Skip

Orly Taitz Sanctioned
October 13, 2009 9:36 AM   Subscribe

"The Court makes no apology for the tone of its previous orders. They were direct and strong but apparently not strong enough. They certainly do not demonstrate personal bias. They do demonstrate a lack of tolerance for frivolous legal claims asserted by lawyers who should know better." In a thorough and often hilarious 43 page opinion, Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia imposes sanctions on lawyer (for now)/dentist/real estate agent Orly Taitz for her abusive and frivolous conduct.
posted by kosem (116 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm not a religious man, but if there was ever a time for a good ole' thank the merciful lord! ... now would be it.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 9:40 AM on October 13, 2009


Nice to see a Judge not afraid to call a fucking idiot a fucking idiot, except with Judgespeak.
posted by Damn That Television at 9:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Haven't we had enough of these activist judges? Why do they hate America?
posted by rokusan at 9:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [6 favorites]


Orly?
posted by jbickers at 9:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


O RLY?
posted by porn in the woods at 9:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


A bit of legal background, which is explained in the opinion -- which is a veritable goldmine of batshitinsanity: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that whenever an attorney files a "pleading, written motion, or other paper" in court, she represents that to the best of her belief:

"(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information."

The Rule goes on to allow Courts to, on their own, or in response to a motion from the other side, impose penalties.

This Court hit up Taitz for $20 grand.
posted by kosem at 9:45 AM on October 13, 2009 [6 favorites]


Also, if it matters -- and I think it does not -- Land is a G.W. Bush appointee.
posted by kosem at 9:46 AM on October 13, 2009


Best part:

Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an
alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce
the Constitution.*

*
The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical
device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence
assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally,
challenged the undersigned to a “round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse
Square,” asserted that the President is not human.

posted by Damn That Television at 9:51 AM on October 13, 2009 [76 favorites]


You know,

The first few times I saw the name "Orly Taitz" I just skimmed past it because I thought it was some dumb meme. The odds that someone would have a name that weird and simultaneously be a total freak just seemed astronomical.

Thanks America, for turning Pynchon into a non-fiction writer.
posted by atrazine at 9:51 AM on October 13, 2009 [16 favorites]


Where did she get she law degree from again?
posted by boo_radley at 9:52 AM on October 13, 2009


For those of us who can't watch YouTube for some reason -- can someone refresh us on what Orly Taitz DID in the first place?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:55 AM on October 13, 2009


The judge probably should have avoided using "birthers" (unless Taitz claimed the label herself, which I'm assuming she didn't). And referring to her "followers" several times. The larger movement behind Ms. Taitz is only relevant to the extent that her motivations are in question, and she did enough to betray her bad faith all on her own in the courtroom.

"Antics," though...that was totally appropriate.
posted by aswego at 9:55 AM on October 13, 2009


Where did she get she law degree from again?

She gots she law degree from William Howard Taft University.
posted by Floydd at 9:57 AM on October 13, 2009


I like that Orly Taitz is a Russian attacking the elected president of the united states as a usurper and all these 'patriotic' americans are supporting her.
posted by empath at 9:58 AM on October 13, 2009 [5 favorites]


HURF DURF BIRTHER
posted by Joe Beese at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2009


Can someone post some of the best excerpts? I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.
posted by empath at 9:59 AM on October 13, 2009


NO WAI
posted by entropicamericana at 10:00 AM on October 13, 2009


For those of us who can't watch YouTube for some reason -- can someone refresh us on what Orly Taitz DID in the first place?

She filed a lawsuit, on behalf of a soldier who has since abandoned her claim, claiming that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore could not legitimately hold the title of commander in chief (since he couldn't be president) and thus couldn't order troops to deploy. Or something.

This judge first simply dismissed the case because it's stupid. He included in his order a warning that if Orly Taitz kept filing such stupid pleadings in his court, she was going to have sanctions coming her way. Guess what she did?
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 10:00 AM on October 13, 2009


Also, if it matters -- and I think it does not -- Land is a G.W. Bush appointee.

