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

[LONGTABBER PE]

She should be disbarred, plain and simple. Not because she's a nutcase (which she is), but because she is bringing clearly frivolous lawsuits and making a mockery of the judicial system.

If that were all it took, this country would have about 50% less lawyers than it does now.

 

[skeptical]

If that were all it took, this country would have about 50% less lawyers than it does now.

*Exactly.

*Disclaimer: I have a law degree and have passed the bar but am not yet practicing

 

[themusicteacher]

She should be disbarred, plain and simple. Not because she's a nutcase (which she is), but because she is bringing clearly frivolous lawsuits and making a mockery of the judicial system.

Well, wouldn't it fall more under the jurisdiction of "malpractice?" She is intentionally filing suits in which she knows the evidence to be baseless or fabricated. Just because she believes the "evidence" to be true does is not sufficient to prove that she is practicing the law in an honest and ethical manner. If nothing else, Taitz makes me a believer in the notion that even women can be douchebags. There is a certain four letter word that begins with c and is reserved for the most vile, intensely contemptible women. Orly Taitz, you are one of those women. The few, the detestable, the c***'s.

 

[themusicteacher]

*Exactly.

*Disclaimer: I have a law degree and have passed the bar but am not yet practicing

*Disclaimer: my father-in-law and brother-in-law are both lawyers.

Both of them hate the types of lawyers who give the profession a bad name but I don't know if they think there should be fewer of them due to incompetence. I know that my profession (education) needs better teachers, not fewer of them.

 

[dudalb]

She should be disbarred, plain and simple. Not because she's a nutcase (which she is), but because she is bringing clearly frivolous lawsuits and making a mockery of the judicial system.

And we need to tighten up on who we commision in the US Army as well.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, wouldn't it fall more under the jurisdiction of "malpractice?" She is intentionally filing suits in which she knows the evidence to be baseless or fabricated. Just because she believes the "evidence" to be true does is not sufficient to prove that she is practicing the law in an honest and ethical manner. If nothing else, Taitz makes me a believer in the notion that even women can be douchebags. There is a certain four letter word that begins with c and is reserved for the most vile, intensely contemptible women. Orly Taitz, you are one of those women. The few, the detestable, the c***'s.

Heres the problem with that ( even tho I personally agree with you that it SHOULD fall under some form of censure)

Lawyers,( civil or criminal) arent required to validate everything and "test" it for absolute factual accuracy before going to a court. ( the court is the tryer of fact- not either side in a case)

To require them to do so would be the same thing as having a trial before the trial.

Lawyers also typically argue theory and interpretation as well ( more gray area)

Granted, this is an extreme example ( if you read it- it really is stupid) but if the question is "should a lawyer be allowed to bring a case that appears to be frivolous" and let the court decide- they should ( to a large degree)

 

[linusrichard]

Well, wouldn't it fall more under the jurisdiction of "malpractice?"

Malpractice is the suit that the client brings against the lawyer, and the client will prevail if she can show that she was harmed by her lawyer's negligence or misconduct (e.g., that she would have won her case if the lawyer hadn't screwed up in a way that an ordinary lawyer wouldn't have). (Cliffs Notes version). No lawyer could have won this case, and the client is probably no worse off than she was before; malpractice does not appear to lie.

(this is not legal advice)

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

And we need to tighten up on who we commision in the US Army as well.

Thats a little more difficult and would be tantamount to almost be able to predict the future.

I've seen soldiers ( officers and enlisted) try to duck deployments in every action I have ever been in. I dont like it, I dont excuse them but I do understand what happens and why.

Its a very intimidating thing the moment you read your orders and that "realization" comes over you that this is WAR and I might just DIE.

You can train for it, prepare for it and believe you know what you will do in the event- none of it adequately prepares you for "that moment" of realization.

Same thing with your first taste of enemy fire. ( and your second, third, forth and so on)

Most overcome it and drive on- some lose it entirely.

Shouldnt get her out of it tho- she knew the risk when her employer was the US Army. Time for her to head em up and move em out.

She too can learn to live on a FOB like the rest of us

 

[Chaos]

If that were all it took, this country would have about 50% less lawyers than it does now.

You make that sound like it´s a bad thing.

Malpractice is the suit that the client brings against the lawyer, and the client will prevail if she can show that she was harmed by her lawyer's negligence or misconduct (e.g., that she would have won her case if the lawyer hadn't screwed up in a way that an ordinary lawyer wouldn't have). (Cliffs Notes version). No lawyer could have won this case, and the client is probably no worse off than she was before; malpractice does not appear to lie.

(this is not legal advice)

"Probably no worse off"? Are you KIDDING? She´s the laughing stock of the Western world, or at least of the sane parts of the Western world, which admittedly seems to exclude a significant part of the US.

 

[linusrichard]

You make that sound like it´s a bad thing.

Looking around at all my unemployed lawyer friends, I can tell you, I don't think it would be a bad thing. I think it would be an awesome thing.

"Probably no worse off"? Are you KIDDING? She´s the laughing stock of the Western world, or at least of the sane parts of the Western world, which admittedly seems to exclude a significant part of the US.

I doubt it. I don't even know her name, and I'm posting in this thread. Christine something?

(Seriously though, I don't think that's exactly a legally cognizable injury.)

