Merged Orly Taitz's Obama birther lawsuit laughed out of court

[Alt+F4]

I was referring to the Revolutionary War. Your ancestors decided that King Whatshisname wasn´t their legitimate ruler; they couldn´t vote him out, they couldn´t go to court to get rid of him, so they took more drastic steps.
This is not to say that the Founding Fathers are in any substantial way comparable to Taitz and the other birthers... they merely present a revered role model in whose image said nutters can cast themselves.

Orly is from Moldova. She was neither raised or educated in the United States so you can't know how much the American Revolution has influenced her. She has however commented on how the Obama administration reminds her of growing up under a communist government.

The American Revolution comparison doesn't fly because King George III was not assassinated during the Revolution and unlike in colonial times we now have a non-violent way of removing a President: impeachment.

 

[Mr.D]

unlike in colonial times we now have a non-violent way of removing a President: impeachment.

But to impeach him, you have to admit he's legally president. Which is why the birthers aren't going down that road.

 

[Chaos]

Orly is from Moldova. She was neither raised or educated in the United States so you can't know how much the American Revolution has influenced her. She has however commented on how the Obama administration reminds her of growing up under a communist government.

If she compares Obama to Soviet government, she obviously doesn´t have a clue about Soviet government either.

I´m not sure she can´t necessarily know much about American history, or can´t have taken whatever parts she chose to heart. Converts tend to be even more fanatical than those who grew up with something, and perhaps also more likely to take it in especially nutty directions. Certainly you agree that it is possible to come to learn a distorted version of history, especially through self-education.

Besides, pretty much all the other nutters are US-born, aren´t they? It doesn´t have to be Taitz herself, just some nutter who listens to her when she calls for true patriots to defend their country from the usurper.

The American Revolution comparison doesn't fly because King George III was not assassinated during the Revolution and unlike in colonial times we now have a non-violent way of removing a President: impeachment.

King George III wasn´t residing in the Colonies back then. And, I dare say, he wasn´t black.
And impeachment doesn´t cut it, either. First, as Mr D says, to impeach him you have to admit he is president. Second, Taitz has made it clear enough that she considers those who don´t buy birtherism and don´t do what birthers demand are traitors. If every single thing you do to - from your POV - restore the rightful government to your country fails, and the judiciary, government and congress are all in the hand of traitors, will you trust these traitors to do what their obviously non-existent loyalty to the real United States of America (as imagined by birthers) demands? That would be a bit like, after declaring independence, your ancestors had decided to go home and sulk until the Brits withdrew and granted them independence. Not likely, in other words.

 

[Mojo]

Media coverage of Taitz reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon from back in the '70s. Mark Slackmeyer was interviewing some celebrity who he didn't know for his radio show and asked him "what do you do?" "Do?" "Yes, for what activity are you celebrated? Is it music, or art, or sports..."

Apparently in 2009 "being batcrap crazy" is an acceptable answer to that last question.

At least it's a little more distinctive than what the average "celebrity" is known for these days (i.e. being a "celebrity").

 

[Questioninggeller]

Here's Orly's latest (her response to the judge's question about why she shouldn't be sanctioned):

The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation.
...
In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.
...

Full: Source

 

[Suddenly]

Here's Orly's latest (her response to the judge's question about why she shouldn't be sanctioned):



Full: Source

A depressingly reasonable filing.

Given the court is determining whether it can sanction her, it is a quasi-criminal prosecution, that part, while sounding a bit dramatic, isn't totally out of left field. Also, that her client has made public statements disavowing her, she does need to be untethered from her client in order to defend herself against sanctions.

It isn't really a response, rather a motion to allow her to respond outside of her attorney client relationship with her client.

 

[Chaos]

A depressingly reasonable filing.

Given the court is determining whether it can sanction her, it is a quasi-criminal prosecution, that part, while sounding a bit dramatic, isn't totally out of left field. Also, that her client has made public statements disavowing her, she does need to be untethered from her client in order to defend herself against sanctions.

It isn't really a response, rather a motion to allow her to respond outside of her attorney client relationship with her client.

Sanity? From Orly Taitz? What is the world coming to?

 

[Cleon]

How much you want to bet she had a real lawyer put it together?

 

[headscratcher4]

The question is will she be smart and get a real lawyer to defend herself....seems unlikelyl.

 

[Rasmus]

How much you want to bet she had a real lawyer put it together?

Win!

 

[Questioninggeller]

A depressingly reasonable filing.

Given the court is determining whether it can sanction her, it is a quasi-criminal prosecution, that part, while sounding a bit dramatic, isn't totally out of left field. Also, that her client has made public statements disavowing her, she does need to be untethered from her client in order to defend herself against sanctions.

It isn't really a response, rather a motion to allow her to respond outside of her attorney client relationship with her client.

Sane? Sort of. Competent? No.

After all you have to sign what you file even if it's less crazy than your other filings:

Attorney Orly Taitz files motion to withdraw as lawyer for Capt. Connie Rhodes
By ALAN RIQUELMY
Monday, Sep. 28, 2009
Ledger-enquirer.com

Attorney Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement and lawyer for an Army captain who sought to stop her deployment to Iraq on arguments that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, has filed a motion to withdraw as the captain’s lawyer.
...
It appears, however, that Taitz didn’t sign her motion. Court records filed Monday state that the motion must be filed again because Taitz didn’t sign it.

Full: Ledger-enquirer.com

A basic motion to withdraw. Orly botched it and will have to refile. I'm sure the judge wants to see the signed copy. And does she really think the judge will let her call witnesses for a motion to withdraw? Come on.