Pissing off judges is a big enough act of stupidity to trump party loyalty.
posted by rokusan at 10:02 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


The first few times I saw the name "Orly Taitz" I just skimmed past it because I thought it was some dumb meme. The odds that someone would have a name that weird and simultaneously be a total freak just seemed astronomical.

I had somehow gotten the idea that the name was some sort of deliberate mismash of Bill O'Reilly's name. I have no clue why I thought that.
posted by winna at 10:02 AM on October 13, 2009


Ms. Taitz alleges that the undersigned may have discussed this
case with the Attorney General of the United States. In support of
this accusation, counsel submits the affidavit of Robert D. Douglas.
Mr. Douglas states that on the day of the hearing in the Cook case,
he saw in the “coffee shop” across the street from the federal
courthouse someone whom he recognized as Eric Holder, the Attorney
General. Mr. Douglas’s identification is based upon what he describes
as the Attorney General’s “distinguishing features: his trim upper lip
mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion.”
(Douglas Aff., Sept. 26, 2009.) The affidavit further states that Mr.
Douglas “new [sic] instantly that it was none other than Eric Holder,
the current Attorney General of the United States.”

posted by rdr at 10:03 AM on October 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


To continue rdr's quotation to the best part, in my opinion:

The undersigned has never talked to or met with the Attorney General. As to whether the Attorney General took time out of his busy schedule to visit an “obscure” “coffee shop” in Columbus July 16, 2009, the Court cannot definitively say because the Court was not there.

Also, the conclusion:

The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.
posted by grouse at 10:07 AM on October 13, 2009 [11 favorites]


Where did she get she law degree from again?

This Wikipedia article described her law school.
posted by dilettante at 10:14 AM on October 13, 2009


And she doesn't intend to pay.
posted by Bromius at 10:17 AM on October 13, 2009


PALIN/TAITZ 2012!

C'mon, GOP, crank the stupid dial up to a trillion.
posted by Ratio at 10:20 AM on October 13, 2009 [33 favorites]


This opinion is bulletproof until the second-to-last page, where the judge makes an inexplicably dumb move. In footnote 9, he writes:

The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today’s Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose.

With this suggestion, the judge puts the rest of his ruling in jeopardy. A smart appellate lawyer would seize on this and argue that it proves the judge has an interest here beyond protecting the integrity of the courts. It could be argued that it's not appropriate to fine someone with the intention of ordering that those funds be handed over to a cause that is philosophically inconsistent with the position taken by the (former) plaintiff in the case. I don't know if this argument would be a winner. But the footnote needlessly creates an opening where otherwise none would exist.
posted by brain_drain at 10:23 AM on October 13, 2009 [7 favorites]


I liked her on Green Acres. I continued to support her after she had that fight with the Beverly Hills cop. But this time, this Gabor sister has gone too far.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:25 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


PALIN/TAITZ 2012!

No! TAITZ/PALIN! You heard it here first! Must credit electroboy!
posted by electroboy at 10:25 AM on October 13, 2009


What a wingnut. Any interview in which I've seen her she ratchets up the volume, talks over the interviewer and then claims "victim" status for not being heard.
posted by ericb at 10:25 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


And she doesn't intend to pay.

"If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings. [footnote:] The Court does not take this action lightly, and in fact, cannot recall having previously imposed monetary sanctions upon an attorney sua sponte."

Do collection proceedings possibly allow for disbarment? If she's flouting the law, and indeed an order by a judge, then doesn't that qualify for disbarment?
posted by krinklyfig at 10:28 AM on October 13, 2009


ORLY? ORLY.
posted by jock@law at 10:28 AM on October 13, 2009


I don't know if this argument would be a winner. But the footnote needlessly creates an opening where otherwise none would exist.

From her history, I don't think she's going to be wily enough to pick up on it and convince another court of the integrity of this case. I think she'll end up destroying whatever opportunity this allows her, because she's clearly not concerned about her reputation or even her future as an attorney.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:30 AM on October 13, 2009


She's gonna get disbarred.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:33 AM on October 13, 2009


PALIN/TAITZ 2012!

