Judge Tells Taitz to Defend Her Lies


Orly Taitz may be in serious trouble with another judge. A federal judge in California has ordered Taitz to show cause why the court should not sanction her for lying when she failed to disclose a libel suit filed against her by a rival birther.

The judge ordered all the parties to the case to “inform the Court immediately of any actions taken on pending ethical, disciplinary, or related matters.” She disclosed only that she has faced a minor sanction over a discovery matter in a previous case. Wrong:

Taitz–who has filed numerous, hilariously nutty lawsuits against Obama and claims the president personally harasses her–is being sued for allegedly making a series of false, defamatory statements about private individuals as well as for planting invasive spy software on the computers of visitors to her various websites.

She failed to disclose this and the judge seems to be kinda pissed off over it.

The Court therefore now ORDERS Taitz to show cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned for lying to this Court.

The judge is obviously part of the grand conspiracy.

Comments

  1. glodson says

    She should be disbarred, if just for her own good. Hell, this is getting to the point where it is less funny and more just sad.

  2. Trebuchet says

    I keep wondering how she got “barred” in the first place. Isn’t her law “degree” from an unaccredited diploma mill? Not to mention that as a lawyer, she’s a pretty good dentist.

  3. glodson says

    @ 2 My wife works with lawyers. So I know a few. Many are as dumb as posts. Taitz just passed the requirements for the California State Bar. As far as I know, you don’t really need a law degree from an accredited source. Just pass the Bar exam, and meet the general requirements. Having a law degree from a correspondence only university seems to work. At least it did in 2002 when she was admitted into the CA State Bar.

  4. Sastra says

    People keep thinking that intelligent = smart. That is obviously just not true. Many people of high intelligence believe in stupid things, do dumb things, and promote dumbness. And there are many people with low IQs who are cautious, reasonable, and right.

    Being smart is probably more closely related to being “wise” than it is to being able to quickly and efficiently perform the sorts of cognitive tasks found on intelligence tests. Orly Taitz may be clever enough to become a lawyer … but she lacks wisdom. To put it mildly.

  5. says

    Ah, this is probably an endless source of amusement if you could stand wading through all the lunatic filings. You see, it’s the libel action by the other birther lawyer, Philip J. Berg, against Orly. It was originally filed 03/29/2011 and is now up to almost 600 filings of papers, motions, rulings, etc. The Judge is less than pleased. In his order leading up to the possibvle sanction, he says:

    This case has wasted huge amounts of time, but very little time has been focused on the substance of the actual dispute at issue. Instead, both sides have expended incredible amounts of time calling each other names and fighting over peripheral issues. …

    As the hearing came to an end on a very busy law and motion day with many attorneys in the Court on many other matters, Attorney Taitz said that she wished to speak. In the past, this has resulted in extensive speeches attacking a variety of people and not focusing on the matters at hand or the substance of this dispute. Before allowing Attorney Taitz to take time away from the many other pressing matters before the Court, the Court simply asked that she begin by stating what action she was seeking from the Court. Since Attorney Taitz has sought and obtained a stay of actions against her, the Court believes that she should be limited in seeking actions against others while the stay is in effect. Despite receiving multiple opportunities to simply begin by stating what she was seeking, Attorney Taitz was unable to do so and then acted extremely unprofessionally in this Court of the United States of America by rolling her eyes and exhibiting gestures of contempt.

    Oooh, not good! No judge likes that and Federal judges are less tolerant than state judges in that regard. That’s when the judge ordered all parties (he’s mad at Berg too) to reveal any prior disciplinary actions against them with a view towards imposing sanctions here or increasing them is anyone is a multiple “offender.” I’m pretty sure the prior sanction that Orly received from the Federal judge in Georgia is what is now the subject of the judge’s ire. Orly apparently claimed it was a “minor” discovery matter when, in fact, she was sanctioned $20,000 for filing multiple frivilous motions.

    I think Orly is cruising for an even bigger bruising here.

  6. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    My wife works with lawyers. So I know a few. Many are as dumb as posts

    I work with them too and this is 100% accurate. They can’t write a sentence, mail a letter, use the internet for anything but Westlaw, etc. They’re needier than infants.

  7. says

    I think the only reason to continue to post about her is to ensure the world that she hasn’t been sent to a “death camp”.

    Other than that — I lost interest in her years ago. I think she’s pathetic and in serious need of a hobby. Like knitting or stamp collecting. Some quiet, nonpublic activity.

  8. Moggie says

    Sastra:

    People keep thinking that intelligent = smart. That is obviously just not true.

    Anyone who has worked in university IT support will be nodding vigorously at this point. Believe me, professor + computer + printer = pile of dumb.

  9. says

    Moggie, to be fair, that printer up on three is pretty haywire. That’s a photocopier? Oh. I have no photos. Is there a textcopier in this building, or do I have to take a picture of this document and put that in the photocopier?

  10. Doug Little says

    She should be disbarred

    Yeah but that would then feed her martyrdom complex. Just keep slapping her with fines.

