Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Rhodes v MacDonald’

Orly goes double or nothing

October 21st, 2009 2 comments
Unrepentant Orly Taitz

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

In a desperate gamble against incredible odds, crusading nobot lawyer, Orly Taitz, already rejected by her client, presses on by filing an appeal of her $20,000 sanction by federal judge Clay Land in Georgia.

Having her lawsuit, Rhodes v. MacDonald, identified as “frivolous”, the unrepentant Taitz is now filing a frivolous appeal with the Circuit court  of appeals. Perhaps mail order lawyer Taitz is unaware that not only are there rules against filing frivolous lawsuits, there are also rules against filing frivolous appeals.

RULE 38. Frivolous Appeals–Damages and Costs

If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

Uh-oh.

What is her argument? Bias by the judge. What is the proof the judge was biased? He didn’t rule her way. She actually wrote:

…the court proved its pervasively  extreme and outrageous (extrajudicial) prejudice and bias against the undersigned [yes, she remembered to sign it] counsel by not only denying her Motion to Recuse but also her Motion for Extension of Time to Respond… [citations omitted, emphasis in original]

And here it is, the whole notice for your r0tten vegetable throwing pleasure:

RHODES v MacDONALD – 29 – NOTICE OF APPEAL – Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.29.0 by Jack Ryan

Georgia attorney calls Orly Taitz “nuts”

October 13th, 2009 3 comments
Taitz with fake birth certificate

Taitz with fake birth certificate in Columbus, GA

In an article in the Columbus Georgia Ledger-Enquirer newspaper, local lawyer William Mason called Orly Taitz “nuts”.

“She’s nuts,” Mason said. “Based on what I saw and read, she’s nuts.” … “First of all, a lawyer has an ethical duty not to advance an argument that either you know is not true or you do not have an honest basis to argue,” Martin said. “She’s the type of person who gives lawyers a bad name.”

That reminds me of what attorney and CNN legal affairs consultant Jeffrey Toobin said about an earlier round of birther lawsuits, way back in 2008: “whack-job”, “total bull”.

The Ledger-Enquirer has had some great coverage of the Rhodes v MacDonald lawsuit in their home town.

Taitz hit with THIRD CA Bar complaint

October 13th, 2009 No comments
GA Federal Court

GA Federal Court

Christmas came early this year for the Obots. In a 43-page order, Judge Land in Georgia raked birther lawyer Orly Taitz over the coals. But not only did he excoriate her and sanction her, he included the following cherry on top of the Obot ice cream sundae:

The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.

Court to California Bar: You have a problem. Deal with it!

Judge spanks naughty lawyer

October 13th, 2009 No comments
Unrepentant Orly Taitz

Unrepentant Orly Taitz

Oh dear, poor little Orly. The big bad old judge has sanctioned you to the tune of $20,000. But think of it as a learning experience. You really have to learn some respect for the legal profession that you are trying to be a part of.

Read federal Judge Land’s scathing order here. The judge called your contentions “laughable”, your claims “frivolous” and your allegations “fictitious”!

You have 30 days to pay up the $20,000. Better get filling those teeth because I don’t think you have any future in the legal field.

Orly lies in court…

October 2nd, 2009 No comments

…and I don’t mean that she took a nap.

Y’all know that miz Orly has two o’dem law suits a’goin’ on. But she done file thangs in one dat don’ say whut it say in de udder. I give a big ole thank’e to PolitiJab.com wh’r I done stole dis.

In dis’un she be a’arguin’ dat the judge gib her standin’ and in de udder she say he didn’. Land o’ mercy. A Christian woman aughtn’t a’lie like dat.

Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing (and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)
Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standingof the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing(and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)

How to choose a dentist

September 19th, 2009 3 comments

Would you go to a dentist who had never filled a tooth before? How about a dentist that was supposed to pull one tooth, but decided on their own, and without asking you, to pull out another one?

That’s a good comparison to Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.

Under questioning by Texas judge Burt Carnes (Brockhausen v. Andrade) Orly Taitz admitted that she has never tried a case. Then in Georgia, after sanctions were threatened, Orly filed a motion to reconsider without considering the risk she was putting her client in!

Here’s what Orly’s client, Connie Rhodes, said:

Please withdraw the motion to stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and I do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I had not seen it on the late news Thursday before going to board my plane to Iraq…

Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

While she has never tried a case, she certainly has lots of experience having them dismissed.