Orly Taitz, Master Attorney

[kpete]

more brilliance:
http://www.scribd.com/full/21189922?access_key=key-h7ylxmldbo3bs6cpk3m
http://washingtonindependent.com/64200/orly-taitz-master-attorney#more-64200

[Blue-Jay]

1. She's a never-ending source of hilarity.

The gift that keeps on giving.

[roguevalley]

24. that is real? BWAHAHAHAHA!

[TexasObserver]

2. Even so, the judge should shut the fuck up and let her make her argument.

It's common practice to refer to dead jurists, lawyers, or orators, whether Lincoln, or Barbara Jordan, or someone else, so I see no basis for the judge's inference or interruption. After all, she had just referred to Brown v. the Board of Education, the case that struck down "separate but equal," a case whose prevailing attorney was ... Thurgood Marshall.

She's nuts and incompetent, so let's pillory her over that. She was probably about to make a really idiotic point, and that would have been the thing to ridicule, IMHO.

[geckosfeet]

4. In the context of previous statements, what the judge said probably made sense.

Otherwise you are right - he should have let her continue.

[TexasObserver]

5. It's just rude and unnecessary for a judge to interrupt counsel during argument.

If they truly need to get some piece of info or didn't quite hear a reference, that's the time to interrupt. But to heckle? That's not showing a judicial temperment. A judge should always remain above the fray, always making fair decisions and not engaging in any trash talking of either side, unless they are responding to a direct attack on the court, which wasn't taking place in this quoted passage.

By making one snide remark, a judge can influence a jury (although there is no jury in this matter, the public and media are the "jury" in these Oily Taint cases).

I say let her make her dumb statements, then attack the dumb parts, of which there will be many. She may have had a decent point regarding what Thurgood Marshall might say, based upon his Brown v. Board appearance before the Supreme Court. I've never seen her make a real law point, so I'd love to see her get one right.

She's going to be disbarred soon enough, and like Nixon, we'll miss her kicking her when she's gone.

[yellowcanine]

8. Have you ever listened to SCOTUS oral arguments? The justices interrupt all of the time.

It is standard legal practice. There is no point in letting someone go on and on when most of their premises are faulty as is the case with Orly. I will say that in this instance it was a picky point, but otoh the judge may have been tired of Orly's inane arguments.

[TexasObserver]

22. Have you ever appeared in federal court to argue a motion? This is a trial court.

I've argued motions and appeals and tried cases in federal court for thirty years. This is a trial court, not the Supreme Court. While trial judges can and do limit argument and interrupt attorneys making oral argument, this was an instance of taunting by the judge.

It is NOT standard legal practice for trial judges, even federal judges, to interrupt counsel during a legal argument and taunt them. They certainly interrupt to get information they need, or to foreclose a line of argument they don't need to hear, but that's instructive and not taunting. Telling counsel someone they've mentioned is dead is a non sequitur. It has no bearing on the analogy she was drawing. The judge's conduct was unprofessional when he made that comment.

An appeals court is a much different venue than a trial court. The issues are narrowly defined on appeal. The court has everyone's brief and the record. The judges have had the issues thoroughly briefed by their clerks as well as the litigants. They are down to a few narrow issues and questions, and the appellate judges want to cut to the chase. That isn't what the trial judge did. He interrupted to say that Thurgood Marshall is dead, a statement which has no bearing on the premise that was being argued.

[Bucky]

10. I get where you're coming from. This particular clip (out of context) makes the judge look bad.

If you look at the context--Taitz was arguing that Thurgood Marshall would support her right to bring an entirely ridiculous, entirely pointless and baseless law suit against the president--a precedent that would allow for an unending legalized harassment of the Chief Executive. Marshall stood up to protect ordinary citizens from governmental discrimination, not for the right of citizens to harass the operations of the state.

[TexasObserver]

23. She was making a common argument, by analogy.

She tries to build a parallel between her efforts and those of Thurgood Marshall. Let her try to do so. Let her make her argument.

Our system is built on a simple concept: both sides get to argue their points before what is supposed to be an impartial judge. A judge shouldn't be on the bench if they can't let counsel get through their argument without taunting them, as this judge did. His statement was not anything designed to get clarity. He was heckling.

She's a nut. It's easy to attack her arguments on their face, so why do anything else?

[Hepburn]

18. A federal judge...STFU????

:rofl: What a fucking fantasy!

[Blue-Jay]

3. She's a never-ending source of hilarity.

The gift that keeps on giving.

[tabatha]

6. Hilarious commentary

sdfdsfsd 9 hours ago
Hey I trent1280. Aka I live in a tent I am 12 with my grandman who is 80.
Keep dreaming. this peace of S''t is thrown out of office by next May.
Wanna make a bet on it.

trent1280 9 hours ago
Hey SadieF: I'd be delighted to reply, but your sub-literate English makes it impossible to follow your 'argument'. Your spelling is risible, your grammar is a mess, and your syntax is insensible. Are you drunk?

Why do you crackpots have such a difficult time writing a simple declarative sentence?

I suspect it comes down to this: you can't write clearly because you can't think clearly.

You are easy prey to every lunatic of the left or right (it makes no difference) who comes down the pike with the latest conspiracy.

You are led by lawyers who never went to law school. You can't accept the fact that America has elected a black President. Above all, you are poisoned by fear.

