Main Menu

Taitz appeals Orange County court sanctions, loses

Orly Taitz has appealed the imposition of $4,000 in sanctions against her for filing an abusive motion (one that was legally flawed) on Occidental College to produce documents regarding Barack Obama (documents which may or may not actually exist). The order by Judge Marginis details what was wrong with the motion and cited California law under which sanctions were issued.

Orly Taitz filed an appeal with California 4th Appellate District Division 3. Her appeal, according to the Court, is defective, both in form and in service. She applied to have the appeal reinstated, but that was defective too:

CA – Taitz v Occidental Sanctions Appeal – 2013-01-28 ORDER by Jack Ryan

,

48 Responses to Taitz appeals Orange County court sanctions, loses

  1. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

    Doc: The title is incorrect. These are not “Grinols” sanctions. The case was Taitz v Obama et al. in Orange County Superior Court. The appeal was styled “Taitz v Occidental College.” Also, the docket entry you have posted is not a dismissal of her appeal. The appeal was dismissed on January 15 because she failed to file a Case Information Statement and because her Designation of the Record from the trial court was deficient in many respects and she failed to correct these things after she received notices of these deficiencies. What you posted is a denial of a subsequent motion she filed to have her appeal reinstated. The screw-ups listed in the docket entry you posted came from her attempts to fix the screw-ups that caused the case to be dismissed in the first place.

    She is the worst lawyer ever, Anywhere.

  2. avatar
    Arthur January 30, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Thinker: She is the worst lawyer ever, Anywhere.

    All right, yes, a terrible lawyer; mai oui, elle a chaud au cul.

  3. avatar
    Bob January 30, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

    WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!

  4. avatar
    realist January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

    Thinker:
    Doc: The title is incorrect. These are not “Grinols” sanctions. The case was Taitz v Obama et al. in Orange County Superior Court. The appeal was styled “Taitz v Occidental College.” Also, the docket entry you have posted is not a dismissal of her appeal. The appeal was dismissed on January 15 because she failed to file a Case Information Statement and because her Designation of the Record from the trial court was deficient in many respects and she failed to correct these things after she received notices of these deficiencies. What you posted is a denial of a subsequent motion she filed to have her appeal reinstated. The screw-ups listed in the docket entry you posted came from her attempts to fix the screw-ups that caused the case to be dismissed in the first place.

    She is the worst lawyer ever, Anywhere.

    And other than that, the article is spot on. :)

  5. avatar
    donna January 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Thinker: The appeal was dismissed on January 15 because she failed to file a Case Information Statement and because her Designation of the Record from the trial court was deficient in many respects and she failed to correct these things after she received notices of these deficiencies.

    do they teach civil procedure in non-aba approved, online “law schools”?

  6. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg January 30, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    Donna, I’ve seen no evidence that they even teach law, much less procedure, at non-ABA-accredited California law schools.

  7. avatar
    donna January 30, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

    i question how she passed the bar exam – i want to see the video of her actually taking the test – i want to see an original copy of the test results

  8. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 30, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    donna: do they teach civil procedure in non-aba approved, online “law schools”?

    ___

    No doubt they must. I feel the need to state that it is possible to become a good lawyer with a degree from such a school if one is absolutely determined to become a good lawyer. I say this because online schools can give access/opportunity to someone who simply can’t afford to attend a regular law school or didn’t excel early in life to be accepted. Indeed, people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln never attended a law school but became great lawyers (Lincoln became an appellate judge).

    My biggest problem with Orly is that she doesn’t even try. She ignores the written rules/procedures and case law, she refuses to learn anything from her many experiences, and she completely blows off–with contempt and slander–any judge or lawyer who tries to point her in the right direction. For these reasons, I’d like to see some judge finally hold her in contempt…

  9. avatar
    The Magic M January 30, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    donna: i question how she passed the bar exam – i want to see the video of her actually taking the test – i want to see an original copy of the test results

    I’m still waiting for one of her clients to sue her – and then make said demands. :)

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

    Sorry. I was writing an article on Grinols at the same time, and got switched.

    Thinker: Doc: The title is incorrect. These are not “Grinols” sanctions. The case was Taitz v Obama et al. in Orange County Superior Court.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    Hehe, but all I had to do was change three words in the title and add a sentence to the end to fix it.

    realist: And other than that, the article is spot on. :)

  12. avatar
    misha marinsky January 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

    So now she’s up to $24K. Schmuck.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

    $24,250.

    misha marinsky: So now she’s up to $24K. Schmuck.