Holy hell what a ticket that would be. I think I'd even vote for it just to get this whole living on planet earth thing over in done with in. Why drag it out?

*dusts off radioactive debris*
posted by nola at 10:34 AM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


krinklyfig: "sua sponte"

How delightful that there's a legal phrase for "because I said so".
posted by boo_radley at 10:35 AM on October 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


Good. Let's hope disbarment follows. As for who's next, if there's any justice, Columbia University will strip Betsy McConaughey of her doctorate for making a career from being intellectually dishonest.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:36 AM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't know if this argument would be a winner. But the footnote needlessly creates an opening where otherwise none would exist.

From her history, I don't think she's going to be wily enough to pick up on it and convince another court of the integrity of this case. I think she'll end up destroying whatever opportunity this allows her, because she's clearly not concerned about her reputation or even her future as an attorney.


But such an appeal wouldn't be about her integrity but the integrity of the judge, which is a very different matter. The Pinochet case in the UK had to be retried because one of the senior judge's wife was closely linked to Amnesty International,one of the parties to the case, and so the integrity and independence of the judge in question (Lord Hoffman) was compromised. This is an extreme example of UK law, and lawyers looking for technicalities, but the same point could be made here regardless of the actual character of the appellant.
posted by litleozy at 10:37 AM on October 13, 2009


How delightful that there's a legal phrase for "because I said so".

That's not what sua sponte means.
posted by grouse at 10:38 AM on October 13, 2009


But such an appeal wouldn't be about her integrity but the integrity of the judge, which is a very different matter.

That's true, but I am not sure how much further she can get than that. I mean, she may be able to get his sanctions thrown out, but I don't think it's going to help her case at all.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2009


For the past nine months, the tea baggers, tenthers, birthers, deathers, etc, have operated under the assumption that they could say or do pretty much anything, with no real consequence beyond some negative publicity on blogs and left wing TV.

That a judge, appointed by Bush, fined one of their leaders twice the typical amount for misbehavior is awesome. That he also spent 43 pages detailing the reasons she sucks is fucking spectacular.

And can I just say:

"If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings."

This will be a fun next chapter to this story.

And then we can get to the disbarring. Because that will make for a great conclusion.
posted by quin at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2009 [8 favorites]


Yes it is! Sua sponte!
posted by cortex at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2009 [7 favorites]


Do collection proceedings possibly allow for disbarment? If she's flouting the law, and indeed an order by a judge, then doesn't that qualify for disbarment?

Disbarment is a separate issue from sanctions or an action to collect. Only the state bar (in this case the California bar) can disbar an attorney. Sanctions are, of course, relevant evidence in a disbarment proceeding, which is why the judge sent a copy of the opinion to the California bar.

she's clearly not concerned about...her future as an attorney.

It's okay, she'll just fall back on her career as a dentist.
posted by jedicus at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2009


Taft Law School is a California-based distance-learning law school, unaccredited by the ABA. Graduates of unaccredited California law schools are allowed to sit for the CA Bar.

This woman sullies the memory of William Howard Taft.
posted by cereselle at 10:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


She's gonna get disbarred.

Do think she really cares about stupid legalese anymore? She's moved on. She's a REALTOR® now!
posted by rokusan at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2009


Orly Taitz and her merry batshit band of birthers have kept me entertained all year.

Let's hope disbarment follows.

Given the complaints about her which have begun to be lodged with the California Bar, I expect that will happen in the not-too-distant future.

Word of warning: Taitz's own blog (where she routinely encourages her fans to contact the judges hearing her cases ex parte and foments revolution) is recurrently infested with malware. Be careful out there. Politijab.com is a good place to follow Taitz's antics in detail.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:52 AM on October 13, 2009 [5 favorites]


Should judges really fine people for having Oily Taints?


I'm sorry. Carry on...
posted by JeffK at 10:54 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


grouse: "That's not what sua sponte means."

Oh, come on. "In law, the term sua sponte (Latin "on its own will or motion.") means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party."

