Main Menu

Cover v. recover

Here’s a screen shot in case this particular post [link to Taitz web site] from the Taitz web site gets scrubbed:

image

The Court decision doesn’t say that the respondent must “cover” costs, but rather that the respondent may “recover” costs, i.e., Orly pays.

In this action, the respondents did not file any responses, leading one to think that they will not have much in the way of costs to recover.

Update:

The article on the Taitz site is gone this morning. I think the importance of retaining my article is not to leave a monument to how clueless Orly Taitz is, but rather to give a possible example of the kind of error she makes that contributes to her being the conspiracy theorist she is—the lack of a high-functioning nonsense filter. Orly Taitz expressed surprise that she should lose her case and the other side have to pay costs—recognizing something that makes no sense whatever; nevertheless, the way her mind works, that recognition of nonsense was not strong enough to effect a change in behavior and to  prevent an embarrassing mistake.

Print Friendly

45 Responses to Cover v. recover

  1. avatar
    Gimmeabreak January 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm #

    She posted this on Facebook, too. Even one of her own pointed out that it said REcover, not cover.

  2. avatar
    Thinker January 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm #

    This was one of her empty chair defeats, so, unfortunately, no respondent will be recovering costs.

  3. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm #

    I had to read it several times to make sure I was getting it right. I kept thinking “Gee, she can’t be that stupid!”

    So…..can any of the Socal lawyers tell us what kind of hit she’s facing?

  4. avatar
    Bob January 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm #

    Surprised she didn’t just say: “I won! I won! I won!”

  5. avatar
    JPotter January 3, 2014 at 9:26 pm #

    As sad as it is that she misread that verb, what really funny/telling/revealing is that she found the idea that something was in her favor to be “surprising” :D

  6. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm #

    This is completely delicious. I hope it reverberates all over wingnuttistan before any of them realizes the truth: that Orly’s level of comprehension is just below Golden Retriever.

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    I’m not a lawyer, but I think that while the empty chair is undeniably a skilled litigator, it doesn’t command much of an hourly rate…

    CarlOrcas:
    I had to read it several times to make sure I was getting it right. I kept thinking “Gee, she can’t be that stupid!”

    So…..can any of the Socal lawyers tell us what kind of hit she’s facing?

  8. avatar
    BatGuano January 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    CarlOrcas:
    I kept thinking “Gee, she can’t be that stupid!”

    i prefer to think that she’s not restrained by the confines of competence.

  9. avatar
    Thinker January 3, 2014 at 10:48 pm #

    Not only surprising, but plausible. She apparently believes that it was even remotely possible that the court would order the President of the United States to pay her court costs even though she couldn’t figure out how to get a single defendant to respond in either the trial court or the appeals court.

    She’ll figure this one out and delete it soon, but it would be hilarious if she actually submitted something to try to get her costs paid. Maybe she’ll bill Obama for the costs she incurred during her ill-advised side trip to federal court and the $4000 Occidental sanction. And all those failed attempts at serving him. LOL.

    JPotter:
    As sad as it is that she misread that verb, what really funny/telling/revealing is that she found the idea that something was in her favor to be “surprising” :D

  10. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 3, 2014 at 10:48 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I’m not a lawyer, but I think that while the empty chair is undeniably a skilled litigator, it doesn’t command much of an hourly rate…

    Ah….’tis true but in some jurisdictions I believe they can also go after court costs in especially egregious cases. Hmm.

  11. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 3, 2014 at 10:49 pm #

    BatGuano: i prefer to think that she’s not restrained by the confines of competence.

    I like that……a lot!

  12. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 3, 2014 at 10:54 pm #

    Thinker: She’ll figure this one out and delete it soon…….

    Two and a half hours on it’s still there. Maybe she’s out celebrating, spending the money she thinks is coming her way.

    Either that or she’s standing on the end of the Huntington Beach pier trying to decide what to do next.

  13. avatar
    Thinker January 3, 2014 at 11:13 pm #

    With a mistake this obvious, she usually deletes it as soon as Doc C or NBC post about it, which I’m guessing sets off her google alert. She must be too busy to google herself right now.

