Who names their kid that?

“Orly Taitz” is within spitting (or swallowing, depending)distance of being a top tier porn name.

If Allah is indeed kind and merciful, there is a video of that hearing somewhere…

I’m thinking Yakky Sax in the background.

Magic.

It amazes me no end that Orly Taitz is still apparently licensed to practice law in the State of California, or for that matter, that this nutcase actually passed a bar exam in the first place.

I occasionally tease an attorney friend here in LA who failed the bar exam on his first try– If Orly Taitz can do it how hard could it be I’ll smirk as he throws Corpus Juris Secundum volumes at me.

Seriously, it’s past time for the California State Bar to pull this clown’s ticket, so she can stop embarrasing the state, the law, and the legal profession by clogging the courts with her bullshit and go be a harmless fool somewhere the hell else.

I can only pray that she’s a better dentist than she is an attorney, but sort of doubt it.

Orly Taitz, the lawyer-dentist-real estate agent-floor wax-dessert topping

I tried the Orley Taitz dessert topping on a bowl of vanilla bean ice cream the other night. Tasted like wet dog, sky blue mascara, and fail. Was a bit surprised, since the main ingredient listed on the jar was her parent’s tears. Thought it would be saltier.

What’s downright aggravating is this pathetic excuse for a “lawyer/activist” not only gets highly compensated on the wingnut welfare gravy train, but Taitz – allegedly “representing” the Tea Baggers or whatever – is gargantuan sucking WASTE of YOUR tax dollars & MINE.

Taitz keeps squirreling away her nutty racism in state & federal courts. Guess who’s footing the bill for part of the costs of those cases? YOU and ME, that’s who.

This from the party of so-called “personal responsibility” and no one getting a “free ride” in the alleged “Nanny State.”

Hypocrisy on steroids… PTOUI!!

Can’t we send her back to Moldova or Israel or somewhere? At a minimum, can’t we agree not to give her any more column inches than the right-wing media pay for?

But Obama is just what she wants, just ask him:

During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network’s Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida’s Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S. The president said he believes few actually believe that.

“I don’t know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that,” Obama said. “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.”

Yeah, he’s really quite the Nixon. Only without the Watergate. Even Reaganesque in some ways…

But what do I know, I’m only a 52-year-old ex-Republican DFH.

Hell, if John Hinderaker can work for Faegre & Benson, someone like O Rly? can get a law license. I think the key here is that they have strong rote memorization skills, something your otherwise-smart friend likely lacks. But rote memorization isn’t everything.

“Your argument, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” the judge told her at one point.

So, the so-called “judge” is essentially admitting in open court that he’s part of the Black Panther Muslin Usurper KneeGrow Communist HomaSectshul Liberal-Elite Dictator Agenda to overthrow the entire US government and replace it with, well, you know. So obviously he’s an accessory after the fiction fact! Ergo:

It would seem that Orly (as opposed to Analy…because she’s a dentist and not a proctologist, duh) has potential court cases to file for years to come…in between performing root canals and doing short sales, of course.

Cushy grifting-type gig Vitally important work, Orly.

Hasn’t she been disbarred by the state of California yet?

See ChrisVosburg at 3.

Actually, didn’t we have this discussion,and conclude that no one is quite brave enough to file the complaint and risk the years of being-stuck-in-quicksand lawsuits, harassment, etc. that OT (why yes, she is off topic, always, isn’t she?) would quickly turn on them.

sigh. No profiles in courage. But I can’t really say I would be different.

But I can just imagine how ticked off Judge England must have been during that ridiculous hour (hour!) of arguing with the insane.
Not to mention attorneys and clients waiting their turn, farther down the docket.

Chickenfeed. As Michelle Bachmann rings in the new year by introducing the umpteenth bill to repeal Obamacare, an entire branch of government continues to be a taxpayer funded three ring circus.

The tea party types aren’t known for their problem-solving skills:

On Wednesday night, an amused Republican staffer called me to report that Representatives Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Raul Labrador, and Steve Southerland were gathered at Bullfeathers, a Capitol Hill bar, openly plotting their coup. Not exactly the Roman Senate scheming to dispatch Caesar.

[...]

