They luv Orly.

According to the 'Orly lover' who posted this thread, he thinks it is "not much sense" and it is an "extra heapin' helpin' of insanity" for her to defend herself from sanctions of $20 grand. It is prudent for her to defend herself.

“According to the ‘Orly lover’ who posted this thread, he thinks it is “not much sense” and it is an “extra heapin’ helpin’ of insanity” for her to defend herself from sanctions of $20 grand. It is prudent for her to defend herself.”

That is an erroneous statement. No one has said she shouldn't defend herself. But the time when it would have been prudent to defend herself from sanctions is when Judge Land gave her the opportunity to explain why she should not be sanctioned. Even if you think you are right, there are ways to respond that as a thinking adult that can mitigate the situation.

Having a tantrum and accusing the judge of treason is not one of those ways. That actually doubled her fine.

Repeating that tantrum for an appeals court is a waste of time and effort.

Repeating that tantrum a third time in a filing to the Supreme Court is nothing more than an ego monument or a lure to get cash from the gullible. It certainly won't get her before the Supreme Court.

There are rules to Court. Every attorney who has ever practiced has had moments when they feel their case is not being properly appreciated. Boo hoo. You're expected to recognize that the rest of the world isn't there to personally validate you and deal with it responsibly. To represent your case responsibly. Taitz has taken the whole thing as a personal insult and responded in a mentally unstable fashion. That's not a defense. It discredits her, her case, and has zero chance of overturning the sanctions imposed.

Of course, maybe she can milk this to get the gullible to cumulatively pay her fine for her via donations. If so, I would at least credit her with understanding this much: “Never give a sucker an even break.”

As was mentioned up the thread a bit, posting history always tells the tale. If someone wants to see what’s going on.

That is an erroneous statement.

It is not erroneous I quoted you by word.

No one has said she shouldn't defend herself.

You said it was "insane" and it doesn't make " not much sense" for her to defend herself.

But the time when it would have been prudent to defend herself from sanctions is when Judge Land gave her the opportunity to explain why she should not be sanctioned.

This is another opportunity to defend herself no matter what her chances are for success.

Even if you think you are right, there are ways to respond that as a thinking adult that can mitigate the situation.

Taitz appears to be doing just that. A few snippets of the Taitz Stay Application.

There are rules to Court. Every attorney who has ever practiced has had moments when they feel their case is not being properly appreciated. Boo hoo.

Well boo hoo right back... Taitz is not rolling over for Land just because a bunch of silly after-Birthers who love to deride her.

“It is not erroneous I quoted you by word.”

You quoted two phrases and then added a conclusion of your own. Our contention is not the straw man you set up—that it is silly for an attorney to defend themselves. Our contention is simply that Orly's briefs are so self-evidently silly they can't possibly accomplish the goal of overturning her sanctions or advancing her case in any way. All they can do at this point is cull cash from the gullible, which is why she's selling autographed copies of something that might as well be burned at the Court steps for all the good it will do her legally.

“You said it was “insane” and it doesn't make “ not much sense” for her to defend herself.”

Again, you meld what you wanted me to say with what I actually did. I said her brief was insane and didn't make much sense. That's not the same as saying some sane attorney couldn't write a brief that would defend their actions.

Of course, again, if she is just using this to cull cash from folks like you, there's a certain, not-particularly-admirable cunning to that.

“This is another opportunity to defend herself no matter what her chances are for success.”

And she's done a ludicrous job of it.

“Taitz appears to be doing just that. A few snippets of the Taitz Stay Application.”

Yes, threatening the Justices that they're felons if they don't give her what she wants is a masterstroke. It's a riff on her previous hit of accusing Land of treason. She's lucky she'll never get a nanosecond in front of the actual Supreme Court, or more sanctions would surely ensue.

“Well boo hoo right back... Taitz is not rolling over for Land just because a bunch of silly after-Birthers who love to deride her.”

It's not a football game. You echo her emotional response of taking every court action personally and seeking personal vindication. That's folly.

BecJul, huh?

Say whatever you want about my posting on this subject, but at least I'm not lugging around a Photobucket page full of it. And, as honored as I am to be item 3 of 120, I really don't think I'm worthy of the Top 10, let alone the Top 5 (just kidding). But I do kind of like the Tired Old Clown bit, even if it is a pretty obvious play.

