Main Menu

Taitz loses sanctions appeal

Taitz Appeal

Orly Taitz, Esq, DDS has lost her appeal of a $20,000 sanction imposed by federal district Judge Clay D. Land in the case of Rhodes v. MacDonald. Despite a warning and threat of sanctions from the court, Taitz pursued her frivolous case, demanding the court reconsider.

In her notice of appeal, Taitz argued that the judge should have recused himself (she claimed that the court’s failure to agree with her was proof of bias and that Judge Land had a private meeting with Att0rney General Eric Holder at a coffee shop near the court house even though Holder was on the opposite side of the country at the time), or lacking that, she was denied due process by not being given enough time to respond. Taitz, unable to leave well enough alone, spiced the document with a few gratuitous comments such as calling Judge Land’s order a “political lynching” and repeating her trademark claim that President Obama used 39 different social-security numbers.

In a one-page order, the 11th District Court of appeals said “no.” Oh well, another one bites the dust.

News Coverage:

38 Responses to Taitz loses sanctions appeal

  1. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Now we wait to see what the California Bar will do with her. It occurred to me that the Bar might have decided that it would be prudent to wait until Orly’s appear was decided before taking action.

  2. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 15, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Poor poor Orly.

    Maybe we should hold a fund raiser for her.

    I will gladly dress up in a g-string and go-go dance on a black cadillac outside her dental office to raise money for this true American hero.

  3. avatar
    John March 15, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    I supposes Orly can appeal to SCOTUS for more time but SCOTUS is almost certainly to deny her appeal. She can also try to appeal ENBANC, have all the judges hear her case to buy more time before appealing to SCOTUS.

  4. avatar
    John March 15, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    It is interesting that the Appeals court failed to cite any support for their decision.

  5. avatar
    Greg March 15, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    That’s to be expected when dealing with a frivolous appeal.

  6. avatar
    Greg March 15, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    She can waste her money any way she wants. However, state ethics rules frown on pressing frivolous arguments and appeals. She has been fined $20k already.

  7. avatar
    nbC March 16, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Orly is lucky, otherwise she would have likely be given another sanction for her frivolous appeal.

  8. avatar
    nbC March 16, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    She can waste her money any way she wants. However, state ethics rules frown on pressing frivolous arguments and appeals. She has been fined $20k already.

    An en banc appeal my cause the Court to reconsider its decision not to pursue further sanctions.

    Oh the irony…

  9. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Exactly. The only surprise in the ruling is that it didn’t result in even *more* sanctions on crazy Orly!

    From the short but to the point ruling, it is pretty evident that the court has no desire to waste their time any more than necessary on such nonsense.

  10. avatar
    bob March 16, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    John, you if had actually read Taitz’s appeal, you would understand the mercy the 11th Circuit is demonstrating when it merely says Taitz’s arguments were unpersuasive.

  11. avatar
    misha March 16, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    “It is interesting that the Appeals court failed to cite any support for their decision.”

    1- They don’t have to.
    2- I doubt they would put in writing, ‘Ms. Taitz’ ramblings are the work of The Madwoman of Chaillot.’
    3- She wrecked Stefan Cook’s career.

  12. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 16, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Dear John,

    If you went to the California Department of Transportation’s bridge building authority with a demand that your own novel interpretation of physics be substituted for the classic body of scientific information upon which structural engineering has depended for all of its successes, you would doubtless find it equally “interesting” that they would not bother, to cite specific support for dismissing your dire warnings that the existing Golden Gate Bridge must be removed and replaced with an identical structure, but one which substituted multi-grain pasta for the steel suspension cables, Grade A butter for the supporting towers, and a roadbed made out of Obama’s social security cards (no duplicates), covered with a thin candy shell.

    The conjectural idiocy that birthers cling to, likewise infuses their arguments with a shallowness which defies in-depth refutation past stripping away the first few layers of their reality-defying assertions.

    Benji Franklin

  13. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2010 at 3:50 am #

    I absolutely love the “we find [Orly’s arguments] unpersuasive.”

    How beautifully put!

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 16, 2010 at 5:33 am #

    They didn’t want to waste any more time or taxpayer money than necessary in disposing of that piece of garbage.

