Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Orly Taitz, Inching Her Way To Disbarment

She apparently has her drawers in a big knot over the fact that Justice Thomas did not personally sign the order denying her plea for “emergency stay” of the sanctions against her by Judge Land. On her website she posted:

“According to the clerks office: there is no order signed by justice Thomas
Posted on July 26, 2010
Today, 07.26.10 at 8:15 PST/11:15 EST I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States, with an employee of the Clerks office by name Eric Fossum. I requested a copy of the order actually signed by Justice Thomas, denyng my application for stay of sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald #10A56. Mr. Eric Fossum admitted that there is no order actually signed by Justice Thomas. He stated that it was reviewed by his chambers and denied. Not only they are not even claiming that Justice Thomas ever signed the order to deny my application, now they are not even claiming that he ever saw the application, now they are saying that it was reviewed by his chambers, meaning there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed by Justice Thomas himself. So who reviewed it and denied? A clerk? A piece of furniture in the chambers? This is totally outrageous. This is a complete violation of my constitutional rights for due process and equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment, and it was done under the color of Authority by the employees of the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Followed by:

“I mailed 3 books that included a brief of about 30 pages and exhibits, that included some 270 pages. There was supposed to be an original and 2 copies. The clerk for the stays, Danny Bickel, was supposed to log it and forward it to Justice Thomas. After Justice Thomas read the brief, he could do one of 3 things:
1. grant the petition
2. deny the patition
3. forward it to the conference of all 9 Justices.
No matter what he decided, he personally was supposed to sign it either in a separate order or on the cover page of the brief. It was never done, hence there is no evidence that Justice Thomas ever read one single word of what I’ve written. Log of the Supreme court, contains a chronological account of orders issued. I does not contain my case. when I talked to the employee of the clerk’s office Eric Fossum, he was very careful in telling me that my brief was reviewed in Thomas’s chambers. He didn’t say it was reviewed by him. The same thing happened with my recent application for stay, that I filed with the Supreme Court of CA. Response that I got does not contain any signature of the judge or the clerk.
Orly”

Well, I wonder if she ever actually read the original order buy Judge Land; if she had she may understand why it may have been tossed by Justice Thomas’s “Chamber”. I’m sure they read it and they are probably still laughing.

In her plea to Thomas she stated: 

“It was not a case of anything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay D. Land to silence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, an attempt to instill fear in each and every attorney, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US military challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. She is seeking a stay and reversal of sanctions, as well as limited rule 11 discovery, to show that her actions were not frivolous, but rather reasonable and justified, that is not only not frivolous, but is the most important case today and possibly most important in US history, as sanctions were asserted to obfuscate illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama for US presidency. Land’s order can only be characterized as a legal “hit job”.

Actually, it was exactly her “improper” behavior that caused Judge Land to sanction her.

He wrote:

“Instead of arguing pertinent legal authority supporting her position, counsel reverted to “press conference mode,” repeating political “talking points” that did not answer the Court’s questions or address the Court’s concerns. Specifically, counsel was unable to explain why this Court should not abstain from deciding this case based upon well-established precedent, and she was unable to articulate clearly how the alleged “cloud” on the President’s place of birth amounted to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. Rather than address these two important questions, counsel retreated to her political rhetoric. When the Court admonished her for not addressing the legal issues presented by her Complaint, counsel accused the Court of unfairly badgering her and implored the Court to ask Defendants’ counsel questions instead of her. Ms. Taitz’s performance confirmed to the Court that her focus was not to pursue a legitimate legal cause of action to obtain relief for her client but was to use the Court to force the President to produce a “birth certificate” satisfactory to her and her followers. Her other purpose appeared to be to use litigation as a means of drawing attention to her political agenda. During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel threatened that if she did not get the opportunity to obtain the relief she sought (discovery of a birth certificate),then a wave of subsequent similar actions would be filed in this Court until she obtained what she wanted.”

Pretty cut and dried if you ask me. It is blatantly obvious that in every breath Orly takes, and certainly in every “brief” she files regardless of whatever alleged issue she claims to be arguing, her bottom line is Obama, Obama, Obama. I’m sure given her legal competence level, researching actual “facts” about anything is irrelevant, however I have no doubt that even the Supreme Court housekeeping staff would have had enough sense to read Judge Lands order for themselves to see what transpired and not just take Orly’s rants as gospel.

It’s amazing that she still has no friggin clue. Her brief to Justice Thomas was titled “Application for emergency stay and/or injunctions Re; Sanctions”. Now one would assume that that meant she intended to provide evidence that her court conduct did not warrant the sanctions against her. But in reality, (a place she has no concept of) she proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sanctions were indeed justified by continuing the same rants and diatribe that caused the sanctions in the first place.