Have a nice weekend. Really.

You quoted two phrases and then added a conclusion of your own. Our contention is not the straw man you set up—that it is silly for an attorney to defend themselves.

Your complete post and first post on this thread.

"Not much sense, but lots of chutzpah.

Orly has appealed her sanctions to the U.S. Supreme Court in a brief that has to be read to be believed. It's Orly's greatest hits, with an extra heapin' helpin' of insanity. "

"Not much sense, but lots of chutzpah."

It is obvious here that you are referring to Taitz's filing this stay to SCOTUS. It still would not have mattered to you if it was written by another attorney as you would have said the same thing or a similar derision. I've seen enough of your postings to know.

"Orly has appealed her sanctions to the U.S. Supreme Court in a brief that has to be read to be believed. It's Orly's greatest hits, with an extra heapin' helpin' of insanity. "

The only insanity here is you changing the meaning of what "is" is. Calling her Application with SCOTUS an "insanity" is a silly exaggeration.

Our contention is simply that Orly's briefs are so self-evidently silly they can't possibly accomplish the goal of overturning her sanctions or advancing her case in any way.

I disagree. As an example, there is truth to this comment that Orly has stated.

"It was not a case of anything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay S. Land to silence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US military challenging Barack Hussein Obama's complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. "

Obama is illegitimate and the courts are evading the Obama eligibility issue. These sanctions by judges are used to intimidate lawyers who bring the issue to the courts. The truth of the matter is that these judges are afraid as school children to see Obama eligibility cases on the merits. They hide behind the made up court doctrine of standing as a technicality. This issue is a singular issue that is unique to the presidency that should be heard by the courts.

Again, you meld what you wanted me to say with what I actually did. I said her brief was insane and didn't make much sense. That's not the same as saying some sane attorney couldn't write a brief that would defend their actions.

I didn't meld anything. You were referring to Taitz's Application to Stay the Sanction. Because it was written by her doesn't make it 'insane' or would it necessarily have more sense if it was written by someone else. However, you found your wiggle room in the gray area that after-birthers love to play in that gets you out of the box, but it is BS nonetheless.

Say whatever you want about my posting on this subject, but at least I'm not lugging around a Photobucket page full of it.

There is nothing wrong with Photobucket as it does a good job of hosting images.

But I do kind of like the Tired Old Clown bit, even if it is a pretty obvious play.

Well, I could have gave that .jpg a less flattering name and it would have fit.

“Not much sense, but lots of chutzpah.

It is obvious here that you are referring to Taitz’s filing this stay to SCOTUS. It still would not have mattered to you if it was written by another attorney as you would have said the same thing or a similar derision. I've seen enough of your postings to know.”

No, I'm referring to the amateurish, grossly vulgar (from a technical legal perspective) nature of the argument being made. She has learned nothing from this experience, unless the whole point of this exercise is to sell “the book” at $100 a pop. Even then, it is badly overdone.

“I disagree. As an example, there is truth to this comment that Orly has stated.

It was not a case of anything improper done by the counsel, rather it was an attempt by judge Clay S. Land to silence and intimidate Taitz, as well as other attorneys, who dared to bring an action on behalf of members of the US military challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s complete illegitimacy for the US presidency. “

No, there is no truth there. If you understand the law, her behavior in Land's court was grossly improper and a sanction would be expected. It would happen to anyone on any case who behaved in that manner.

“Obama is illegitimate and the courts are evading the Obama eligibility issue. These sanctions by judges are used to intimidate lawyers who bring the issue to the courts. The truth of the matter is that these judges are afraid as school children to see Obama eligibility cases on the merits. They hide behind the made up court doctrine of standing as a technicality. This issue is a singular issue that is unique to the presidency that should be heard by the courts.”

That is simply the delusion of someone unfamiliar with the law and how it works. As noted above, there is nothing unusual about sanctions for the behavior Taitz demonstrated. And if you think standing is simply a technicality, again, you are uninformed about how the law works. I can't convince you that you're wrong, but that attitude and approach does have zero chance of success in the courts. That's been rather amply demonstrated to date.