  14. avatar
    Andrew Morris January 30, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    I am also a strong supporter of online legal education, but something has gone very badly wrong here. Based on how she writes, her complete inability to understnd rules of evidence and procedure, I just don’t understand how she passed the Taft exams and the CA Bar. It just isn’t consistent with how she tries to practice law. And then there’s the mindset. A book could be written on that, but there is no evaluation of what’s put in front of her. She treats as proof the falsified nonsense from fake experts. She believes what clearly deranged people say in letters and web posts or on TV, if it fits her own world view. Thus, the Brits like her because one UK lunatic sends her an email of support. Today she says “Wow…” she was right in seeing a conspiracy behind the long-delayed abdication of the Queen of the Netherlands, because someone sent her an email (probably fake) that agrees with her. So, in best birther tradition, I also now demand to see her law exam papers because I think they must have been forged. Specifically, with subpoenas to follow, she must release the script, an analysis of her handwriting (though they can’t have been written because, as the Court noted, her writing is illegible) AND expert comparison of the writing style with other non-contentious examples of her writing, to prove that she didn’t get someone to sit the exams for her.

  15. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 30, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    Andrew Morris: I am also a strong supporter of online legal education, but something has gone very badly wrong here.

    I heard a piece on suggestions for improving licensing of teachers. A commenter noted no one would expect a lawyer to begin practicing completely unprepared.

    While it was a flawed analogy, I don’t think it was meant to be as funny as I found it to be!

  16. avatar
    Rickey January 30, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    The Magic M: I’m still waiting for one of her clients to sue her – and then make said demands.

    I was thinking the same thing. If Orly had a client who was willing to sue her for legal malpractice, I could see where discovery into her legal education and admission to the Bar could conceivably be relevant.

  17. avatar
    Yoda January 30, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    Rickey: I was thinking the same thing. If Orly had a client who was willing to sue her for legal malpractice, I could see where discovery into her legal education and admission to the Bar could conceivably be relevant.

    It is a very interesting question. I remember a case where a doctor was sued for malpractice and it turned out he wasn’t licensed. If my memory is correct, the plaintiff argued that the lack of license was negligence per se. I could very well be wrong about that, but that is what I recall. Anyway, the Court ruled that the lack of license was not relevant for the purposes of proving malpractice and that the doctor was held to the same standard as if he was licensed. That analysis is not exactly on point, but it is relevant to the discussion.

    It is clearly discoverable for the purposes of attacking her credibility. The question is whether it is admissible for anything probative or whether it would be limited to impeachment. If Orly was sued for fraud then it would be admissible and if, as part of any malpractice suit, there was a claim for punitive damages on the basis that she was reckless, then I could see it being relevant to prove recklessness.

    To me, the best question is whether any of her “clients” have any damages. None of them had any legitimate claims to begin with. Anyone have any good ideas on what their damages might be?

  18. avatar
    ASK Esq January 30, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Rickey: I was thinking the same thing. If Orly had a client who was willing to sue her for legal malpractice, I could see where discovery into her legal education and admission to the Bar could conceivably be relevant.

    The problem I see in this is that, other than her birther clients (Most of whom are outside of California), has she ever had any actual clients? I was under the impression that she got her law degree and (somehow) became an attorney because her dental malpractice carrier was refusing to defend her due to the numerous actions against her. So her only non-birther related client has been her own dental practice. Of course, this could be something I made up, but I have the same amount of evidence to support it as she does for her claims regarding President Obama.

  19. avatar
    aarrgghh January 30, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    Rickey: If Orly had a client who was willing to sue her for legal malpractice …

    let’s find one — the orly way!

    “LOOKINK FOR ANY INDIVIDUALS, FROM ANYWHERE IN ZE WORLD, WHO CAN FILE CASE, ANY CASE, WITH ORLY SVETLANA AUERBACH TAITZ ESQ, AND FILE THE MALPRACTICE AGAINST ORLY AFTER LOSINK. TAITZ VIOLATED LAWS RELATINK TO LAWYERS. I NEED HELP WITH RESEARCH OF ANY AND ALL LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF BAR EXAMS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, SUBPOENAS, COURTROOM BEHAVIOR , READINK COMPREHENSION, AND BASIC HUMAN DECENCY TO INCLUDE IN THE COMPLAINT”

  20. avatar
    Rickey January 30, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    Yoda: It is a very interesting question.I remember a case where a doctor was sued for malpractice and it turned out he wasn’t licensed.If my memory is correct, the plaintiff argued that the lack of license was negligence per se.I could very well be wrong about that, but that is what I recall.Anyway, the Court ruled that the lack of license was not relevant for the purposes of proving malpractice and that the doctor was held to the same standard as if he was licensed.That analysis is not exactly on point, but it is relevant to the discussion.