Any good coup depends on stealth. But on Thursday, an enterprising Politico photographer snapped Representative Tim Huelskamp sitting in open session reading from his iPad—not making this up—the entire roster of the plot against Boehner. Just so there was no mistaking that he was up to no good, the document was entitled “YOU WOULD BE FIRED IF THIS GOES OUT.” Not making that up either.Worse still, half the roster on Huelskamp’s iPad lost their nerve and bailed out. In the end, only nine Republicans broke ranks. Three cast votes for Cantor (who was visibly disgusted), two for recently ousted Representative Allen West, and one for a former U.S. comptroller general. Several of the plotters even voted for each other. Boehner was reelected Speaker.

That being said, what’s infuriating about all of this is how their constant insane hostage-taking has now been normalized in the context of DC politics — what was unthinkable only two years ago is now considered almost normal — and why this is a problem where the debt limit battle is concerned:

President Obama’s decision to agree to a “fiscal cliff” deal that doesn’t address the debt ceiling was premised on the thinking that congressional Republicans will not be as successful at holding the economy hostage in the coming months as they were in the summer of 2011. For one thing, the administration believes the business community, and elite opinion more broadly, will be much more vocal than they were last time around in cautioning Republicans against debt-ceiling hijinx.

[...]

But it’s looking as if elite opinion more broadly is more sanguine about another debt-ceiling showdown than the White House had hoped. It is striking to what degree the Washington establishment has come to normalize Republican hostage-taking of the debt limit, to see it as a predictable and almost natural element of the political landscape. Greg Sargent argues convincingly why this is a problem, noting that the debt ceiling must be raised to pay for past spending, and should not be used as a chip in negotiating future budgets: ”In the current context, conservatives and Republicans who hold out against a debt limit hike are, in practical terms, only threatening the full faith and credit of the United States — and threatening to damage the economy — in order to get what they want. Any accounts that don’t convey this with total clarity — and convey the sense that this is a normal negotiation — are essentially misleading people. It’s that simple.”

That woman should be so thoroughly disbarred that she’s forbidden to set foot in a food court.

I think a better analogy to Orly Taitz is this guy: Jonathan Lee Riches, a federal prisoner whose lawsuits are the gold standard of vexatious litigation.

Please tell me she’s running for office next cycle… and if so, where do I send my $20.00… you just can’t buy quality entertainment like this anymore…

well yes, you have a point there. STILL… it aggravates me how MY taxes are wasted on frivolous law suits in the Court.

FWIW, the CA state courts – yes I know this latest skirmish was in the Fed court – are broke. Frivolous law suits clog the system, waste everyone’s time & dime, and … it’s more than annoying, esp coming from the same nutbars who whiiine & vetch about taxes & the nanny state, etc.

A pet peeve…

Well it’s all just a wonderful *distraction* from how we’re all hostages to the 1%, who are stealing the money out of the pockets of the 99%.

I have to laugh. It’s Friday. I wanna have a good weekend. What a buncha jerks.

There have been several complaints filed and at least one bar investigation. But the way she craptices law is so…crappy, no one has ever hired her – she has only ever worked for herself – and the bar doesn’t see her abusing clients so they don’t, apparently, care what she does.

She’s crazy. It’s not about Obama anymore, if it ever was. It’s about her narcissism. And she’s a better dentist, at least, than she is an lawyer. The consensus is that she’s adequate, with little concern for personal hygiene or pain management. Must be the Mossad training.

By the by, this is Judge England.

Which perhaps may give you an idea of the level of chutzpah Taitz possesses to stand in front of him and compare herself to Thurgood Marshall while trying to unseat the first black President.

*blinks*
*blinks again*

Do any of his suits ever get past the laugh stage?

mambotaxi, keeping it all in perspective is a good thing. thanks for the link. :)

Not sure this is entirely true, but it’s said she took up lawyerin’ only to defend herself from dental malpractice suits.

“She ran into a brick wall…”

And then a closed door. And a window.

Your second link… yikes! A 57-page .pdf comprised entirely of a nonsense potpourri of defendants – living and dead people, organizations, nations, inanimate objects,… The actual complaint isn’t even provided, but odds are it is equally nonsensical.

I know the right to seek legal redress is sacrosanct (at least if you have the resources and time and/or money), but isn’t there some way to rein in the most egregious abuses of the system, such as this? Or is this like the tax exempt status of churches, wherein everyone with skin in the game fears that imposition of even the most modest restrictions will lead to a slippery slope that threatens the gravy train for everyone?

…a fake name like ‘Orly”. Yeah, right. Who names their kid that?

