Below The Beltway

11 Responses to “Orly Taitz On Joy Behar”

1. Posts about Barack Obama as of October 14, 2009 » The Daily Parr says:

   October 14, 2009 at 9:02 am

   [...] confused cause and effect.  Like most crackpot theories, it blossomed first in California. Orly Taitz On Joy Behar – belowthebeltway.com 10/14/2009 Money line: Is this dentist spending too much time with the [...]
2. Jack says:

   October 14, 2009 at 9:43 am

   Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!
3. Paul says:

   October 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm

   Was $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect for a reporter job with “Fake News”.
4. Rich says:

   October 14, 2009 at 2:15 pm

   For lawyers with even a little litigation experience, Orly Taitz’s behavior, incompetence and arrogance is like watching a train wreck from which you cannot look away. Substantial sanctions and disbarment are the nearly certain natural results. It would be difficult to better characterize her actions than Judge Land did so ably in his sanctions order, however.

   What truly floors me, however, is Orly Taitz’s cavalier and frivolous attempts to interfere with military orders as a ruse by which to get her birth certificate nonsense and her face in the news. If there are treasonous actions in any of this, those meritless claims certainly reign at the top. Am I the only one who wants restitution for the the tax dollars caused to be wasted in judicial, justice department and military costs by this woman? Am I the only one who wants this incompetent and certifiable woman to stop interfering with our military?

   Disbarment cannot come soon enough, though I fear that won’t stop this loon from filing actions with similarly thin political claims on her own behalf. She needs to be declared a vexatious litigant and required to post a substantial bond before she files a complaint or petition in any court.
5. Jack says:

   October 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm

   Rich, why don’t you address Orly’s points, raised in the Behar appearance, one by one, slowly, and in depth INSTEAD OF CRITICIZING ORLY!!!???!!!
6. Rich says:

   October 14, 2009 at 6:09 pm

   Jack:

   I respectfully decline to waste the amount of time necessary to go through her ramble and attempt to pick out discrete “points” for response. It wouldn’t make any difference to you or her anyway; I don’t know for sure about you, but she is fairly clearly not capable of digesting what she doesn’t want to hear. In my legally educated opinion, Judge Land did an extremely meticulous job in addressing every point Ms. Taitz has made in both his order dismissing the Rhodes case and in his sanctions order. I commend a thorough reading of each to you.

   Nevertheless, I will briefly address a couple salient points. First is tangential to my comment above — about her lack of legal reasoning tying Obama’s citizenship to a service member’s ability to avoid orders from his or her superiors. Judge Land focused primarily on this issue in rightly deciding that the court must abstain from injecting itself into such matters under the Constitution. Ms. Taitz seems incapable of grasping that this is HER failing, not the judge’s. Calling his character into question for a legally supportable ruling is beyond absurd. She shows herself to be a child throwing a tantrum because she failed to get what she wanted. Wrong forum for that, counselor.

   Second is the fact that once the President is in office, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution prescribes the SOLE means for his removal. It is NOT the province of the judiciary, and Ms. Taitz, as a lawyer, is charged with understanding that distinction, and there is insufficient space here to type a treatise on separation of powers. To the extent she even states an objective in response to Ms. Behar’s questions about what she wants out of this case, her remedy is impeachment in the legislature per Constitutional citation above.

   Lastly, there is so much missing in Ms. Taitz’s understanding of the Rules of court, rules of evidence, and misuse of legal authorities and legal reasoning, I simply do not have time or space to address all the inadequacies. I don’t recall the page length of Judge Land’s Dismissal, but it rivaled his 43 page Order re: Sanctions. I believe he captured most of what Ms. Taitz fails to grok in presenting a case for whatever real remedy she seeks. And it took that many pages because her incompetence is breath taking.

   Still, with that road map drawn so meticulously for her by Judge Land, all she and her followers can do is shriek about broad conspiracies, corruption and wished for states of facts that evidence does not support. Nonsense.