  11. Brain Hertz says

    The Court therefore now ORDERS Taitz to show cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned for lying to this Court.

    Holy shit. That’s stronger language than I’ve ever seen from a judge (and I read a lot of orders). Orly’s in some serious trouble here (and not before time).

  12. says

    Somehow, this woman has managed to get licenses to practice not just the law, but also dentistry and real estate. How? I have no idea. She is clearly crazier than a shithouse rat and doesn’t seem to understand even the basics of courtroom procedures.

    I really have to feel sorry for the judge who has to deal with both her and Berg. No one should have to endure that much narcissistic crazy at work. It makes me want to send him a fruit basket or something.

  13. says

    It makes me want to send him a fruit basket or something.

    Don’t forget the judge’s poor law secretary, who actually has to read the stuff Taitz and Berg are generating. The judge has (mostly) only to deal with them in court but the law secretary has to slog through all the batshit crazy crap they write.

  14. says

    While they’re at it, why don’t the courts just issue a warrant to seize all of the servers that host all her malware?

    This is one of very few chances we get to target a known source of malware — why aren’t we jumping on it?

  15. anubisprime says

    Question is can she be disbarred from the law bench for lying in a court of law…as the Judge seems to conclude she is?

  16. baal says

    Um, not usually Anubisprime. You need a complaint to the State’s board and she has to be violating that State’s lawyer ethics rules. Lawyers ethics may or may not cover they type of crazy Orly exhibits.

    OTOH, I’m hoping this judge gives her jail time. He can do that.

  17. whheydt says

    Wasn’t it a “show cause” order–to show why she shouldn’t be sanctioned to pay $10K–that got her sanctioned to pay $20K?

    As for getting her disbarred…IIRC, that would be done by the Calif. Bar Assn., or–failing that–by the California court system, though I dare say the Bar Assn. would take a disbarment recommendation from a Federal Judge pretty seriously. If they blew off the judge, he might want to see the officers of the Bar Assn. in his court explaining why the didn’t take his recommendation seriously…

  18. chilidog99 says

    The case where Orly lied to the judge about the sanctions is the one where she is attempting to sue Occidental College for the Presidents’s records. She was sanctioned for abuse of process.

    She is appealing the sanctions, and the court recently denied her appeal with the following notation posted to the electronic docket.

    Order Filed: On January 15, 2013, this court filed an order dismissing the instant appeal because of appellant’s failure to designate the record on appeal and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement, after notice that appellant was in default. On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion is defective for the following reasons, among others: 1) The motion purports to include appellant’s notice designating the record on appeal but the notice is internally inconsistent in that appellant has failed to indicate which of the alternative methods she elects to use for the record on appeal. Instead, appellant has checked each of the three alternative forms: a clerk’s transcript under rule 8.122, an appendix under rule 8.124 and the original superior court file under rule 8.128. Much of the remainder of the document, which consists of handwritten notations, is illegible. 2) The motion purports to include appellant’s Case Information Statement, but the Case Information Statement is incomplete. Appellant has failed to complete section A regarding Appealability, section C regarding Bankruptcy or Other Stay, and section E regarding Service Requirements. 3) Appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal does not contain a proper proof of service. The clerk of this court is directed to include with this order a copy of Judicial Council Form APP-009-INFO “Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal).” Specifically, appellant’s proof of service by mail on all court documents must include a statement, made under penalty of perjury, by the person doing the serving (who is not a party). Among other requirements, the proof of service also must state the name of the document being served, the server’s home or business address, and the city and state from which the document is being mailed. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court on February 14, 2013, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).)

  19. chilidog99 says

    #Baal “OTOH, I’m hoping this judge gives her jail time. He can do that.”

    WhileI agree with the sentiment, that would just fuel her paranoia to a higher pitch.

    OTOH, maybe that would be an incentive for Yosi to finally get her the counseling she so badly needs.

  20. says

    chillidog @ 18

    The case where Orly lied to the judge about the sanctions is the one where she is attempting to sue Occidental College for the Presidents’s records. She was sanctioned for abuse of process.

    I only remembered that one after I posted about the sanctions she got in Georgia (which, as far as I know, are no longer “pending” — which is what was stipulated in the order — since SCOTUS turned down her emergency appeal and her motion to have handwriting and and computer experts determine if Justice Thomas really signed the order denying it!).

    Still, I hope the judge is also informed of the $20,000 sanctions and all her shenanigans in that case, since I’m guessing it will not improve his attitude toward Orly any.

  21. says

    P.S. It’s clear that the judge is not getting the straight truth from the parties (surprise! surprise!), since his original order stated “It was reported that Attorney Taitz is subject to disciplinary proceedings in the Ninth Circuit for alleged misrepresentations concerning Attorney Berg’s disciplinary status,” which the Occidental case did not involve (or, at least, should not have involved).

    Then again, “garbled” would be a good result of any account these loons might give.

Leave a Reply