Any number of Norwegians, according to sources in Minnesota.

Now then…the wonder is not that Orly Taitz is a blockhead, it’s the number of people who believe and encourage her. For her and her supporters, Judge England’s, his (blackblackblacketyblack) appearance is just another sign of how deep this conspiracy runs. There is no escape unless one moves to Freedonia, or possibly Idaho.

These guys couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse. If they weren’t so destructive they’d be laughable, but…

Public service announcement – do not ever visit Orly Taitz’s website, as it is totally infested with malware, viruses, and god knows what else.

If you want to read up on all things birther, I suggest thefogbow.com

“The judge sparred with her for more than an hour as the hearing played out in a courtroom overflowing with spectators, many of them clearly not Obama supporters.”

An analysis of photographs of the event shows that there were 23 (at most) Taitz-supporters there.

That woman should be so thoroughly disbarred that she’s forbidden to set foot in a food court.

Wasn’t she in trouble with the Federal district in Atlanta(?) for failing to pay fines they imposed on her for refusing to withdraw a frivolous suit, or something like that? Didn’t the court threaten her license?

I know the right to seek legal redress is sacrosanct (at least if you have the resources and time and/or money), but isn’t there some way to rein in the most egregious abuses of the system, such as this?

There are rules in Federal and many state courts. IANAL, and I don’t play one on TV, but I can link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

I (unfortunately) knew this guy.

Martin was born in 1945 in Middletown, Connecticut.[7] His father, Ralph Beneducci Martin-Trigona, was of Italian, Maltese, and English descent, and his mother, Helen Anthony (née Vasiliou), was Greek American.[8][9] He received a B.A. from the University of Illinois in 1966, and a J.D. from that institution in 1969.
In 1973 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant Martin a license to practice law in the state due to such conduct as attempting to have a parking violation thrown out because it had been “entered by an insane judge” and for commenting that an attorney, who suffers from a mild case of cerebral palsy, was “shaking and tottering and drooling like an idiot.” The court also cited Martin’s Selective Service record, which attributed to him a “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”[10] Martin holds that the remark was written out of spite by an evaluator with whom he had a dispute.[3]
Martin then became involved in consumer advocacy and referred to himself as “the people’s attorney general”. He took credit for being the first to file suit under the civil component of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as the first to file antitrust actions against the Big Three television networks for anticompetitive practices in network affiliation agreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin

Wow. Being bored,with no new Boggian snark, I finally clicked on that link.

Once upon a time, as a law clerk for a fed magistrate, to whom district judges routinely referred prisoner suits for review, I saw a lot of frivolous, not-to-say crazy, prisoner petitions.

That one takes the cake.
*blink*

I wanna make one thing absolutely clear here, following a number of comments which advocate measures to curb “frivolous” lawsuit.

I do not advocate any such measure. One man’s frivolous is another man’s serious harm, and I wouldn’t appoint myself judge here.

What I am saying is that Orly Taitz is not competent to represent a client in a court of law, and abuses the court, the law, the legal profession, and the client every time she does so, and the State Bar does not require a complaint to act on this; they need only look at the newspaper.

The whole point of the Bar, after all, is to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and assure any Californian seeking legal counsel that such counsel will be at least rudimentarily competent and not batshit insane.

A cursory read of any of Taitz’s filings demonstrate that she is the latter, and enough is enough. She’ll still be free to file any crazy-ass shit she wants, like any citizen, just not under the imprimatur of legitimacy that Bar membership confers.

And save your lawyer jokes, by the way (most of which I’ve heard from attorney friends); I think the world of the legal profession though not a member, and am disheartened by the way Taitz soils it whenever she opens her mouth.

Chris: You bring up several interesting points.

The Courts, particularly those in CA, are particularly loath to declare a cause of action frivolous, or that a litigant is vexatious, for precisely the reason you state. And even vexatious litigants can try their cases provided they seek permission from the chief judge of the court before doing so. They are rarely refused. Many of these litigants appear pro se. Pro se litigants in California are extended every leniency the court can reasonably allow, to insure that cases are tried on their merits, and not defeated or dismissed on procedural grounds.