    It is clearly discoverable for the purposes of attacking her credibility.The question is whether it is admissible for anything probative or whether it would be limited to impeachment.If Orly was sued for fraud then it would be admissible and if, as part of any malpractice suit, there was a claim for punitive damages on the basis that she was reckless, then I could see it being relevant to prove recklessness.

    To me, the best question is whether any of her “clients” have any damages.None of them had any legitimate claims to begin with.Anyone have any good ideas on what their damages might be?

    You make good points.

    Stefan Cook was damanged by her – he lost his security clearance and job thanks to her – but he is dead.

    Connie Rhodes might have a case against Orly if she could show that Orly’s legal advice damaged Rhodes’ military career.

  21. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

    I’m wary of pop-psychology generally, but I about keeled over when I read this description of querulous personality disorder. It’s got Orly nailed I’m afraid. So she really will be planning a march on Obama’s Presidency every year decades into the future, and she really does think she may win in court the 800th time she presents the same failed charges, and she can’t learn from her mistakes because her campaign will ultimately succeed in spite of them in her righteous mind. She’ll camp out in front of the Obama Presidential Library for sure.

    http://wtsglobal.com/newsletters/the-vex
    atious-litigant/

    Here are excerpts from the report:

    ….“The long-term, obsessively invested “querulous vexatious litigant.”.,.fixation, demands to be recognized, and increasingly grandiose list of complaints and accompanying insults. … often appears with many documents, pleading or demanding that they be read. On inspection the arguments are poorly constructed and often confusing and rambling… as well as many attachments, often of no relevance to the case or touting broad principles of human rights…

    …They may utterly deny obvious undisputed facts known to others. Although they certainly may engage in conscious lying, fundamentally it is more the case of a passionate belief in the truth of their perceptions. Personal blogs, chat room dialogue reinforcing their perceptions, and other internet activity will accompany their quest. How to communicate effectively with helpers and agency representatives eludes them,…

    … Usually those engaged with them very quickly have their competence challenged and their patience sorely tried…. may appear at corporate or legal offices, dramatically presenting their self-authored “briefs” to receptionists or support staff ….

    …querulous describes “a pattern of behavior involving the unusually persistent pursuit of a personal grievance in a manner seriously damaging to the individual’s economic, social, and personal interests, and disruptive to the functioning of the courts and/or other agencies attempting to resolve the claims.”…

    …Querulous behavior, according to Mullen and Lester, involves a “totally disproportionate investment of time and resources in grievances that grow steadily from the mundane to the grandiose.” Resolutions not only require “an apology, reparation, and/or compensation but retribution and personal vindication” – objectives beyond what courts can bestow….these individuals often reveal grand fantasies of their ultimate vindication unveiled dramatically at the highest judicial levels, accompanied by criminal punishment and public humiliation of their wrong doers…

    …can eventually lead to a bizarre, life-engrossing campaign to uncover and bring down “global conspiracies…..In meetings the querulous may insist on taking notes or recording the session… They may even call for the disbarring of attorneys and the dismissal or prosecution of other officials. In the courtroom they may make unruly remarks to the judge, inviting sanctions. ….

    ….Mullen and Lester also denote a subgroup termed “unusually persistent petitioners,” who pursue their quest with voluminous petitions for help from prominent public figures. These individuals, who are usually more psychotic, regard standard response letters from politicians as evidence of support….

    …Querulous behavior is likely rooted in a mental disorder, especially where paranoia and delusional phenomena contribute… paranoia and delusions are common and readily evident, and especially relevant to assessing risk. Paranoia can range from vague feelings of being persecuted in the absence of any facts that support such perceptions, to a highly developed, organized, and fantastic set of beliefs that are clearly delusional. With querulants there is frequently a history of losses and accumulated setbacks….”

    I’m beginning to feel a little sorry for Orly, notwithstanding the possibility that she could become twice as bad if she develops a second brain cell.

  22. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 30, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    aarrgghh: let’s find one — the orly way!

    “LOOKINK FOR ANY INDIVIDUALS, FROM ANYWHERE IN ZE WORLD, WHO CAN FILE CASE, ANY CASE, WITH ORLY SVETLANA AUERBACH TAITZ ESQ, AND FILE THE MALPRACTICE AGAINST ORLY AFTER LOSINK. TAITZ VIOLATED LAWS RELATINK TO LAWYERS. I NEED HELP WITH RESEARCH OF ANY AND ALL LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF BAR EXAMS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, SUBPOENAS, COURTROOM BEHAVIOR , READINK COMPREHENSION, AND BASIC HUMAN DECENCY TO INCLUDE IN THE COMPLAINT”

    Well, it is (or was) Svetlana Auerbuch, actually, (the spelling Averbukh is a back formation through Cyrillic) but since Orly now and then misspells her own name, your appeal is almost perfect, though you missed out on loosink and descentcy.