Why are we doing (this thing)? Defense didn't ask for it, prosecution didn't ask for it, who did? SUA SPONTE!
posted by boo_radley at 10:58 AM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


"In law, the term sua sponte (Latin "on its own will or motion.") means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party."

Yes. That's different from "because I said so," which means that you provide no justification for your acts. A well-written and footnoted 43-page opinion is pretty much the opposite of "because I said so."
posted by grouse at 11:05 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


This was actually fun to read. My two favorite sentences are both from the same paragraph:
"As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better."

"Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional."
I thinked "deemed to have known better" is a great phrase. Not merely "should have known better", but a statement that she cannot possibly be an attorney and not know better.

Do members of the bar have a profile page we can click on to see if it says This account is disabled?
posted by FishBike at 11:06 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


as opposed to having to have the defense or prosecution ask for it, ugh, grouse :|
posted by boo_radley at 11:17 AM on October 13, 2009


The early Christians had an idea that one of the pleasures of heaven was looking down on sinners in hell and enjoying their suffering. Actually, I don't think this idea ever completely left us -- the Left Behind novels are pretty much that, but as fiction.

My point? Watching the fall of Orly Taitz, and it's coming fast, will be the closest thing this atheist gets to experiencing that pleasure.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:23 AM on October 13, 2009 [12 favorites]


as opposed to having to have the defense or prosecution ask for it, ugh, grouse :|

I'm sorry that you are frustrated, but that does not change the meaning of these terms. "Because I said so" is in no way synonymous with "on my own motion."
posted by grouse at 11:25 AM on October 13, 2009


I would love to see a reality show where she and Jack Thompson travel around the country and fight social injustice.
posted by Remy at 11:31 AM on October 13, 2009 [5 favorites]


I accept your terms.
posted by boo_radley at 11:32 AM on October 13, 2009


I look forward to her lawsuit against America's collection agencies for becoming part of a grand judicial conspiracy to silence her and protect the illegitimate Obama presidency.
posted by Naberius at 11:32 AM on October 13, 2009


I ♥ wingnuts.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 11:38 AM on October 13, 2009


posted by FishBike Do members of the bar have a profile page we can click on to see if it says This account is disabled?

Yes.
posted by mattdidthat at 11:42 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


from mattdidthat's link:

Disciplinary and Related Actions
This member has no public record of discipline.


well now.. THAT's going to change pretty soon now eh?
posted by edgeways at 11:51 AM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


I doubt that she'd have to pay the fine herself anyway; there's probably some rich old racist somewhere who spends more than $20K annually on the upkeep of his vintage lawn jockey collection who has been egging her on.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:10 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think this paragraph--and its accompanying footnote--is my favorite:
Although counsel’s present concern is the location of the President’s birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks “too young”to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.7

----
7The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally,challenged the undersigned to a “round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,” asserted that the President is not human.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:19 PM on October 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


I just want her to keep bringing that sweet, shrill, totally Russian brand of crazy to my humdrum life as long as it's not in person.
posted by nj_subgenius at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2009


"It could be argued that it's not appropriate to fine someone with the intention of ordering that those funds be handed over to a cause that is philosophically inconsistent with the position taken by the (former) plaintiff in the case."

Except the judge argues in the 43-page statement that having recused herself from the case, the original defendant now has no stake in the matter and this is simply a case of punishing an attorney for frivolous actions. The former plaintiff no longer matters, just as the former plaintiff no longer mattered in the argument that the judge was biased. That's how I read it anyway.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:39 PM on October 13, 2009


I can't wait to read the whole order, even the snippets are up there with the best of the pissed-off-judge genre.

boo_radley: "Ipse dixit" comes a bit closer to what you're looking for (see also).
posted by Zonker at 12:49 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Ipse dixit" comes a bit closer to what you're looking for

Or, in this case, Ipse dipshit.
posted by Ratio at 12:58 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


He ain't just ipseing dixit...
posted by cortex at 1:03 PM on October 13, 2009 [7 favorites]


Taitz is an incompetent joke, but she isn't only a case of fringe insanity. Floyd Brown, architect of the Willie Horton ads and a well-connected Republican strategist, is an unrepentant Birther, too, and is currently leading the campaign to impeach Obama on the grounds of, well, "Obamism." The simple fact is that a significant fraction of the Republican party wants to destroy this government and seems prepared to do anything to accomplish that.