  15. avatar
    YellowDog March 16, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    Keep in mind that the court of appeals would have the full transcripts of the district court proceedings. Barring any compelling evidence to the contrary, the court of appeals would defer to the judgment of the district court. “He was mean to me and everyone is out to get me” does not constitute compelling evidence and deserves a one-page dismissal.

  16. avatar
    DCH March 16, 2010 at 10:38 am #


    A word word description of the all the cases presented to date by the birthers.

    Not a single new actual fact has been introduced – other than those from the DoH that indicate birth in Hawaii since 2008.

    What’s next birthers?
    You got nuthin’ and nowhere to go. Its just delusional deadenders now.

  17. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    John says:

    It is interesting that the Appeals court failed to cite any support for their decision.

    Typically, the brevity of the decision is in direct proportion to the merits of the appeal. If the Court of Appeals had found that Orly’s appeal raised any legitimate issues, those issues likely would have been addressed. But the Court found nothing, so the appeal was dismissed out of hand.

    And in case anyone is wondering, two of the three judges who decided Orly’s appeal were appointed by Republicans. Judge Tjoflat was appointed by Gerald Ford and Judge Carnes was appointed by George H.W. Bush. Judge Kravitch was appointed by Jimmy Carter.

  18. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    Strunk’s FOIA lawsuit as been dismissed insofar as it pertains to Obama’s records.

    Chalk up another loss for the birthers.

  19. avatar
    Ima Obot March 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    Strunk’s FOIA lawsuit as been dismissed insofar as it pertains to Obama’s records. up another loss for the birthers.

    It’s a historical record affirming everything we Obots have been espousing for over a year. What’s he hiding?

    You don’t think his paperwork doesn’t match his storyline do you?

  20. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Thanks for sharing Rickey. Just finished reading all 7 pages. No surprises and nothing unexpected.

  21. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    I think you’re completely delusional.

    As usual, you still have nothing and no success.

    You can keep muttering to the voices in your head all you want, but there is not a single scrap of useful evidence that affirms or backs up any of your crazy theories.

    So, if your plan is to keep on failing and looking like fools, good job! LOL!

    Trust me, I think your perfect Birther record of consistent failure and losing every single crazy court case you attempt will remain intact.

  22. avatar
    Greg March 16, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Affirming that even Presidents have a right to privacy? That a FOIA request for a living person requires permission?

    Have you been espousing this?

  23. avatar
    G March 16, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    Greg – do you really think a Birther has simple basic knowledge of law, let alone understanding what the word espousing means? LOL!

  24. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion March 16, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    She’s already said she’s going en banc on this one.

  25. avatar
    SFJeff March 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    There are still people convinced that Clinton killed Vince Foster. These people will remain convinced they are right regardless of court decisions, and 20 years from now will still be telling everyone of how Obama was really an “Ursurper”, and how they bravely argued the dozens of reasons why that half white couldn’t possibly have been eligible.

    20 years from now, Former President Obama will be building houses for the poor, and there will be a couple of these loons standing out with signs saying “Show us the Birth Certificate”.

  26. avatar
    SFJeff March 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    Anyone care to explain en blanc to me?

  27. avatar
    Bob March 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    “En blanc” is when you explain to the court that you should win because, well, you are white and your opponent isn’t.

    “En banc” is an appeal to the full court (in this case, Taitz will be asking all the judges of the 11th Circuit to hear her appeal). A majority of the active judges have to agree to hear the case; in all likelihood no active judge will want to hear this stinker. So expect a “thanks, but no thanks” around a month after Taitz files her request.

  28. avatar
    misha March 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Don’t you wish Obama could do like Buzz Aldrin?

    I’ve leaned the truth about Joseph Stalin. Stalin died of a heart attack like Nelson Rockefeller! Joan was shocked!!

    Turns out he did not die of a stroke, alone. Do you think she may have murdered him?!

  29. avatar
    PaulG March 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    That said, and I agree with G, but still, I hope someone is collecting this stuff for its historical value.

  30. avatar
    Bob Ross March 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Obots? Now I’m confused. One minute you call those who support Obama Obots. The next you’re calling those who think he’s hiding stuff Obots. You guys need to make up your damned minds.

