Main Menu

Orly confuses “plaintiffs” and “defendants,” counsel and the JUDGE!

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq, Clueless

I am barely believing what I am reading. The transcript is now available for the October 5 hearing in Barnett v. Obama (see full copy at bottom). I cracked up and just had to stop on this one.

Orly Taitz is answering the Court’s question about standing, and specifically she is being asked what particular harm has befallen her inactive military plaintiffs because Barack Obama is President. Orly cited the most famous lawsuit in our nation’s history, Brown v. Board of Education. Brown, an African American, sued the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, arguing that school segregation based on race was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Using this example and applying it to her plaintiffs, Taitz said:

When the plaintiffs bring cases such as cases of establishment clause, separation of state — of religion and state, when the Supreme Court have already decided Brown v. Board of Education and Clark v. USA, what was the specific harm to the members of the Board of Education when they brought this lawsuit? Nobody was standing with a bat ready to hit them. Nobody was telling them you have to go to Iran. Nobody was killing them. But yet they brought this case.  (Page 30)

I find it hard to believe that someone who passed the 5th grade (and was paying attention) doesn’t know who sued whom in Brown v Board of Education.

But the stupid: it’s contagious!

Following this faux pas, co-counsel Gary Kreep also became confused as here:

We thought that — we thought that a lot of the plaintiffs — strike that — a lot of the defendants there shouldn’t have been in there.

But the infection was not restricted just to the defense counsel. Judge Carter himself was not immune:

THE COURT: Which defendants have standing?

MR. KREEP: Which defendants have standing?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Which plaintiffs have standing?

Keyes|Barnett v. Obama – Official Court Transcript From 10-5-2009 Hearing by Jack Ryan

21 Responses to Orly confuses “plaintiffs” and “defendants,” counsel and the JUDGE!

  1. avatar
    Wild Bill October 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    Admittedly it’s pretty muddled, but I think she switched gears (in her mind at least – and yes, it concerns me that I can get inside her head) to Board of Education v. Allen. In that case the members of the board were the plaintiffs.

  2. avatar
    Sinfonian October 16, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    Well, not to defend Taitz in any way, for she is completely indefensible, but the left side of the “v.” in this instance refers to the party who appealed. In the Supreme Court, as in all appellate courts, the first party named is the appellant and the latter party is the appellee. Either one may have been plaintiff or defendant at the inception of the case.

    But yeah, you’re right, Taitz got this one wrong and, yes, she’s a moron. 🙂

  3. avatar
    Bob October 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    How does that work, exactly? The education board decided to sue a bunch of black children? “You can’t go to school here, and just to prove it, we’re going to sue you!”

    And bats? Huh?

    (I will be generous and assume “Iran” was a transcription error.)

  4. avatar
    Vince Treacy October 16, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    It is correct that the appellant comes first in the federal system, so Smith v. Jones can become Jones v. Smith on appeal. It may be different in some state systems. But is is pure ignorance to think that the Board sued in the Brown case. That is like thinking that the slaveowner sued Dred Scott.

  5. avatar
    Bob October 16, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    And comparing herself to Thurgood Marshall really takes the cake.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    I hurriedly double checked. The transcript is an image, and I typed that in myself; however it did say “Iran”. This thing is 113 pages. I finally finished.

    I took the article offline for a while, since after reading all the way to the end, I found further confusion to write about. I also included the promised link to the transcript.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    I just want to say that the transcript in much of its detail and its tone as well, shows the excellent job done by the unofficial reporter Wavey Davey. Well done, WD!

  8. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 16, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    I think it is very instructive to read these transcripts (not to mention entertaining – although I think the courts are going to have a tough time topping Judge Land’s ruling fining Orly $20,000 in that regard). It’s easy even for me (a non-lawyer) to see the incredible difference in professionalism between Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. and the defendant’s attorneys. I don’t think that anyone that didn’t start out totally biased could possibly believe that Orly had the better arguments here.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    US v Wong Kim Ark. Duh! I always wondered why the government was suing Wong.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    I think you are right.

  11. avatar
    Sinfonian October 16, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    Yes, of course. I should have said “all federal appellate courts.” Thanks!

  12. avatar
    DavidH October 16, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    Any word on when Judge Carter will put an end to this foolishness?

  13. avatar
    misha October 17, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    Yeah, like Dan Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy. Hah! I saw that debate.

    OT: I just wrote this.

  14. avatar
    misha October 17, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    I read all 113 pages. I can imagine her saying all that in her thick Russian accent. It must have sounded like a cross between SNL and Monty Python.