At this point I would say "Confusion to our enemies!" but they appear to be pretty confused already.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:17 PM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


I had somehow gotten the idea that the name was some sort of deliberate mismash of Bill O'Reilly's name. I have no clue why I thought that.

I'm guessing you read it as "O'Reilly's Taint." Which is a horrifying thought.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:20 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ratio: Or, in this case, Ipse dipshit.

Which raises a more interesting question (to me, at least): what's the Latin for "batshit insane"?
posted by Zonker at 1:30 PM on October 13, 2009


Chiropterafeces lunacus?
posted by Zonker at 1:32 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


Chiroptera-merda inasnum
posted by edgeways at 2:08 PM on October 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


I had to. Is Orly Taitz Still A Lawyer?
posted by verb at 2:13 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


I love how Taft's Juris Doctor - Attorney TrackSM Program comes complete with a service mark.
posted by blucevalo at 2:21 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


I saw the D'Oily Tainte Opera Company perform The Mikado once.
posted by mintcake! at 2:33 PM on October 13, 2009


Finally, counsel insists that her substantive claims are so
meritorious that only a biased judge would find them frivolous.
Comparing herself to former Supreme Court Justice and civil rights
icon Thurgood Marshall, counsel likens her plight to Justice
Marshall’s epic legal battle to desegregate American schools and
public places. Quite frankly, the Court is reluctant to even dignify
this argument by responding to it, but it captures the essence of
counsel’s misunderstanding of the purpose of the courts and her
misunderstanding of her own claims.


I love this judge.
posted by nestor_makhno at 2:33 PM on October 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


In the section where he rejects the claim of bias due to a supposed meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder, Land shows remarkable restraint in avoiding the "If Obama isn't President, then Holder isn't the Attorney General, nyah nyah nyah" argument.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:39 PM on October 13, 2009 [10 favorites]


What's with all the scare quotes? I'm only up to page 16, but really:
As to whether the Attorney General took time out of his busy schedule to visit an "obscure" "coffee shop" in Columbus, Georgia on July 16, 2009, the Court cannot definitively say because the Court was not there.
And apparently the Court cannot definitively say whether the venue was actually a coffee shop or if it was in fact obscure, either?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:49 PM on October 13, 2009


Graduates of unaccredited California law schools are allowed to sit for the CA Bar.

In California, online law school students have to pass the "Baby Bar" before they can sit for the real bar exam.

Ye olde Wikipedia says: "According to the California Bar, in October 2006 Taft had a 23% success rate of students passing the "baby bar"[1], in June 2006 had a 33% pass rate[2], and July 2008 had a 33% rate.[3] More recently in early 2009, Taft had a 33% rate."

Now, I'm terrible at math, but I'm pretty sure that ain't good.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:56 PM on October 13, 2009


I think they're just quotes, gnfti.
posted by Liver at 3:08 PM on October 13, 2009


"Just" "quotes"!?

Thanks Liver
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:27 PM on October 13, 2009


Her argument that she should have been given more time to respond before the Court issued its ruling, when she had requested the expedited consideration, is so
shockingly devoid of reality that it is difficult to know how to respond.


Win forever. I wish I could favorite judicial opinions.
posted by Scattercat at 3:45 PM on October 13, 2009 [5 favorites]


That was, for a legal document, quite an enjoyable read. I guess I like spankings. Especially eloquent, comprehensive spankings.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:01 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


Oh, come on. "In law, the term sua sponte (Latin "on its own will or motion.") means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party."

Why are we doing (this thing)? Defense didn't ask for it, prosecution didn't ask for it, who did?