In this case, Taitz is commonly referred to as “The Birther Queen” in popular media, and seems to have accepted the title as part of her own shameless self-promotion. Her clients are essentially “straw-men” who may or may not lack legal sophistication. At any rate, the court appears to be extending Taitz the same courtesy afforded to pro se clients. In other words, her briefs are accorded the same level of utmost deference as the criminal pro se misdemeanants who send in appeals to the Federal District Court written in pencil on yellow foolscap. (The District Courts can and do kick attorneys’ pleadings and papers if they fail to conform to the Local Rules.) The court is extremely tolerant of pro se litigants; their procedural errors are largely ignored; they get as long as they need to reasonably make their argument–instead of the usual 10-20 minutes that the attorneys get; and the judges often all but drop hints as to the flaws in their cases when trying to tease out facts that would constitute the elements in a pro se’s case. (In this case, the money quote was really the judge’s comment: “What part of second don’t you understand?” after Taitz pointed out that she represented an EC voter who supported Romney who finished second. That goes to standing. You must have standing to appear in a Federal District Court. Standing requires the litigant to have suffered damages/harm or faces imminent threat of harm.)

The jurisdiction of the State Bar of California is limited primarily to admissions requirements and ethical issues. You can suck as an attorney, and fart around in a courtroom for as long as the presiding judge will let you get away with it, without hitting you with sanctions. However, if your trust accounts are more than a dollar off when a client reports an attorney, the attorney is toast. So if Taitz doesn’t represent paying clients, or she doesn’t maintain a trust account, it is unlikely that the California Bar will get involved.

None of us can go after her, because we don’t have a horse in this race–WE don’t really have standing. There are several bills pending in various state courts, as well as potential federal legislation, attempting to curb or outlaw frivolous litigation, but most are aimed at appeals by prisoners. You could try to introduce civil curbs on frivolous litigation, but most would be redundant.

At least one person pointed out that this is a waste of taxpayer funds. Taxpayer standing is only appropriate for first amendment issues, and has generally been dismissed as grounds except in issues related to religion in schools. But filing court briefs is a form of petitioning for redress of grievances–which last time I looked was also a First Amendment Right. While Taitz and her ersatz clients have a right to petition for whatever wrongs they feel they have suffered, there is law on point in California Appellate cases and federal cases that require that attorneys conform to procedure, and that pro se clients conform to the standards of an attorney if they represent themselves. If you insist on doing something, file an amicus brief, next time she appeals a ruling.

Before you get excited, most amicus briefs go nowhere, so keep it short. All you are going to do is reference the litany of errors in procedure, fact, and law that still haven’t stopped Taitz in this case. Then point out that court fees don’t pay for the full costs of cases, and taxpayer funds are limited. Then request an order that the court give Taitz notice, either from the bench or in writing on her first appearance, that she will be held to the standards of a a reasonable attorney in procedural as well as legal issues when she argues before the court. If she fails to educate herself in the interim, or seek the help of a second attorney with superior litigation skills, the judge can then feel free to sanction her, and dismiss her case without fear of reprisal from the appellate courts.

Even if the judge doesn’t do a thing, the publicity of an amicus brief like this one with the e-signatures of several thousand taxpayers should make for interesting media coverage among the “less government” bobbleheads.

Tucker Carlson: ‘People despise you when you wear a bow tie’

The thread is full of win.

Thanks, Ruthie, for that very thoughtful response. Again, I do not advocate any curbs on lawsuit content, and your points are well taken.

But I do believe that the Bar itself has a horse in this race, and it is the integrity of the legal profession itself. If the Bar fails to act– and it does not need a complaint to do so– it is abdicating the responsibility which defines its very reason for existence, which sort of makes the Bar itself a lot like a lazy and neglectful attorney, which the Bar would have no compunction about sanctioning.

Well, that’s just silly. It presumes Orly Taitz wants a mainstream Republican in charge, when, if you know anything about her at all, you know that she wants an extreme right-wing radical to run the show, not some ome run of the mill corporatist.

The State Bar are the “short bus” kids of legal competence. They won’t act unless someone complains, and even then, most of the time–such as with fee disputes– they’ll steer you into someone else’s jurisdiction.

I did notice that Taitz has no disciplinary actions listed. A couple of years ago, she was hit with a $20,000 sanction that she appealed all the way to the USSC, and which was upheld. The State Bar requires that attorneys self-report all sanctions in excess of $1,000. If a $20,000 sanction for wasting court resources isn’t a “disciplinary action,” Enquiring minds might request the State Bar’s legal definition.

