stalinism, has been committed
to an insane asylum. This paper describes
her previous activity and the circumstances
of her arrest and commitment.
(9) Quoted from the text of an interview in Moscow by CBS
correspondent William Cole, telecast in the United States on 28 July 1970.
The above text comes from the Open Society Archives, and it is available as an image in .PDF format.
Again, the false premise is yours. Your postion is based on the notion that Orly can’t REALLY be crazy because she’s political. Of course that’s silly. She can be both. If she is both, then calling her crazy is just being accurate.
Not everyone with a fringe belief is crazy. But some are. Orly is one of them. She’s nuts. She really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.