The decision to consider an issue in the first place is different from the reasoning for the ultimate outcome reached. You're confusing the two. The court can do the first thing sua sponte, which, as you said, means without an extra procedural hurdle of a party making a motion. That doesn't mean the court's allowed to reach an outcome merely "because it says so." Maybe courts can do things because-they-said-so, but do you really think that a party making a motion would prevent them from doing so?
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:06 PM on October 13, 2009


"Orly Taitz" is just a few sweet letters away from "Oily Taint."
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:20 PM on October 13, 2009


What's with all the scare quotes?

Maybe the court is quoting the attorney's language. Not all quotes are scare quotes.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:47 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Maybe the court is quoting the attorney's language.

I figure the quotes are there to make it extremely clear that's what the Court is doing, to head off the anticipated argument along the lines of: "Aha! How would the Court know that it is an obscure coffee shop if the Court was not there? Clearly the Court was there!"

A sort of pre-emptive "no, look, shut up, we're just quoting you here."
posted by FishBike at 6:37 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


I look forward to the Daily Colbert take.
posted by Decimask at 7:04 PM on October 13, 2009


Have I got a client for her: Anthony P. Keyter of Gig Harbor, Wash., who keeps filing suits in other states against the president, his entire cabinet and every member of Congress, because the federal judges in Washington State have barred him from suing again over an alleged seditious conspiracy involving roughly 14,000 other people and three multi-national corporations that stems from a divorce proceeding that didn't go his way. Last week, he filed suit in Boston.
posted by adamg at 7:44 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


littlest brussels sprout: no, that pass rate isn't good, but the average pass rate for the California Bar (arguably the toughest in the nation, and which I'm already terrified of taking this summer) is around 50%, based on my memory, and this is a distance-degree college.

These Rule 11 sanctions are great for all the obvious reasons, but will also inevitably lead to more anti-government hatred fermenting in the "true believers." Not that they really need much of a reason anymore, but we're going to see it. Land will first be painted as an activist, of course. Then, when someone points out that he was appointed by Bush, most birthers will ignore it and the few who don't will then call out the liberals for taking Bush to task over his handling of judicial appointments/firings. Then when almost everybody ignores the fact that Land was nominated 10 days after 9/11, and educated entirely in Georgia, one or two birthers will respond that the only choices they had were liberals originally appointed by Clinton. And by the time someone explains that Clinton only nominated moderates because they all had to be confirmed by a frothing Republican Congress, and besides that Clinton never did anything with Judge Land vis-a-vis judicial appointments, nobody will be listening anymore at all.

That's the thing about hate and crazy - they always have another room of ignorance to back into.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:46 PM on October 13, 2009


That's the thing about hate and crazy - they always have another room of ignorance to back into.
It's one of the reasons that the whole 'noise machine' approach is so depressingly effective. One starts with a somewhat reasonable, somewhat plausible complaint or objection or scandal -- and as others come in to refute, you slowly but surely shed layers of reasonableness, like ablative armor. And the very second anyone walks away, throwing up their hands in disgust, you tell everyone else -- the people who got bored and stopped listening -- that the person who walked away 'refused to answer' your original, somewhat-reasonable-sounding complaint.
posted by verb at 10:35 PM on October 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


…fermenting in the "true believers." Not that they really need much of a reason anymore, but we're going to see it.

Only if they are given voice. Surely "birthers" and other schizophrenic loons exist in Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany — how come it's only in America that these literally insane people like Orly get so much press?

The traditional media is not operating in a manner that is beneficial to the sustenance of democracy. What should be one of our key tools in maintaining an effective democracy has been broken, and we've yet to fix it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 PM on October 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


krinklyfig asked:

Do collection proceedings possibly allow for disbarment? If she's flouting the law, and indeed an order by a judge, then doesn't that qualify for disbarment?


Not in and of themselves, but lawyers are required by the Rules of Professional Conduct to report themselves to the bar anytime we are sanctioned in an amount equal to or exceeding $1,000. So, not only is the order being sent to the State Bar here in California, but Orly may be subject to discipline if she fails to report herself!

I suspect the bar will read the various opinions now circulating about these frivolous cases, and may act upon the facts presented there, which will be difficult to dispute.