Judge Land stated:

Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court. Defiantly defending the “position of the patriots,” she scoffs at the notion that a federal court would consider sanctioning her when she is on the side of such freedom fighters as the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a comparison that, if accepted, would disgrace Justice Marshall’s singular achievements. Counsel’s bad faith warrants a substantial sanction.
Counsel’s misconduct was not an isolated event; it was part of a pattern that advanced frivolous arguments and disrespectful personal attacks on the parties and the Court. This pattern infected the entire proceeding, not just an isolated pleading. Her initial Complaint was legally frivolous. Upon being so informed, counsel followed it with a frivolous motion for reconsideration. In response to the Court’s show cause order, she filed a frivolous motion to recuse. In all of counsel’s frivolous filings, she hurled personal insults at the parties and the Court. Rather than assert legitimate legal arguments, counsel chose to accuse the Court of treason and of being controlled by the “Obama Machine.” She had no facts to support her claims–but her diatribe would play well to her choir. This pattern of conduct reveals that it will be difficult to get counsel’s attention. A significant sanction is necessary to deter such conduct.”

Yet she continues the same ole same ole in her plea to Justice Thomas:

“Allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?” This is the most dangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and not having a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.”

And you have to love this bit:

“Actions by Judge Land were akin to Aiding and Abetting Felony and Misprision of felony.”

That is exactly what she accuses EVERYONE of that does not agree with her. She even threw the same shit at Justice Thomas:

“If this court does not reverse such sanctions and does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.”

And she wonders why this raving insanity never made it past Justice Thomas’s Chamber? Contrary to whatever she thinks or believes, legal authorities have verified that Obama is in fact a legal NBC and all of this so called “evidence” of hers is nothing but debunked internet gossip and hearsay for which there IS NO credible evidence. She did nothing to defend her courtroom behavior as being justified, but continued showing her ass and ranting on and on about Obama.

Orly Taitz is a disgrace to the legal profession and I can’t image they will let her continue as a member of the CA Bar for very much longer. She now claims to have re-filed the same plea she sent to Thomas to Justice Alito. And we are still waiting to see what if any response she gets from Chief Justice Roberts on her demands for him to allow her to come to the SC and do her own investigation of their records, systems and staff.

Judge Land was wrong about one thing. He stated in reference to her response that it was “breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional”. The truth is she is way passed the border on being delusional if she thinks for one minute that she is going to get anything out of all this, other than possibly disbarment and a mandatory psyche exam.

4 comments:

  1. I'll believe that Orly is going to be disbarred WHEN she is actually disbarred. Even if she's disbarred, it won't shut her up and she's going to continue to provide us with entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So if the Constitution requires a President be "natural born" per Article II, Section 1- and the only way to determine this is by seeing actual documentation (an original birth certificate- with standard identifiers like a hospital name and physician signature)- how does the public ensure the President conforms to the law, if Obama is permitted to hide all his records from public disclosure? Everyone knows by now that Obama's online COLB doesn't cut it- wouldn't cut it at any DMV. Is Obama above the law because he became President? I don't think that's how things are done in America where we're all supposed to be created equal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry Anonymous, not everyone “knows that Obama’s online COLB doesn’t cut it”, that’s the problem the Birthers have. Legal authorities in the state of Hawaii have seen it and verified it as authentic. The fact that Birthers refuse to believe it is basically their problem. It is a fact that Obama is a NBC and a legitimate POTUS. Why do you think that every single Birther case has been thrown out of court? Because there is some massive conspiracy going on that every legal authority in the country is in on? Figure the odds! And even the 2 parent thing is hogwash, read the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the Constitution say that both parents must be American Citizens, and if you have proof (not hearsay)of something else that no one else knows about, please enlighten us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Birthtards frequently reference the 'full faith and credit clause' in the constitution in their arguments and yet they ignore it when it comes to the COLB the state of Hawaii provided Obama for his campaign. There's no need for all of the other information that they'd like to see on his long form b/c. With stricter privacy laws, it is preferred that the information they'd like to see would be withheld when it comes to any other person desiring a birth certificate. I, for one, do not want anyone knowing the city or hospital I was born in since those are often security questions used to protect online banking and other secure transactions in todays internet world.

    What Obama provided is proof of his US Citizenship. And it wouldn't matter if he were to provide a long form because birthtards wouldn't accept it anyway. That and they are so stupid that they believe he isn't natural born because both parents weren't US citizens.

    As far as I'm concerned, birthers can continue their complaining because it only helps keep right wing nuts out of office.

    ReplyDelete