(this is not legal advice)

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

You make that sound like it´s a bad thing.



"Probably no worse off"? Are you KIDDING? She´s the laughing stock of the Western world, or at least of the sane parts of the Western world, which admittedly seems to exclude a significant part of the US.

Well ( attempting to look at the positive) one thing that should come of this- hopefully she put the question to rest.

I know the CT types will never accept it ( "they" who work for "them" control the court and silenced the truth) but it has shown there is no factual support for it and it proves that she had no actual legitimate information regarding it.

 

[oldhat]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/orly_complaint.php?ref=fpblg

Things just keeping getting worse for Queen Birther Orly Taitz. Yesterday, a federal judge not only threw out her latest "birther soldier" lawsuit, but also took the time to demolish Birtherism generally and threaten Taitz with sanctions if she files more frivolous suits.

Now, in response to Taitz's comments to TPM calling the judge corrupt and suggesting he should be tried for treason, a fellow member of the California bar has filed a formal complaint against Taitz.

"I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz's conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession," writes Subodh Chandra, who practices in Ohio and is also an inactive member of the California bar.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

She still has her lawsuit going here in Orange County and an apparently sympathetic judge:

Carter's got an interesting act going on. He appears extremely sympathetic to the idea that the question of Barack Obama's legitimacy needs to be examined in court. Time and again, he said he want to eventually hear the case on its merits, and even went ahead and set a whole slew of dates into early 2010 for the hypothetical future trial. He stressed that he was taking steps to speed up the process. But, he said, the case had already been swamped in a "procedural quagmire" of Taitz's own making.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/naranja-news/orlys-day-in-court/

 

[linusrichard]

She still has her lawsuit going here in Orange County and an apparently sympathetic judge:



http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/naranja-news/orlys-day-in-court/

Sympathetic, or setting her up for a big fall? I would love to actually see her attempting to try this case. As long as Judge Carter has a passing familiarity with the rules of evidence, I don't see it going at all well for Dr. Taitz.

ETA:
From the article:

Carter, very much taking the tone of a teacher scolding children, called a 15-minute recess and told Taitz and Kreep to work it out. When court resumed, Taitz lit into Kreep with a litany of ways that she said he had botched the suit against Obama. Carter wasn't pleased. "I think what I'm going to do is force you two together [in one lawsuit]," Carter said. "I don't know if I can legally do this, you can take it to the 9th Circuit if you like and delay it longer." He then made the two bickering lawyers move their chairs next to one another. "I'm very visual," he said. "I need to see you two as one."

Beautiful.

 

[Vorticity]

On page 11 of the ruling, Judge Land makes a good point.

It's not all fun and games:

Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the President's legitimacy as Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff's place. Similarly, the doctor who Plaintiff is being sent to relieve and who has likely been there for months would be delayed in receiving his well deserved leave because his replacement seeks special treatment due to her political views or reservations about being placed in harm's way.

 

[Alareth]

At which point she'll claim that there is a conspiracy to silence her.

Has Orly met Jack Thompson?

They would be great together.

 

[Alareth]

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3445575

 

[headscratcher4]

She may get hit with a $10K fine...

from Salon:

Judge ready to slap Orly Taitz with $10,000 fine
Orly Taitz, one of the leaders of the Birther movement, may have finally crossed one too many lines. The courts will, after all, overlook the occasional frivolous lawsuit, even when filed by an attorney who can't get basic procedural issues right -- just the cost of doing business. But even a federal judge has a breaking point, and Clay Land appears to have reached his.

Earlier this week, Land dismissed a suit that Taitz had brought on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, a surgeon who claimed that she couldn't follow her orders to deploy to Iraq because she's not sure President Obama is eligible, under the Constitution, to hold his current position. At the time, Land warned Taitz that if she filed any more "similarly frivolous ... actions in this Court" she'd face sanctions.

Taitz, of course, didn't seem to listen. Instead, she filed an angry motion asking Land to reconsider his decision and stay Rhodes' deployment. Apparently unaware of that old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar (not true, incidentally, but that's an issue for another time), Taitz essentially accused the judge of committing treason. And, referring to the U.S. District Court on which Land serves, she wrote, "there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly (sic) likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary."

For some reason, Land wasn't especially happy about this.

In an order issued Friday, Land denied Taitz's request and announced that he was considering making good on his threat of sanctions. He ordered the attorney-slash-dentist "to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct," and gave her 14 days to do so.

Land also took a swipe at Taitz's performance as an attorney, writing at one point that "competent counsel would have understood" one part of the law that was at issue. The implication was obvious.

 

[Suddenly]

Taitz, of course, didn't seem to listen.

At this point, this might be the smart move. She's likely done as an attorney, why not go out in a blaze of indignant glory, get disbarred, maybe even do some time for criminal contempt, become some sort of nutter martyr (disbarred for telling THE TRUTH!!!) and end up on the nutter lecture circuit.

 

[timhau]

At this point, this might be the smart move. She's likely done as an attorney, why not go out in a blaze of indignant glory, get disbarred, maybe even do some time for criminal contempt, become some sort of nutter martyr (disbarred for telling THE TRUTH!!!) and end up on the nutter lecture circuit.

That might also be the move she makes, not because it's a smart move but because she's ing nuts.