  15. avatar
    Benji Franklin October 17, 2009 at 1:46 am #

    Dear Doctor,

    I think Judge Carter has tipped his hand in several ways, not the least of which, is his zeroing in (on his own) on a point which dismantles a basic Birther premise. That is, their exclusive definition of Natural Born Citizen (currently requiring 2 U.S. citizen parents and native birth) which “preserves” some imagined fidelity to the original birth circumstance specifications which the Birthers claim the Framers reasoned would be the most reliable guarantor of loyalty to the Nation.

    I think we can see that ANY definition of NBC is really a definition of the PARENT’s circumstances at the moment of birth. But since the Constitution was penned, those circumstances (anchored on the birthing mother’s actual location)have been added to and redefined by the reckoning of U.S. and foreign statutes relating to immigration Acts, family law, etc which impact and materially change the derivative calculations of what constitutes the mother’s citizenship, and the father’s citizenship. Examples would changing and internationally overlapping or conflicting legal residency requirements, definitions of “legal father”, “parent”, paternity proof, “marriage”, “bigamy”, and so forth. None of these changing standards for these legal definitions could have been within the contemplation of the framers, so any “sacred” definition of NBC would have already been unlawfully amended (in effect) repeatedly.

    Judge Carter injects this reasoning OUT OF NOWHERE in the transcript starting on page 58, line 14. He says in a series of associated comments: “There’s an interesting point – the law got changed didn’t it? …. So therefore, depending on the congress, we can change the Constitutional right to be President? … It appears to me that congress did. …. So when we talk about Constitutional and embedded principals, it appears to me that Congress has acted and changed what our perception would be of this Constitutional mandate. ….. A big concern … All I’m doing is pointing out that this isn’t the Constitutional bedrock that the public and you (KREEP) might argue; that this is something that Congress has, in a sense, changed from time to time. And therefore this (eligibility) has become a political issue.” (end quotes)

    Here we have a thoughtful judge declaring that the ambiguity of Constitutional Natural Born Citizenship is organic and perpetually in flux! This is not the Obama ejecting validation of their “religion” that Orly’s Birther’s hoped for!

    Benji Franklin

  16. avatar
    wendy October 17, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    I have been watching Orly since the stunning episode of confronting Justice Roberts at a speaking engagement, and shoving documents at him… and THINKING THAT HE WAS GOING TO READ THEM.
    Her clients are almost to be pitied, since they fail to understand the legal issues, and she takes advantage of their gullibility. Aside from the sanctions, Connie Rhodes was assessed to pay costs for the other side (standard in a case, when you lose like that).
    Again, the most frightening thing to me is that her followers are CONVINCED of her heroism and “fight for liberty”… and will continue to be enraged, if Carter rules in favor of dismissing.
    As long as the LEGAL arguments are sound.. he will have no option.

  17. avatar
    Bob October 17, 2009 at 3:09 am #

    I didn’t mean to imply the transcription error was yours, Dr. C.; court reports are fallible, too.

    But who knows: Maybe Taitz did say Iran; her brain works in very odd ways.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 17, 2009 at 7:04 am #

    I did not mean to imply that you meant to imply that the transcription error was mine. I had assumed that you had assumed that I had “cut and pasted” the text into my article, but that was not the case, the document not being available in pure text form. The error COULD have been mine, and so I checked.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 17, 2009 at 7:19 am #

    Judge Carter’s comments imply that he believes that the definition of “natural born citizen” is someone who is a “citizen at the time of their birth.” Congress has made no law since the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 that uses the term “natural born citizen”, but it has made several laws stating by statue who are citizens at birth. If the phrase “natural born citizen” is reserved for some special class of super citizen (ala Apuzzo), then Congress has changed nothing. However Judge Carter believes that Congress has changed the actual qualifications for president, and that could only refer to changes in the qualifications for citizenship.

    The view was expressed in court is that had Obama’s mother lived in the United States a little longer before he was born, he would have been qualified to be president, wherever he was born (with Judge Carter following Justice Kennedy’s comments in Nguyen (a case we’ve discussed here before). Gary Kreep voiced no objection to that view.

  20. avatar
    Paul October 18, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    Was the $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 reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures). When flies get too close to the lights they get burned, Taitz just got burned, thing is, like a fly she will continue, no end in sight. Poor little Birthers they are haters not debaters.

    A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, wow I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.

  21. avatar
    Rickey October 21, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Orly just filed a Notice of Appeal on her sanctions.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21367912/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-29-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-29-0

    Once again, she fails to address her own misconduct and makes ludicrous accusations about Judge Land. How she and Lincoln think that this approach will get her anywhere is beyond me.