I'm especially interested in how she plans to get around Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6068, which she appears to have violated in almost every possible way. Aside from the various Rules of Processional Conduct promulgated by the State Bar, attorneys can be subject to discipline for violating B&P § 6068.

She's definitely headed for suspension or disbarment.
posted by Hylas at 11:32 PM on October 13, 2009


mippy for the win.

Only one favorite?
posted by uncanny hengeman at 1:01 AM on October 14, 2009


Navelgazer: but the average pass rate for the California Bar (arguably the toughest in the nation, and which I'm already terrified of taking this summer) is around 50%, based on my memory

I've heard that the reason the California pass rate is related not to its difficulty, but rather to the fact that California permits students from non-accredited schools to sit for the bar. That is, there are a greater number of people taking it who may not have been properly prepared to succeed.

Don't be terrified about taking it! I just passed Pennsylvania's July exam. Feel free to MeMail me if you are panicked.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 3:50 AM on October 14, 2009


It's at times like this that I remember the following quotation from the Tax Protestor FAQ (bolding & italics are in the original):
[W]hen a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:51 AM on October 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional."

I believe this will inspire the title for her inevitable book - A Breathtaking Work of Delusional Arrogance.
posted by mikepop at 6:20 AM on October 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


the littlest brussels sprout, congratulations! :)
posted by zarq at 7:15 AM on October 14, 2009


Oh man. This is fantastic!
Finally, counsel insists that her substantive claims are so meritorious that only a biased judge would find them frivolous. Comparing herself to former Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, counsel likens her plight to Justice Marshall’s epic legal battle to desegregate American schools and public places. Quite frankly, the Court is reluctant to even dignify this argument by responding to it, but it captures the essence of counsel’s misunderstanding of the purpose of the courts and her misunderstanding of her own claims.

Yes, Justice Marshall had to extend then-existing law to prevail in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). But he did so by persuading the Court that the de jure discrimination against black schoolchildren violated their rights under the existing Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution—a fundamental truth that had been recognized years earlier by Justice Harlan in his eloquent and prescient dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 555-56 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

Justice Marshall’s arguments were a logical extension and certainly a necessary modification of then-existing law. Counsel in this case cannot articulate how the President’s ineligibility to hold office, even if proven, violates an Army officer’s individual constitutional rights such that it would authorize that officer to disobey a deployment order. Counsel has likewise never cited any legal authority or made any reasonable argument as to why the traditional abstention doctrine should not have been applied here.

Finally, Justice Marshall had real evidence that black children were being sent to inferior segregated schools based solely on the color of their skin. He had credible evidence as to the impact of inferior segregated schools upon the schoolchildren forced to attend them by their government. Justice Marshall was also able to articulate how this conduct on the part of the government violated the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment clearly designed to assure that the government finally recognized the promise of the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal.

Counsel here has an affidavit from someone who allegedly paid off a government official to rummage through the files at a Kenyan hospital to obtain what counsel contends is the President’s “authentic” birth certificate. Counsel here makes no coherent argument connecting the Constitution’s presidential citizenship requirement to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. Counsel here points to no legal authority—in the Constitution or elsewhere—that could be extended or expanded to create an exception to the well-established doctrine of abstention, which disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the military.

To suggest that an Army officer, who has received a medical education at the expense of the government and then seeks to avoid deployment based upon speculation that the President is not a natural born citizen, is equivalent to a young child, who is forced to attend an inferior segregated school based solely on the color of her skin, demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge of the history of this Country and the importance of the civil rights movement. Counsel’s attempt to align herself with Justice Marshall appears to be an act of desperation rather than one of admiration. For if counsel truly admired Justice Marshall’s achievements, she would not seek to cheapen them with such inapt comparisons.
Good for Judge Land. He's outdone himself.
posted by zarq at 7:44 AM on October 14, 2009


A line from his previous court order in the Rhodes case: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." :)
posted by zarq at 7:47 AM on October 14, 2009


Since that whole "lawyer" thing did not work out too well, she's starting a new business on the realtor side of her empire.
posted by minimii at 8:03 AM on October 14, 2009


For those of you who don't want to wade through the muck at Free Republic, the consensus is that while Orly Taitz is obviously a terrible lawyer, nevertheless, Obama is still not an American Citizen.
posted by empath at 8:37 AM on October 14, 2009


It just gets better: Apparently it's the judge who is delusional!
posted by Bromius at 9:23 AM on October 14, 2009


I was idly surfing though the channels and caught a glimpse of this wretch doing her shtick on Behar's show. I quickly kept going, but it didn't surprise me that she was on. Cable nooz loves a good trainwreck.

