 |
| (not an actual photo of Orly Taitz ) |
Orly Taitz: the gift that keeps on giving......giggles.
Today the giggles (occasionally guffaws) may have finally wound down. The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the plea of Orly Taitz to overturn the contempt sanction of $20,000 imposed on her by my favorite author ever of legal documents, Judge Clay Land.
Usually these are dry efforts; Judge Land leavened them with not only such clear logic that even a lay person like myself could appreciate the niceties of what the law was that applied, and how it pertained, but also he managed humor and a certain exasperated graciousness under great provocation. I think my favorite parts were where Taitz tried to use an unscientific AOL opinion poll that had very low numbers of participants, complete with transposed numbers, presenting it as (in what passes for her mind) as compelling legal evidence that the American people demanded to see the President's birth certificate, and where Judge Land quoted from "Alice in Wonderland" re Taitz, who is definitely in her own alternate reality from the rest of us (presumably one inhabited by the other birthers).
Usually these are dry efforts; Judge Land leavened them with not only such clear logic that even a lay person like myself could appreciate the niceties of what the law was that applied, and how it pertained, but also he managed humor and a certain exasperated graciousness under great provocation. I think my favorite parts were where Taitz tried to use an unscientific AOL opinion poll that had very low numbers of participants, complete with transposed numbers, presenting it as (in what passes for her mind) as compelling legal evidence that the American people demanded to see the President's birth certificate, and where Judge Land quoted from "Alice in Wonderland" re Taitz, who is definitely in her own alternate reality from the rest of us (presumably one inhabited by the other birthers).
According to the Miami Herald, unlike Judge Land, the SCOTUS did not comment.
Taitz, the poster child for stupid persistence in the face of failure, indicated she would ask the Supreme Court to reconsider. I am not an attorney........but I don't think this is a good idea. So far Orly Taitz has not demonstrated any kind of grasp of practicing law according to the usual conventions, so at least she is consistent.
“If it is denied, I will go to an international court,” Taitz told the Ledger-Enquirer. “I will be filing a proper complaint with the Committee of the Judiciary with the U.S. House.”Which would be a first for Taitz, as she has appeared to be pretty much unable to file anything properly up to now. But we could be surprised, as Taitz does seem to have paid some heed - finally - to the sanctions of Judge Land. She paid the fine in full, and added this comment to her disappointment today (again from the Ledger-Enquirer):
"Taitz said she won’t give the government the satisfaction of taking her property or potentially her law license and would pay the money. She asked for donations on her website and received $13,000 since Aug. 9.I guess this proves that Taitz doesn't mind giving the government the satisfaction of taking the money of other Birthers, to pay for her mistakes. But in the wake of the efforts by the new governor of the state of Hawaii, who knew President Obama's parents as friends at the time he was born, Taitz seems to continue, determined as ever. There is also still the matter of four (or more) complaints to the California Bar; those have yet to be resolved, so far as I know.
Court records show that Taitz paid the sanctions in full."
Thank you ToE, for the heads up on this latest Taitz court decision.
A petition to reconsider, especially on the petition for a writ of certiorari, is virtually NEVER granted. Granting the motion would indicate that the Supreme Court of the US is as unhinged as is Ms. Taitz. While I frequently disagree with many of their rulings, they're not crazy.
ReplyDeleteA complaint to the US House isn't likely to go very far either. What she is hinting at is trying to convince someone in the US House to start an impeachment proceeding, undoubtedly against all 9 members of the SCOTUS. When they finish laughing, the request will be filed into the circular file, never to see the light of day.
Besides providing the SCOTUS with a good chuckle, and no doubt even the Republican dominated House with a strangled guffaw or two at her proposal, don't forget that she plans to share the laughter with the U.N., and other as-yet-unspecified courts with questionable jurisdiction. Not unlike her casually formed, open-field, ad hoc citizens grand juries.
ReplyDeleteI rather doubt that the Republican House is willing to throw out one of the most conservative courts in recent history, thereby permitting presumably President Obama to nominate all 9 replacement members.
Especially as the Democrats still hold a Senate majority, and it is the Senate which provides the advice and consent for their selection.
But given her extraordinary failures to understand the law, perhaps she doesn't understand that either.
Bat bleep crazy.........just hysterically bat bleeping crazy - but funny.
What I don't understand is why Taitz hasn't been disbarred yet. Supposedly with the four separate, well-written complaints against her some time ago, something should have happened by now.
ReplyDeleteI read one comment on an article in one of the California papers, from her part of California, which claimed that she had agreed not to renew her law license, in exchange for not going through disbarment proceedings. But as of 1/10/'11, the California Bar web site shows her still practicing and current.
Another comment suggested that Taitz was evidence that California should raise the proverbial bar for the 'Bar', as only California recognizes the law school which Taitz attended, by correspondence. It is not, apparently, accredited by the ABA.
If Taitz is an example of how their graduates practice law, that is not surprising...
If Ms. Taitz has agreed not to renew her law license, then her license would remain valid until it expired. Generally, they are valid for one year at a time, on the anniversary of one's admission to the bar of that state. Bar exams, (which scarily enough Ms. Taitz appears to have passed) are given usually in February and July, with admission dates usually in April and September. I don't know how California does theirs, however, nor when Ms. Taitz was admitted to the California bar.
ReplyDeleteInternational courts have absolutely zero jurisdictions over US Courts on this type of matter. It might, however, break up what is probably a rather dry and unexciting time if Ms. Taitz tries to file some sort of application with either the International Court of Justice, or with the International Criminal Court at the Haigue.
I suspect Ms. Taitz doesn't grasp jurisdiction. I predict she will try all of these venues, with the cheering support of her birher minions the entire way. There is an awful lot they don't seem to understand any better than Taitz does.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the California bar web site, she was admitted to the bar December 2002. I can't believe that she is going to be allowed to remain active most of 2011, without action on complaints to the bar that are now going on 2 years or more?
That doesn't make sense. But then, I can't confirm that she HAS agreed to not renew her license either.
from the bar web site:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=223433
Inactive would suggest she could resume active at any time; unlike ineligible, or resigned.
Present Active
12/3/2002 Admitted to The State Bar of California