“Because it was written by her doesn't make it ‘insane’”

No, the identity of the person who wrote it doesn't make it insane. It's the actual content that makes it insane. However, at this point, there seems to be a historical correlation between Orly's authorship and outlandish briefs.

Yes, threatening the Justices that they're felons if they don't give her what she wants is a masterstroke. It's a riff on her previous hit of accusing Land of treason. She's lucky she'll never get a nanosecond in front of the actual Supreme Court, or more sanctions would surely ensue.

Well looky here. "The threat" as you call it hasn't effected Taitz's standing with the California bar. Didn't Land try to get her disbarred or punished in California last year by sending what Land thought was "derogatory" about Taitz? I think so. Apparently it has fell on deaf ears.

- - - - - - -

Orly Taitz - #223433

Current Status: Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

Bar Number	223433
Address	Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy Ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

And if you think standing is simply a technicality, again, you are uninformed about how the law works. I can't convince you that you're wrong, but that attitude and approach does have zero chance of success in the courts. That's been rather amply demonstrated to date.

Oh, I've got a good idea about how it works. This isn't rocket science - hell 'rocket science' to me is not rocket science.

I never said it was a "simple" technicality, but it is used rightly or wrongly to block seeing cases on the merits, and judges being imperfect beings, will fall to their own human frailties.

From the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law school:

"STANDING

Among the essential elements of what the Court considers a case or controversy is an injured plaintiff. The requirement that a plaintiff show that he or she has suffered "injury in fact" is a key requirement of the Court's doctrine of standing. (Note: Since standing is necessary to establish jurisdiction, courts will undertake to examine the issue even if not raised by either of the parties.)

Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. "

And

"Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened.

The standing doctrine consists both of constitutionally-derived rules and judicially-created gatekeeping ("prudential") rules.

The Court has found Article III to require that plaintiffs demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision.

Standing has been an issue when taxpayers have challenged expenditures of general tax revenues. In 1923, in Frothingham v Mellon, the Court announced that a taxpayer's mere ideological opposition to an alleged illegal expenditure of federal tax revenue failed to provide a sufficient basis for standing. In Flast v Cohen (1968), however, the Court found that Florene Flast had standing as a taxpayer to challenge as a unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power the use of federal dollars to pay for instructional materials in religious schools."

-end snip-

In the recent proverbial words of that learn'ed X-judge Alcee Hastings, who like a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile and in a candid moment said, ‘We Make Up The Rules,’ or other words, it could be said, We just sh*& up.

“Well looky here. “The threat” as you call it hasn't effected Taitz’s standing with the California bar. Didn't Land try to get her disbarred or punished in California last year by sending what Land thought was “derogatory” about Taitz? I think so. Apparently it has fell on deaf ears.”

Again, this is not a football game, and you do not understand the rules. Sanctions are reported to the relevant State Bar. Attorneys themselves are required to report sanctions to their respective State Bar.

Sanctions aren't about silencing lawyers. They aren't about vendettas. They are about a lawyer's behavior in court. The State Bar evaluates those for potential action. Any resulting suspensions or disbarment become a matter of public record.

I don't know where Orly's evaluation currently stands, but a quick Internet search reveals that Orly and her lawyer have supposedly confirmed this year that she was/is being investigated by the California State Bar. I don't care enough to determine if that is definitively true, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

We just sh*& up. = We just make sh^* up.

Sanctions aren't about silencing lawyers. They aren't about vendettas. They are about a lawyer's behavior in court. The State Bar evaluates those for potential action. Any resulting suspensions or disbarment become a matter of public record.

That's a naive opinion. We have a pattern forming here as that these Constitutional lawyers are being singled out to be sanctioned. Apuzzo is now being threatened with sanctions. Taitz has been sanctioned, and the Hollister lawyer Hemenway was sanctioned. These judges are playing monkey see monkey do among themselves. This is not only about the excuse of what they say are perceived 'bad behavior' in their courts, it is to silence them because these dishonest judges lack the courage to determine if Obama is eligible for presidential office.

Actually, she did do this right. In an Application for Emergency Stay/Injunction, the case goes to the Justice assigned to cases for that Federal Circuit. Justice Thomas is assigned the 11th Circuit. It isn’t a petition for Certiorari. IIRC, if he denies (as I suspect he will), she can go to any other Justice she chooses.