Earlier this week, WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah stated that "I am recommitting my energies and resources to the search for verifiable truth on this matter of eligibility. " Apparently, that also includes redoubling his efforts to hide from his readers Orly Taitz's record of shoddy lawyering and allegations of criminality.
A Jan. 8 WND article by Bob Unruh touts the latest court filings by Taitz, who "now is asking a California judge to investigate possible fraud against the court," alleging "a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social Security fraud committed by the respondent." In apparent contradiction of Farah's claim that WND journalists operate, in Farah's words," the highest standards of ethics" -- Unruh fails to report that the same judge has levied a $20,000 fine against Taitz for repeated frivolous filings in the case. Nor does Unruh mention that Taitz has been accused of suborning perjury in the same case.
Unruh also fails to note that previous allegations of fraud made by Taitz, also involving the possibility of identity theft and Social Security fraud, have proven to be less than credible. In April, WND's Chelsea Schilling uncritically reported allegations by Taitz that the former webmaster for Taitz's website, accusing her diverting donations and allowing the site to be hacked. Even though Schilling could have gathered a response from the ex-webmaster's website, she instead no apparent effort to report the other side, in which the allegations are denied.
As part of her jihad against the former webmaster, Taitz allegedly sent out emails to the public repeating her accusations, which included the webmaster's Social Security number -- thus opening the webmaster up to identity theft and fraud. That resulted in a lawsuit against Taitz by another birther lawyer, Philip Berg. WND has never reported on that either -- or the fact that, as we detailed, Berg was able to obtain an entry of default against Taitz because of Taitz's incompetency of not following court-ordered procedure in responding to the lawsuit, resulting in the response arriving past the court-ordered deadline.
Unruh also baselessly claims that Obama has funded the "appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation." In fact, while that money was paid to a law firm through "Obama for America," WND offers no evidence that all of the money was dedicated to "defending against all requests for his documentation."