   Now, Jack, how about you explaining how Captain Rhodes should have been able to ignore a deployment order, assuming (for the sake of argument) that it was proven or stipulated that Obama is a Kenyan citizen rather than as required by Article II, Section 1? In so doing, please address the following question:

   If Ms. Taitz were right and that meant that Capt. Rhodes could ignore her deployment order as illegally tracing to an unqualified Commander in Chief, why couldn’t every service member simply ignore every command order from a superior, pack it up and go home?

   There’s a little more to the rule and practice of law than shrieking about conspirators, thoughtlessly invoking “the Constitution” as authority, relying upon unsubstantiated opinion as evidence, submitting forged documents without authentication, refusing to address contrary interpretation of the law, and wholly ignoring the implications of what you are requesting of the court for your client. Orly Taitz clearly doesn’t get that, and in that failing has demonstrated one lack of qualification: her lack of qualification to be a law clerk, much less, lead counsel in a federal court proceeding.
7. Jack says:

   October 14, 2009 at 7:33 pm

   Rich, you discuss everything BUT Orly’s points raised about Obama?
8. Rich says:

   October 14, 2009 at 7:53 pm

   Jack — you don’t read well, and don’t answer anything. Done.
9. Paul says:

   October 14, 2009 at 8:05 pm

   Poor little Birthers, no court cases won, no one with a brain and common sense take you seriously, except maybe “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present facts, not half baked lies. Birthers hate and can’t debate.
10. Let's Be Free says:

    October 15, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Jack, you can’t win with Rich.

    He would have argued (in his view persuasively and indisputably) that any effort to attack Obama’s qualifications for the presidency in court before he was sworn in was not ripe for review, and should have been dismissed on these grounds.

    In Jack’s world there is no judicial remedy whatsoever for someone who is fradulently elected to office. In Jack’s world there is no route for gaining access to the original documents held by the State of Hawaii.

    And I guess in Jack’s view David Boies should have been disbarred for asserting Al Gore’s position trying to upset the election in Bush v. Gore — OH, I’m sorry, not Boies, he’s an elite insider, a true member of the club — not from a school nobody ever hear of like Ms. Taitz.

    It’s all about he lawyer’s guild — not justice.

    Frankly, Judge Land has a big 2 by 4 up his rear — should have been an accountant, not a lawyer. It all has to add up, down and across in his world or forget it. Good thing he wasn’t on the path to overruling Plessy v. Ferguson. The math worked there.

    The truth will set you free but you aren’t going to find it here.
11. Rich says:

    October 15, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    LBF — thanks for the grins. Any chance you’d take a shot at what I asked Jack:

    “If Ms. Taitz were right and that meant that Capt. Rhodes could ignore her deployment order as illegally tracing to an unqualified Commander in Chief, why couldn’t every service member simply ignore every command order from a superior, pack it up and go home?”

    No? I didn’t think so. Simply slash and burn without thought, never once considering that the proffered objective and remedy of the Rhodes case was to destroy the ability of the military to function. There’s no rational or legal connection between OT’s demand for more evidence about Obama’s birth circumstances and military personnel’s desire to disregard orders from the chain of command. You don’t even see the problem that creates for this country and its citizens?!?

    You both lionize an utterly incompetent attorney, and then you compare her to lawyers like Boies and Olson? LMAO!! A competent lawyer would read what Judge Land (among others who’ve booted her)said in his detailed ruling dismissing her case. It’s a road map to how to get where she wants to go, and where the dead ends lie.

    But I guess you folks think that failing to address a single issue that Judge Land raised when she filed her motion for reconsideration is bang up lawyering as long as she got on TV and called the judge names between repeating the same opinions she’s been shouting all along. Not sure what she charged Capt. Rhodes (or others), but her great lawyering has AT LEAST left Capt. Rhodes with a bill for the costs of that nonsense effort.

    It’s the incompetent attorney, stupid!!!