Well, our girl Orly is down to the wire on having to choke up the $20,000 fine she was slapped with for her courtroom incompetence and has fired off a brief to Justice Clarence Thomas. My guess would be she chose Thomas specifically because of this C-Span clip where Thomas makes a crack about citizenship status.
Maybe she considers Thomas an ally in her quest because of this remark that went viral in the Birferverse, but sounded more like a mocking crack to me. In any case, she’s gone “typical Orly” in her brief.
ORLY TAITZ APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION RE: SANCTIONS
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Orly was running the globe claiming to be a “Constitutional Attorney”, (with an online correspondence degree from an unaccredited law school). Now she’s a “Civil rights” attorney? (With an online correspondence degree from an unaccredited law school.)
Maybe she’s confused. She’s been clamoring since the beginning that this whole eligibility thing is a “Constitutional” issue, yet in question #1 she asks:
“Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?”
You have to love question #8.
“What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?”
Wouldn’t one assume that a real “Constitutional Attorney” would know the answer to that?
And then she’s off, accusing Judge Land of intimidation, slander, and pulling a “legal hit job” on her. Followed of course by her same ole same ole debunked so-called “evidence” in what she refers to as “the most important case today and possibly most important in US history”. (Right, birfer wet dreams again!)
I can’t believe that she is STILL trying to use as evidence the case of Stefan Cook, when that was proven to be a complete fraud. Cook being a reservist conspired with Orly and “volunteered” to go to Afghanistan solely so he could turn around and file that fraudulent complaint to have the orders revoked. And Connie Rhodes who fucking fired her and filed this complaint with the court and the California Bar:
RHODES v MacDONALD - 18 - Letter from plaintiff Connie Rhodes regarding withdrawal of motion to stay - Gov....
What a total dip shit! Most of her other “clients” were nothing but a collection of frauds, forgers and felons.
Here’s some prime Orly “legal logic”:
“Let’s imagine for a moment that someone, a janitor, decides to play a prank. He puts on a black robe and sits on the bench and signs an order for an officer to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, let’s say he signs such order when judge Land is on a bathroom brake. Say, such officer brings a complaint, that the order was illegal. Does it mean, that if the order seems to be legal on it’s face, it is actually legal, regardless of whether the person, who signed it, is actually a judge or a janitor playing a prank? Does an attorney for such officer supposed to be sanctioned $20,000 for merely bringing the claim to court and asking to evaluate it’s validity?”
Ah Ha! We get to the bottom line!
“Sanctions assessed by Land constitute an irreparable harm to Taitz. Land not only assessed sanctions against Taitz and verbally assaulted and insulted her, but he also submitted his order to the CA bar with the clear intent to undermine her law license and take her livelihood away from her. If sanctions are not stayed and reversed, there will be an irreparable harm to the professional license of Taitz and her ability to earn livelihood.”
“Since Land has forwarded his order to the CA bar, there can be irreparable harm in the form of negative sanctions against her license.”
Could it be that when she was summoned before the Bar earlier this year, she was given a last chance? One last chance to appeal the sanctions before they yank her law license all together?
Orly Taitz flatly accuses Judge Land of slandering her, assaulting her character and insulting her with personal attacks. Yet she turns around and accuses him, a federal judge of being guilty of misprision of multiple felonies, aiding and abetting, violation of judicial ethics, abuse of judicial discretion, intimidation, corruption, and an entire gamut of other slanderous charges.
As an attorney, (correspondence school or not) she is supposed to conduct herself as an officer of the court. Is slandering a federal judge what she considers “conduct becoming an officer of the court”?
The California Bar is going to love this!