    If Sveta is reading this, she might find the following link useful:
    http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/spelling-and-word-lists/misspelled.html

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    The article seems to be identifying behavior patterns, rather than any particular psychiatric disorder. The behavior certainly has much in common with Orly Taitz’s fixation on Barack Obama.

    Benji Franklin: I’m wary of pop-psychology generally, but I about keeled over when I read this description of querulous personality disorder.

  24. avatar
    charo January 30, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

    Rickey: Stefan Cook was damanged by her – he lost his security clearance and job thanks to her – but he is dead.

    Couldn’t his survivors sue if SOL has not passed?

  25. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    charo: Couldn’t his survivors sue if SOL has not passed?

    Presumably, but it would be difficult to prevail without him around to testify about what advice Orly gave him. Orly could claim that she warned him about possible repercussions, and that would be difficult to rebut unless there is a living witness who was present during their meetings and/or phone conversations.

  26. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree January 31, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    Andrew Morris:
    I am also a strong supporter of online legal education, but something has gone very badly wrong here. Based on how she writes, her complete inability to understnd rules of evidence and procedure, I just don’t understand how she passed the Taft exams and the CA Bar. It just isn’t consistent with how she tries to practice law. And then there’s the mindset. A book could be written on that, but there is no evaluation of what’s put in front of her. She treats as proof the falsified nonsense from fake experts. She believes what clearly deranged people say in letters and web posts or on TV, if it fits her own world view. Thus, the Brits like her because one UK lunatic sends her an email of support. Today she says “Wow…” she was right in seeing a conspiracy behind the long-delayed abdication of the Queen of the Netherlands, because someone sent her an email (probably fake) that agrees with her. So, in best birther tradition, I also now demand to see her law exam papers because I think they must have been forged. Specifically, with subpoenas to follow, she must release the script, an analysis of her handwriting (though they can’t have been written because, as the Court noted, her writing is illegible) AND expert comparison of the writing style with other non-contentious examples of her writing, to prove that she didn’t get someone to sit the exams for her.

    How do you know that Taft is cheaper than a bricks and mortar law school. Training as a lawyer requires one to be able to think on one’s feet when challenged, and that cannot be taught on line. Would you be OK with a cardiac surgeon about to do by-pass surgery on you who got her medical degree on line?

  27. avatar
    The Magic M January 31, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    Andrew Morris: I just don’t understand how she passed the Taft exams and the CA Bar

    Psychologically, I don’t think these two facts (Orly passing the bar exam and Orly acting like she studied the law on shortwave radio) are necessarily incompatible.

    A person can change (i.e. become crazy later in life after having been a fairly intelligent and sane person before).

    Also, the crazyness may be limited to certain aspects of life – similar to how a calm and relaxed person may become aggravated by a single person’s behaviour but not by anything else (I would refer to myself as an example, I have a female colleague who can make my blood boil with just two sentences whereas it’s impossible for almost everybody else to get me riled up).

    Another example I gave before was a crank I know from my country who had a high rank in the military, then somehow became aggravated towards the legal system, chose to study law, got his degree, became a lawyer (he was very intelligent after all) and then stuck to typical crank behaviour (including abusing his clients’ cases for his crusade against the legal system) – he was eventually disbarred.

    And then one may never know how much she f***s up on purpose. A German TV celebrity based her entire career on being the dumb-but-charming pretty girl, later it turned out it was all an act.

  28. avatar
    Keith January 31, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    The Magic M: A German TV celebrity based her entire career on being the dumb-but-charming pretty girl, later it turned out it was all an act.

    Signed

    Gracie Allen

    (and Lucille Ball)

    (and Goldie Hawn)

    (and …)

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm #

    Keith: Signed

    Gracie Allen

    (and Lucille Ball)

    (and Goldie Hawn)

    (and …)

    and Victoria Jackson. OOPS Never mind.

  30. avatar
    Greenfinches January 31, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The article seems to be identifying behavior patterns, rather than any particular psychiatric disorder. The behavior certainly has much in common with Orly Taitz’s fixation on Barack Obama.

    You could use Orly as an illustration of this in an encyclopedia.

    Tho’ I confess I can’t feel sorry for her, as she has caused so much hassle and expense!

  31. avatar
    Keith January 31, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    Greenfinches: You could use Orly as an illustration of this in an encyclopedia.