    CarlOrcas: Two and a half hours on it’s still there. Maybe she’s out celebrating, spending the money she thinks is coming her way.

  14. avatar
    ducktape January 3, 2014 at 11:24 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I’m not a lawyer, but I think that while the empty chair is undeniably a skilled litigator, it doesn’t command much of an hourly rate…

    Damn! I knew we should have sent the rhesus monkey!

  15. avatar
    Mugwhump January 4, 2014 at 12:00 am #

    Thomas Brown:
    This is completely delicious.I hope it reverberates all over wingnuttistan before any of them realizes the truth: that Orly’s level of comprehension is just below Golden Retriever.

    That’s pretty harsh on the Retrievers. They are pretty smart. Pretty too. Not the case with Oily.

    I have a roll of tape smarter than Oily Titz.

    Much better.

  16. avatar
    justlw January 4, 2014 at 12:49 am #

    Thinker: This was one of her empty chair defeats, so, unfortunately, no respondent will be recovering costs.

    Clearly, this should be “reupholstering costs.”

  17. avatar
    Lupin January 4, 2014 at 2:18 am #

    That’s hilarious!

  18. avatar
    Suranis January 4, 2014 at 5:51 am #

    Apparently (and I’m not braving the Miasma and infested halls of Taitz’s blog to see for myself) this has been scrubbed.

    I guess it wasn’t as victorious as she saw initially

  19. avatar
    Suranis January 4, 2014 at 6:00 am #

    Ok. I checked. Its gone.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2014 at 8:00 am #

    This article has been updated to add:

    The article on the Taitz site is gone this morning. I think the importance of retaining my article is not to leave a monument to how clueless Orly Taitz is, but rather to give a possible example of the kind of error she makes that contributes to her being the conspiracy theorist she is—the lack of a high-functioning nonsense filter. Orly Taitz expressed surprise that she should lose her case and the other side have to pay costs—recognizing something that makes no sense whatever; nevertheless, the way her mind works, that recognition of nonsense was not strong enough to effect a change in behavior and to prevent an embarrassing mistake.

  21. avatar
    Andrew Morris January 4, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    There’s more of the same today. She got a response to her FOIA request about the President enrolling under the ACA. Basically, they have her the finger, with every request effectively denied by saying there were no responsive records. Genius that she is, she interprets this to mean that her allegations are vindicated. What it actually means is that, as always, she asked the wrong questions.

  22. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm #

    Unfortunately, Orly Taitz’s incompetence at lawyering cannot be adequately described without developing a logarithmic scale that reflects the exponential growth in legal blundering that results from each additional hour she spends working on a case multiplied by the number of logical fallacies with which she preposterously manufactures the unevidenced conclusory allegations which she laughingly calls “proof”!

    She should be disbarred and heavily sanctioned financially as a vexatious litigant.

  23. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm #

    Benji Franklin: She should be disbarred and heavily sanctioned financially as a vexatious litigant.

    And we get robbed of our entertainment?…. Her incompetence is legendary….

  24. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg January 4, 2014 at 11:39 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    There’s more of the same today. She got a response to her FOIA request about the President enrolling under the ACA. Basically, they have her the finger, with every request effectively denied by saying there were no responsive records. Genius that she is, she interprets this to mean that her allegations are vindicated. What it actually means is that, as always, she asked the wrong questions.

    She asked the wrong questions of the wrong party. A third party contractor provides the identity verification for the state health insurance exchanges, and alas, that contractor is not subject to FOIA.

  25. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 5, 2014 at 9:11 am #

    But that seems to be her stock in trade, in each and every case she brings forth. She consistently asks the wrong questions of the wrong people and can’t seem to find the ones she needs to serve or ask. At least she has been 100% consistent all the way through.

    Butterfly Bilderberg: She asked the wrong questions of the wrong party.