 

[headscratcher4]

Trite but true: "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client "

 

[patchbunny]

How much you want to bet she had a real lawyer put it together?

Actually, the fact that it wasn't signed, makes me wonder if she did in fact have someone else put it together and she just didn't properly review it.

 

[Sabrina]

Off topic, but I can't help but wonder just how bad Crow's headache must be, considering he's been being beaten up in your avatar for the past.... well, probably over a year.

Okay I'm over it; carry on!

 

[drkitten]

A depressingly reasonable filing.

Given the court is determining whether it can sanction her, it is a quasi-criminal prosecution, that part, while sounding a bit dramatic, isn't totally out of left field. Also, that her client has made public statements disavowing her, she does need to be untethered from her client in order to defend herself against sanctions.

It isn't really a response, rather a motion to allow her to respond outside of her attorney client relationship with her client.

Is this actually a reasonable request?

I mean, if I hire a lawyer whom I expect to act in my interests, and then the lawyer proceeds to act so unprofessionally that I have to fire her and the court acts to sanction her, it seems rather hard on me, the client, for her to then air my dirty laundry in public in the course of defending her own incompetence.

Or in other words, a merely competent lawyer is expected to look after the interests of their client, but a truly phenomenally whacked-out lawyer is free to throw their client to the wolves?

 

[headscratcher4]

Indeed...the only issue here is whether she had the client's permission/signature necessary to the filing. If she did not, what has the client's preveledged conversation to do with anything?

I suspect she will argue, somehow, that the client was pressured to abandon her case and did so out of fear...so Orley took it upon herself to give the client some back bone. But I think the law doesn't care. If she didn't have permission to make the filings she did, than she should be SOL.

 

[Suddenly]

Is this actually a reasonable request?

I mean, if I hire a lawyer whom I expect to act in my interests, and then the lawyer proceeds to act so unprofessionally that I have to fire her and the court acts to sanction her, it seems rather hard on me, the client, for her to then air my dirty laundry in public in the course of defending her own incompetence.

Or in other words, a merely competent lawyer is expected to look after the interests of their client, but a truly phenomenally whacked-out lawyer is free to throw their client to the wolves?

I guess "reasonable" is a relative measure. Compared to her past stuff, it is quite reasonable, I feel cheated as it lacks the spectacular idiocy of her earlier work. It is flawed to some degree.

She has to get out of the case, I think that is beyond dispute. This is appropriate in these sorts of circumstances with such a meltdown, even when counsel is appointed rather than retained. The problem centers on her apparently believing that somehow being removed allows her to disregard the privilege, and that isn't the standard. You can only disregard the privilege to respond to claims a client has made about privileged matters, a sort of self-defense exemption.

I agree there probably isn't cause to reveal attorney client information to defend the rule 11 sanctions as they exist now as I'm hard pressed to find how it is relevant.

If she is in trouble for making completely lunatic legal claims with no basis in fact, then privileged information is not necessary. If she is in trouble for filing stuff against the wishes of her client based on the disclosure of the client, then any evidence about such permission would be necessary regardless of privilege. This would include conversations involving the agent of the lawyer (secretary, paralegal, investigator, whatever).

As far as I can tell, she is only on the hook for the former.

It appears she promises future delicious nonsense as she seeks to call witnesses in her show cause hearing to, I'm guessing, justify her earlier idiotic positions. So she hasn't gone all normal on us or anything.

 

[Suddenly]

A basic motion to withdraw. Orly botched it and will have to refile. I'm sure the judge wants to see the signed copy. And does she really think the judge will let her call witnesses for a motion to withdraw? Come on.

A more or less typographical mistake. I've done it before when I had a rather hectic practice, but not with something that important or public.

I've called witnesses for a motion to withdraw. It is unusual, but not absurd.

I don't think she is wanting to call witnesses at a motion to withdraw as much as call witnesses at her show cause hearing, and she is trying to address the fact that some of these people might have testimony that would somehow violate the attorney client relationship.

 

[Questioninggeller]

A more or less typographical mistake. I've done it before when I had a rather hectic practice, but not with something that important or public.

With $10,000 on the line and the media watching, you'd think she'd be more careful. Especially when the judge called her incompetent when he threatened sanctions.

I don't think she is wanting to call witnesses at a motion to withdraw as much as call witnesses at her show cause hearing, and she is trying to address the fact that some of these people might have testimony that would somehow violate the attorney client relationship.

Maybe, I read it the other way judging from this past behavior:

...
In a Santa Ana federal courtroom on Sept. 8, Dr. Orly Taitz had a clear message for Judge David O. Carter: Lucas Smith, a witness whom she had brought from the Dominican Republic that morning, had to testify that day—before it was too late.

“The biggest issue we have today is that evidence is disappearing,” said the Laguna Niguel dentist, lawyer and real-estate agent who is attempting to sue President Barack Obama out of office. “We have a number of parties that had evidence, that had knowledge that might be detrimental to the defense, that were found dead. . . . We have the most important, the most crucial witness. We have to be able to work something that they [the U.S. attorney representing Obama] can hear what he says, that you can hear what he says, that there is a record of it. . . . If, God forbid, something happens to this witness, at least we will have his testimony here.”

Carter didn’t oblige. After all, Taitz’s lawsuit against Obama hadn’t even reached the discovery stage, and the defense had been given no notice that she planned to call a witness that day....

Full: Source

 

[headscratcher4]

Between her real estate deals, her dental practice and saving the world from Barak Obama, she's a lot on her plate and technical details are a distraction.