Main Menu

Is Orly Taitz a “vexatious litigant”?

Photo of Orly TaitzIn simple terms, a vexatious litigant is someone who files lots of meritless lawsuits, or files lots of meritless motions in a suit. The courts may impose sanctions on vexatious litigants and their counsel. Vexatious litigants may be required to post bond, pay costs and may be prohibited from filing lawsuits without permission from a senior judge.

Certainly most people would say my simple definition fits Orly Taitz; however, “vexatious litigant” is also a term defined by statute in California, the state where Orly Taitz lives and is licensed to practice law. The definition appears in the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 391-391.8.

I want to focus on one provision of the Code and review it in terms of what Orly Taitz has done:

391. As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings:
      (a) "Litigation" means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court.
      (b) "Vexatious litigant" means a person who does any of the following:
      (1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

One important point is that the litigant must be representing themself (propria persona). An example of a case where Orly Taitz was not representing herself was  Lightfoot v. Bowen; another was Barnett v. Obama. However, in recent times Orly Taitz has dispensed with other plaintiffs, or included them only as an afterthought or in attempt to gain standing. In the following actions, Taitz was a plaintiff and represented herself1. I have omitted ballot challenges presented to an elections board in the list, and any case that is ongoing or in which there is an appeal pending.

  Case Court Status
1 Judd v. Obama C. D. Cal. (Federal) Dismissed
2 Taitz v. Obama D.D.C. (Federal) Dismissed
3 Taitz v. Ruemmler D.D.C. (Federal) Dismissed
4 Taitz v. Astrue D. Hawaii (Federal) Dismissed
5 Taitz v. Fuddy Hawaii State Dismissed
6 Taitz v. Gardner NH Supreme Court Denied
7 Taitz v. Nishimura HI Supreme Court Denied
8 Taitz v. Sebelius C. D. Cal. (Federal) Dismissed
9 Taitz v. Obama CA State Court Denied
10 Taitz v. Dunn CA State Court Judgment against

 

I am qualified as an expert in mathematics, and my scientific report using recognized methodology is that the list preceding contains 10 entries, and that 10 is greater than 5. I’m not a lawyer, but it certainly seems to me that Orly Taitz fits the statutory definition of a vexatious litigant.


1There are other state lawsuits where Taitz was a plaintiff, for example a contract dispute for which I don’t have the results. There may be other cases of which I am not aware. Thanks to the Birther Scorecard for most of the case information used.

, ,

14 Responses to Is Orly Taitz a “vexatious litigant”?

  1. avatar
    brygenon October 24, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Yes.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    I raised this issue with California Attorney Scott Tepper last evening on the Reality Check Radio program, and his view is that Orly Taitz is a vexations litigant under California law. One hopes that the next time she sues in California state court, defendants will move to have her declared a vexations litigant. Mr. Tepper also noted that the California federal courts have not adopted completely the California statute.

  3. avatar
    bob October 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    I think some of those “cases” aren’t “proceedings” as the law is defined. And if I were Taitz, I would argue some of the proceedings aren’t final yet, as they are still on appeal (or still appealable).

    More importantly, for Taitz to be declared a vet-lit by a California court will require a litigant in a California case to make the necessary motion. Right now the only active California case is Taitz v. Obama in Orange County.

  4. avatar
    Joe Acerbic October 24, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    If Oily is not vexatious, the word needs to be erased from every dictionary and never ever uttered or written again, as it is dead and useless.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    None of the cases listed are on appeal, although some are appealable, I suppose. Even construing “proceedings” strictly, there are still more than five.

    bob: I think some of those “cases” aren’t “proceedings” as the law is defined. And if I were Taitz, I would argue some of the proceedings aren’t final yet, as they are still on appeal (or still appealable).

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

    Has anyone tried dousing her with Holy water? I kinda wanna see what will happen.

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 25, 2012 at 5:08 am #

    Doc,

    Remember that there are three kinds of mathematicians: those that can count and the other kind… ;-)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    None of the cases listed are on appeal, although some are appealable, I suppose. Even construing “proceedings” strictly, there are still more thanfive.

  8. avatar
    RFM October 25, 2012 at 5:34 am #

    I watched the in court session where she was making a simple request from Hawaii to have them make a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. They would not comply and were being very, very uncooperative with such a simple request. The same thing happened when the State of Arizona made this simple request. Each time the state of Hawaii stonewalled them, was uncooperative, and they dug in their heels. These state-to-state requests are made everyday of the years without any problem. Seems that Hawaii was purposely being told not to honor anyone’s “simple request” for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Seems that there is a conspiracy which includes Hawaii.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M October 25, 2012 at 6:54 am #

    RFM: These state-to-state requests are made everyday of the years without any problem.

    O RLY? States violate their own laws “everyday of the years” without any problem?

    Because you realize Hawaii cannot just give out their records to anyone, including other states, by their own laws?

    Another birther idiot who denies what the law is, or wants the law broken whenever it suits his private desires. Must be Tuesday.

  10. avatar
    RuhRoh October 25, 2012 at 7:00 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Has anyone tried dousing her with Holy water? I kinda wanna see what will happen.

    Now Orly will add you to her RICO for threatening her life and inciting crowds to violence against her.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 25, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    And you know that these out of state requests are granted every day of the year because? I presume you believe this because you need it to be true, not because it is.

    Hawaiian law is quite specific on the topic, and there is no provision for “interstate requests.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/hawaiian-vital-statistics-law/

    RFM: These state-to-state requests are made everyday of the years without any problem. Seems that Hawaii was purposely being told not to honor anyone’s “simple request” for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

  12. avatar
    JPotter October 25, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    RFM: RFM

    … an echo of concern trolls gone by!

  13. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 25, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    If Orly was an Imperial Admiral, Vader would have force-choked her several movies ago.
    Gotta wonder where they keep getting these inept admirals from…

  14. avatar
    FlatPointHigh October 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Has anyone tried dousing her with Holy water? I kinda wanna see what will happen.

    Other than her mascara running, you can expect bleating, whining and getting added to her “police concerns” list.