  26. avatar
    Reality Check January 5, 2014 at 9:51 am #

    I predict that within six months at least one Birther will claim in a forum post or comment somewhere that a court in California ordered Barack Obama to pay costs to Orly Taitz.. Bonus prediction: when challenged to prove that claim they will never reply.

  27. avatar
    jd reed January 5, 2014 at 11:04 am #

    Doc, re Orly’s “lack of a high functioning nonsense filter”, Hemingway put it this way: “The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in shock proof (expletive omitted) detector.” I submit you can’t continue to be a birther if you develop Hemingway’s *nonsense* detector.

  28. avatar
    Suranis January 5, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    I think she does it deliberately, to prolong her cases and to show that the regime is fighting her.

    Even the biggest moron in the world would learn how to properly service people in 5 years. Even she would know how to look up and send something to the right address. She’s messing this stuff up deliberately

    Notorial Dissent:
    But that seems to be her stock in trade, in each and every case she brings forth. She consistently asks the wrong questions of the wrong people and can’t seem to find the ones she needs to serve or ask. At least she has been 100% consistent all the way through.

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 5, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    The “Look the regime is fighting me!” plays right into “Please send more money, to aid me in my struggle!”.

  30. avatar
    Thinker January 5, 2014 at 3:04 pm #

    If serving process were the only relatively easy thing she consistently screws up, I might agree, but she screws up so many easy things. She betrays no knowledge of any other aspects of the law. She can’t format documents properly. She can’t figure out how to use a spell checker. She misuses words all the time. She regularly falls for obvious hoaxes. She thinks a guy who used to work for the Coast Guard is an expert on fake selective service applications. She wears clothes that are two sizes too small. I could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs.

    She’s a clueless moron who has no idea what she is doing.

    Suranis:
    I think she does it deliberately, to prolong her cases and to show that the regime is fighting her.

    Even the biggest moron in the world would learn how to properly service people in 5 years. Even she would know how to look up and send something to the right address. She’s messing this stuff up deliberately

  31. avatar
    Reality Check January 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm #

    I used to give some credence to the “Orly messes up on purpose” theory but now I am solidly in the “no she is really that stupid” camp. Of course I used to think she might have passed the bar by herself too.

  32. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 6, 2014 at 7:51 am #

    Reality Check:
    I used to give some credence to the “Orly messes up on purpose” theory but now I am solidly in the “no she is really that stupid” camp. Of course I used to think she might have passed the bar by herself too.

    Still, she does financially benefit from having supporters who are slightly dumber than she is, which I guess is like saying “Dumb as a slightly larger box of rocks.”

  33. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2014 at 8:10 am #

    Reality Check: I used to give some credence to the “Orly messes up on purpose” theory but now I am solidly in the “no she is really that stupid” camp.

    I’m thinking both. Some stuff she screws up on purpose (like serving), some stuff she screws up subconsciously (like asking the wrong questions), some stuff she doesn’t get because she has no concept of satire/irony/sarcasm (easily falling for hoaxes), some stuff she just doesn’t get because she’s mentally ill (like ignoring the de facto officer doctrine or claiming a judge agreed with her when he clearly didn’t).

    Andrew Morris: Genius that she is, she interprets this to mean that her allegations are vindicated.

    It’s a slightly more complicated version of the loaded question:

    “Show me the documents proving Obama is not a space lizard.”
    - “There are no such documents.”
    - “Therefore Obama is a space lizard.”

  34. avatar
    Sam the Centipede January 6, 2014 at 8:45 am #

    It’s difficult to see the cover/recover screw-up as anything other than monumental stupidity as it doesn’t help Taitz in any way. Even if she mis-read the words, she should immediately have thought “hey! that’s unlikely! why would a court order a non-existent defendant to pay for a losing plaintiff’s case? I need to look again”.

    Taitz’s reluctance to serve properly when a judge held her by the hand could be due to her suspecting that this was some clever trick by The Man And His Minions to bounce her case out. Perhaps she feared the judge might say “OK guys, you’ve all been served, so now I can dismiss the case with prejudice” or something like that.