Grow up, man. This is America! We live in the sun, unafraid of the dark, and unafraid of you. Reptiles have no place in our politics. Get used to it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. Page 30 is where this conversation begins

I read 10 pages after that..........I pity the judge
http://www.scribd.com/full/21189922?access_key=key-h7ylxmldbo3bs6cpk3m

[Bucky]

11. Is the "Mr. Kreep" they mention on page 4 the right wing nut from California?

Gary Kreep

From TPM:

The guy at the center of the informercial is a California lawyer named Gary Kreep, the head of something called the United States Justice Foundation. But it turns out this is not the first time TPMmuckraker has come across the work of the aptly named Kreep.

Back in March 2008 we found him running a robocall operation called the Republican Majority Campaign, then running a scattershot campaign of robocalls against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The RMC also seemed awfully similar to and had a lot of weird connections to those bogus groups has-been Republican luminary Linda Chavez and her husband had recently been discovered running -- the ones that actually did little to nothing in the way of political work but provided Chavez and her family a steady income.

Another TPM article on Kreep ==> http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/republican_majority_committee.php

[Adelante]

13. Same right wing nut

He's not *quite* as nuts as Taitz, however. He functions in society.

[Hepburn]

19. What is scary?

He is one lousy attorney ~~ but the transcript of the 10-05 hearing shows him to be 100 X the atty Orly is!

Unbelievable!

[Forkboy]

9. I'd rec this a 100 times if I could.

She is gold, Jerry! GOLD!!

[Iggo]

12. That's a good read.

I'm a little over 40 pages in, and I'm fascinated. Surprisingly (to me, anyway) it's not that difficult to follow.

[Catshrink]

14. Link to a post of links

This thread has been archived but has a ton of links to her and Judge Land's motions/decisions in the Rhodes case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8700980

[Bucky]

15. A summary of Orly Taitz's arguments from the transcript

The judge questioned first the defendants on the motion to toss out the silly law suit--they argued that Obama's qualifications are a political question and that the Constitution invests Congress with the "sole power" to impeach and remove the president and thus Taitz's clients have no standing for this suit.

on page 19 the judge turns the lectern over to Taitz. She argues first that Congress may not have standing to impeach Obama if his birth certificate is a forgery because he's not actually the president. No, really, that's what she argues. Despite the inauguration, if the court finds he doesn't qualify the "citizen since birth" requirement, then Congress can't impeach him on any grounds or for any malfeasance of office whatsoever; he's not really impeachable if he's not really president. :rofl: She blows her own case out of the water with the first twenty words out of her mouth.

On page 20 she states then the proper procedure is that bench issue a quo warrento order, ignoring the fact that in her own brief to the court she had conceded that only the DC federal benches can issue quo warrento papers.

on page 21 the judge asks her to explain her clients' standing to bring the suit and she responds "Absolutely, you honor... Well, before I go into standing, I want to kind of go straight for the jugular..."

No, dear, when the judge says to explain an argument to him, you explain the argument to him. "Go for the jugular" indeed.

On page 22 she explains why trying to remove the president from office isn't a "political" question--yet somehow manages to slip into her remarks her concerns about "whether we should adopt healthcare."

On page 23 she argues that hers will be the first case dismissed on the question of standing for the plaintiff, since all the other cranks who've brought lawsuits against the presidency in the past have been dismissed on technicalities--meaning they were only filed by idiots in the past. She argues that since the last case was dismissed on technicalities, this, in fact, "shows the whole world there is a serious problem with legitimacy of Mr. Obama."

Huh?

Essentially she's arguing that because past cases were dismissed on bad lawyering, it naturally proves that there's no lack of merit of the case against Obama's legitimacy itself.

:banghead:

On page 25-26 the judge expressed concerned that Taitz's clients, as military personnel, would consider not following orders based solely on who the president of the United States is.

Next the judge pointed out that most of her clients were retired or not on active duty, thus lacking the imminent threat of harm required for standing in this suit. That's when Taitz stated that Constitutional rights don't have to face imminent threat... leading to judge, in exasperation, pointing out that Thurgood Marshall is dead.

The judge was putting up with a lot of mindless bullshit from Taitz. That's why he got sarcastic with her. Judges apparently don't like bullshit.

[Hepburn]

17. I could not believe that Orly Idiot put on her blog in regard to pending litigation...

...a request for her supporters to TELEPHONE THE FUCKING COURT TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE COURT'S DECISION!!!!

:wow:

The judge told her that all the calls on the court answer phone were being deleted, he did not listen to them, and he asked her to knock it off.

He HAD TO ask an attorney to stop requesting persons to make contact with the court on an issue pending before it????

OMFG....!!!!!

[blondeatlast]

26. Uh--

:wow:

Monumentally ignorant.

[backscatter712]

16. Orly Taitz, Suuuuuuper Geeeenius!

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. So, when does she get to the part

where she suddenly remembers that the tunnel is only painted on the cliff wall?

[tammywammy]

20. Palin/Bachmann 2012! Orly for AG! n/t

[roguevalley]

27. I read the whole thing. That judge is a mensch.

[Libertas1776]

25. I am so tired

of hearing about this Whorely Taitz woman. Why can't she do us all a favor and take a long walk off a short pier.