    Well, check out the article “Querulent” on Wikipedia.

  32. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    The Magic M: Psychologically, I don’t think these two facts (Orly passing the bar exam and Orly acting like she studied the law on shortwave radio) are necessarily incompatible.

    She was admitted to practice in California in 2002, so she had five years or so before she became a birther. It would be interesting if someone in Orange County had the time and interest to review the court files of some of her pre-birther cases.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2013 at 10:04 pm #

    I wonder how long that will last?

    Keith: Well, check out the article “Querulent” on Wikipedia.

  34. avatar
    Keith January 31, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I wonder how long that will last?

    Me too. 8-)

  35. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 1, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I wonder how long that will last?

    Several minutes so far :D

  36. avatar
    Kris February 1, 2013 at 1:52 am #

    Keith: Well, check out the article “Querulent” on Wikipedia.

    Orly should be pleased since this gives her more of the attention she craves. We all know she doesn’t care what kind of attention it is, as long as someone is noticing her.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    And now a few hours. I think that it was a really funny joke but it violates the heck out of Wikipedia policies (controversial and potentially slanderous biographical references to living persons) and it ought to go away.

    aesthetocyst: Several minutes so far

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2013 at 9:28 am #

    IIRC all she did was defend some malpractice suits, and maybe a family member. She was practicing as a dentist, not a lawyer. She admitted in court once that she had never done a trial.

    Rickey: She was admitted to practice in California in 2002, so she had five years or so before she became a birther. It would be interesting if someone in Orange County had the time and interest to review the court files of some of her pre-birther cases.

  39. avatar
    ASK Esq February 2, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    The Magic M: Psychologically, I don’t think these two facts (Orly passing the bar exam and Orly acting like she studied the law on shortwave radio) are necessarily incompatible.
    A person can change (i.e. become crazy later in life after having been a fairly intelligent and sane person before).

    I don’t see her insanity and her inability to understand basic legal concepts as being related. Based solely on her legal filings, I cannot imagine any scenario in which she was able to pass any bar exam, let alone California’s, which is supposed to be one of the toughest in the nation. (That was a clumsy sentence, sorry.)

  40. avatar
    G February 5, 2013 at 11:35 pm #

    That’s why I love this site. I always learn new things.

    Querulent.

    That’s today’s “new word”…

    …and YES…that is Orly to a tee…

  41. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And now a few hours. I think that it was a really funny joke but it violates the heck out of Wikipedia policies (controversial and potentially slanderous biographical references to living persons) and it ought to go away.

    Libel, Doc, libel.

    It lasted most of a day. Was removed Saturday for “Potentially libelous reference to living person/vandalism”

    No matter how accurate, it was potentially defamatory. Potentially.

    Now, if Orly was commonly described as, and came to be generally understood to be, querulent …. ;)

  42. avatar
    donna February 6, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    wiki Querulant: “This page was last modified on 2 February 2013 at 00:03.”

  43. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 1:07 am #

    In extreme cases of BLP violations, sufficiently privileged Wikipedia admins can completely scrub the offending edit out of the edit log.

    They didn’t do that.

    Given that Orly has trouble figuring out something as simple as reporting bogus LinkedIn profiles, I’m thinking that will stay in place for while, until she can send out the call to her FW-SM (Flying Wikipedia-Savvy Monkeys), of which I’m guessing there are somewhere around zero.

  44. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 1:15 am #

    aesthetocyst: Was removed Saturday for “Potentially libelous reference to living person/vandalism”

    There’s another interesting datum in that log record.

  45. avatar
    G February 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    Indeed! Querulant has now been added to my vocabulary…as a term that best describes Mad Orly.

    But yeah, unless the day comes where her mental illness receives an official and formal diagnosis, it would be “potentially defamatory” and therefore was appropriately excised out of Wikipedia, via the very valid review processes they have in place.

    aesthetocyst: No matter how accurate, it was potentially defamatory. Potentially.

    Now, if Orly was commonly described as, and came to be generally understood to be, querulent ….

  46. avatar
    HKL (Keith away from home) February 6, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    justlw:
    aesthetocyst: Was removed Saturday for “Potentially libelous reference to living person/vandalism”

    There’s another interesting datum in that log record.

    Yeah. Somebody we all know is a party pooper.

    And correct.

  47. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    HKL (Keith away from home): Yeah. Somebody we all know is a party pooper.

    And correct.

    Agreed. Can you imagine a birther ever returning the favor?

  48. avatar
    G February 7, 2013 at 10:38 am #

    Sadly, NO.

    justlw: Agreed. Can you imagine a birther ever returning the favor?