    There is no reason to suspect a clever ploy behind Taitz’s failures; the flood of stupid hatred is common to all her vile antics.

  35. avatar
    Reality Check January 6, 2014 at 9:04 am #

    Besides keeping the cases in slightly non-vegetative state longer the other benefit for Taitz mucking up process of service royally is that it lessens the possibility of her getting nailed for costs or sanctions. Look at the cases where there has been a non-government defendant who actively participated:

    In Mississippi the defendant’s attorneys will almost certainly move for costs and sanctions when Judge Wingate dismisses the case. You can bet this one keeps Orly awake at night.

    Occidental College was represented by Carl Botterrud and Jay Ritt who were able to extract costs with one brief. Orly messed up service in that case too but Occidental decided to show up anyway.

  36. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2014 at 9:13 am #

    Sam the Centipede: Even if she mis-read the words, she should immediately have thought “hey! that’s unlikely! why would a court order a non-existent defendant to pay for a losing plaintiff’s case?

    I would put that in the “mentally ill” category, not the “just stupid” category. She so desperately needs any perceived “win”, no matter how insignificant, and losing a case but having the defendant ordered to pay costs would be the kind of “best case” win she actually expects (I’m not sure if her quest for “one honest judge” – wasting her resources on what she calls a corrupt system anyway – is deliberate propaganda or mental illness) – something like a judge secretly telling her “I agree with you but the Mafia does not allow me to rule in your favour, so I’m sending you a secret message”.

  37. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 6, 2014 at 4:14 pm #

    Speaking of what’s next from Orly……check out her website for her latest gambit. She wants to run for (Alert: Swallow that coffee before you go any further.) California Attorney General on the following issues:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=444743#comments

    But, first, she needs someone to pony up the $3,022 registration fee.

  38. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 6, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

    Well, if Mark Kessler is any indication, I doubt she’ll get much in the way of votes, even if she does manage to get her name on a ballot. The voting public isn’t very fond of kooks, and you can bet that all her nastiness will be brought front and center to the public eye, if she were to run for ANY office.

  39. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 6, 2014 at 4:40 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Well, if Mark Kessler is any indication, I doubt she’ll get much in the way of votes, even if she does manage to get her name on a ballot. The voting public isn’t very fond of kooks, and you can bet that all her nastiness will be brought front and center to the public eye, if she were to run for ANY office.

    Didn’t she run for Senate, or something, a couple years ago? Obviously she didn’t win.

  40. avatar
    Crustacean January 6, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: The voting public isn’t very fond of kooks, and you can bet that all her nastiness will be brought front and center to the public eye, if she were to run for ANY office.

    Hmmm, sounds like the perfect opportunity for me to start up that Super-PAC I’ve always wanted. Orly supporters are easily separated from their money, so if someone would please just tell me what combination of keystrokes I need to press to create a PayPal button, I’ll be livin’ the dream in no time.

  41. avatar
    JPotter January 6, 2014 at 9:16 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Didn’t she run for Senate, or something, a couple years ago? Obviously she didn’t win.

    She tried and failed to win the Red nomination for the honor of getting trounced by Feinstein.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2012

  42. avatar
    Keith January 6, 2014 at 9:42 pm #

    CarlOrcas: But, first, she needs someone to pony up the $3,022 registration fee.

    I take it that hubby has cut her off?

  43. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm #

    Keith: I take it that hubby has cut her off?

    Oh, I half-expect that “hubby” is a desiccated husk she keeps in her basement. But he still tells her what to do.

  44. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 6, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

    JPotter: She tried and failed to win the Red nomination for the honor of getting trounced by Feinstein.

    The woman has a strong masochistic streak running through her life.

  45. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 6, 2014 at 10:13 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Oh, I half-expect that “hubby” is a desiccated husk she keeps in her basement. But he still tells her what to do.

    If the pictures I find are him I’d say he’s anything but dessicated. Looks pretty healthy to me!!

    (Note: I didn’t post his name just in case Doc thinks it would be inappropriate. If not it can be added later.)