Oops. First line should read “The State Bar officials…”

And I don’t think that it’s accurate to portray Taitz as lazy or even negligent. Give credit where credit is due: This woman milked the “Kenyan Islamo-Fascist” myth for way more than she’d be making practicing dentistry, selling real estate, and as a solo legal practitioner with a degree from a 4th tier, unaccredited mail-order diploma mill (–Other notable alumnus: son of Jerry Falwell–), combined.

Taitz’s problem is pretty much the same one many attorneys have: They buy into the nobility of “the cause.” In other words: “It’s not about the money–it’s the principle of the thing!” This mindset is fatal. It blinds an attorney to the flaws in her cause of action, and from a business standpoint is the quickest way to a suit for malpractice, or bankruptcy.

Aaandd…the minute a prospective client says something like that, that’s when the attorney regretfully declines the case.

Of course, where Taitz is concerned, there have been birther rubes as clients who have willingly signed on to her insane campaign. Mrs. Polly* tells the story of one (including awesome and appropriately bizzare illustrations): (former) Army Reserve MAJ Stefan Cook. That was of course just one of many legal actions on Taitz’s part, and it served to keep her nutty campaign alive – Mission Accomplished, for her. It didn’t end so well for MAJ Cook, whose deployment to Afghanistan was revoked as he requested, but he also lost his job with a defense contractor as a result. And of course, some (possibly unpleasantly) surprised Army officer had to be sent to Afghanistan to fill the billet that Cook didn’t show up to occupy.

Other discussions of this specific case are here, and from site not know for wild-eyed leftie thinking, here; comments in that last post are – natch – filled with wacky birther rantings. And you can always dig through The Fogbow (which my Firefox browser doesn’t seem to like much, AFAICT).

*I would also recommend Mrs. Polly’s other wonderful posts on what became known as chapters of “The Orliad”. The author herself has recommended “The Orliad and the Idiocy” as a single read for those pressed for time, and a list of links to the other fine posts in this series can be found here. My guess is that Mrs. Polly is too busy these days doing the work of an angel – well, she was doing angel work with this series too, but she got some kind of angel promotion, I think, with greater responsibilities – otherwise I’d put in a request for her to dust off her Muse and give this her unique treatment once again.

I have very much appreciated the input from efgoldman (#32), and the discussion among ChrisV, Ruthie, and tejanausa; it cleared quite a bit up for me. The links from efgoldman show that local legal activities (state bars and judges) can in fact do something about frivolous litigation, and by extension, for the long term protection of the legal system against inappropriate political interference. To me that seems the best and safest way to deal with it. On the other hand, an apparently disfunctional California State Bar offers a study for how NOT to do things, i.e., by not taking responsibility for dealing with errant practitioners. Back when I was a more engaged student of this stuff (mainly as a contributing supporter of HALT), I saw that this was a problem in a lot of states, but then, that is always the problem with self-policing, for ANY profession.

Tucker is truly the Orly Taitz of journalism….

Thanks to Chris for the dialogue. It was interesting. And thanks also to meepmeep09 for The Orliad and other links. I needed the laugh. Tejanarusa has the right idea at #41. There’s a saying–I think it was by Judge Learned Hand: “If you are seeking justice, you will have to wait until you get to heaven. Here on earth there are only the courts.” Lawsuits invariably come down to money. If the client can’t accept this, they will never be happy.

I told him that Grinols is the elector for Romney, who came in second. the judge said: what don’t you understand about being second? I said that I do understand, that if one, who came in first, is using forged iDs and not qualified, then one who came in second, will be declared a winner. (I was thinking to myself, what a question, does the judge understand this simple concept?)

She has a website. She never learned the first rule of Stupid Club: Never Document Stupid Club.

I’ve read a number of precautions about visiting Taitz’s site. According to these precautions, there is substantial risk of getting your PC infected by viruses, spam, and other bad stuff. I’ve never been motivated to follow up on these claims, but as I recall, they’ve come from a number of folks who (IMHO) generally have good online reputations.

So if one chooses to visit over there at Kamp Krayzee, don’t download anything, and ‘wear protection’ (= anti-virus with up-to-date virus definitions, anti-spam app, etc.).

I certainly didn’t want to go further into the rabbit hole, but I was tempted. Oh, so tempted!

Not gonna swap electrons with anyone who comes with that kind of warning.

test