But, it really did get me thinking...I'm not sure jailing her and/or disbarring her will do anything to quiet the birther crowd. If anything, it will stiffen their resolve and play right into the arms of their dulusions. Afterall, jailing/disbarring her would be, in their eyes, an overt act of a desperate Obama administration hell-bent on covering-up their criminal violation of our beloved Constitution. Silencing the truth-speakers, if you will.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:17 AM on October 14, 2009


And yet not sanctioning her makes it seem as if she has a legitimate complaint. She may be crazy, but its a crazy you can't argue against.
posted by sandraregina at 10:41 AM on October 14, 2009


I know. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:48 PM on October 14, 2009


My dad took a bunch of us kids to Judge Land one time. Worst amusement park ever.
posted by jbickers at 1:30 PM on October 14, 2009 [5 favorites]


Damned if you do, damned if you don't… if you give a good goddamn what the moonbats think and say.

I suggest that it's not sane to care even a fragment of an iota for what Orly Taitz feels, thinks, or cares about. She is absolutely and in all ways entirely irrelevant to everything.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:21 PM on October 14, 2009


Okay, so this is totally unrelated to the content at hand, but is there a reason that the opinion is in both a monospace font and justified? Don't lawyers have to read a lot of text? Wouldn't it be easier to either to read if the text were proportional or left-aligned?
posted by Deathalicious at 11:42 AM on October 15, 2009


"PALIN/TAITZ 2012!" Holy hell what a ticket that would be. I think I'd even vote for it just to get this whole living on planet earth thing over in done with in. Why drag it out? *dusts off radioactive debris*

Heh
posted by exogenous at 12:50 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


But, it really did get me thinking...I'm not sure jailing her and/or disbarring her will do anything to quiet the birther crowd. If anything, it will stiffen their resolve and play right into the arms of their dulusions

Disbarment is not something that is done out of spite, nor by popular consensus or due to political considerations. The CA Bar will decide on their own whether she is qualified to continue to practice law, aside from the other considerations you mention, which are not relevant to making this decision.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:43 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I suggest that it's not sane to care even a fragment of an iota for what Orly Taitz feels, thinks, or cares about. She is absolutely and in all ways entirely irrelevant to everything.

She is relevant in the sense that she is at the center of a conspiratorial movement which is trying to place itself at the center of the opposition party. I think it's important to expose her actions and motivations. We can't really ignore people like this and pretend they'll just go away.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


She is, of course, appealing against this. The document she filed for the appeal is available here in pdf.
posted by dilettante at 8:11 AM on October 24, 2009


She says that this is a "political lynching" "designed to silence her". Whee! Does anyone know if she's ever actually worked as a lawyer in anything except these batshit cases, btw?
posted by dilettante at 8:46 AM on October 24, 2009


But wait, there's more!

When, oh, for the love of god, when is the State Bar of California finally going to disbar this nut once and for all?
posted by bakerina at 3:47 PM on October 30, 2009


Orly Taitz, the gift that keeps on giving.

Or:

Oily Taints, the misreading that keeps grossing me out.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:30 PM on October 30, 2009


As always, I like to go to free republic first for commentary on the latest Orly Taitz ruling.
posted by empath at 4:45 PM on October 30, 2009


Wait, that's it? Judge Carter is just going to note her unethical behavior, but isn't going to refer her to the bar or order sanctions?
posted by grouse at 7:01 PM on October 30, 2009


« Older SWEDEMASON   |   A PATH TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BY 2030 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post