  31. avatar
    G March 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Hi Bob,

    It all goes to the paranoid & extremist-tribal type mentality that Birthers and others of their ilk have.

    “Obot” is just another meaningless derogatory insult they bandy about, just like socialist, communist, etc. It is their simple-minded way of branding others as different, unpatriotic and a “traitor” in their minds.

    The only real meaning is that anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with them or give them 100% of what they want (even amongst themselves) is suddenly now an “obot”/traitor or an “obot spy” or that somehow the “obots must have gotten to them” and/or “are blackmailing them”, or whatever.

    Also, they are convinced that anyone who disagrees with them must be a “paid Obot operative” LOL!

    Such is the delusions of the paranoid and the self-destructive nature of closed-minded extremists, who like a rabid dog, will turn on anyone, including their own, at the merest whiff of disagreement.

    Really it all boils down to being a bizarre form of personal “purity test” that extremists try to impose on everyone else.

  32. avatar
    Bob Ross March 17, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Yeah but that guy was now calling himself/herself an Obot. That’s what got confusing.

  33. avatar
    Steve March 17, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    There are still people convinced that Clinton killed Vince Foster. These people will remain convinced they are right regardless of court decisions, and 20 years from now will still be telling everyone of how Obama was really an “Ursurper”, and how they bravely argued the dozens of reasons why that half white couldn’t possibly have been eligible.20 years from now, Former President Obama will be building houses for the poor, and there will be a couple of these loons standing out with signs saying “Show us the Birth Certificate”.

    I wonder how many birthers also buy the Clinton body count theory (I know of at least one such person, Gregg Jackson, author of “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies”).
    It seems to me that the two conspiracy theories are somewhat mutually exclusive. If the Clintons are ruthless enough to have 30 or so political enemies killed, they would also be able to find out for sure if a political opponent is eligible for the office he’s seeking and if he’s not, use that evidence to have him disqualified from the election.

  34. avatar
    nbc March 17, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    It’s a historic record protected by privacy laws.


  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 17, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Sven sometimes dresses up in an Obot costume.

  36. avatar
    Black Lion March 18, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Continued from the natural law thread due to the amount of comments about Mario, I wanted to note how far of the reservation Mario has gone. And speaking about “coming out of the closet” in regards to Mario, anyone read his latest work of fiction?

    Some lowlights…

    “Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.””

    Mario is still pushing the 14th amendment garbarge….You would think he would tire of that nonsense…

    Some of his reason why Obama is not eligible to be President…

    (1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

    (2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;

    (3) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya;

    (4) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there;

    (5) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born;

    (6) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

    (7) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;

    (8) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;

    (9) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);

    (10) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;

    (11) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;

    (12) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no information corroborating his alleged birth in Honolulu;

    (13) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document pictured on the internet later indicate it is a forgery;

    (14) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;

    (15) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information showing that Obama was born in Honolulu;

    (16) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

    (17) a newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there;

    (18) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth;

    (19) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu; and

    (20) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital.

  37. avatar
    Greg March 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    He has also given a preview of the stupid that will be in his appeal.

    “How can you deny he’s affecting me?” he asked during an interview with WND. “He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we’re not a Christian nation; we’re one of the largest Muslim nations. It’s all there.”

    None of which is because he’s not eligible, but because Mario doesn’t like his politics.

    Of course, he said, not everyone across the nation has the same “concrete and particularized” danger of injury. He said those who support Obama don’t care “he’s not a natural born citizen. … His Marxist-communist buddies have full faith in the guy. They want him to trash the whole country, punish the country for the ills of the past.”

    That means, he said, that his clients – those who fear Obama’s policies and are unwilling to accept on faith his assertions of eligibility – are a subset of the American citizenry with the possibility of actual injury from the president.

    So, your clients have more standing than me because I like the President and they hate the President. And the white supremacist has more standing than your client because he really hates the President.

    Yeah, I don’t think that there’s a crank-scale to the standing question, Mario.

  38. avatar
    bovril1 March 18, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Sven in robot costume paying homage to ORRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLY.