Massive defeat for Orly in Rhodes case

Attorney Orly Taitz suffered a massive defeat in the US District Court for Middle Georgia in her attempts to stay deployment of Army doctor Connie Rhodes.

This is was no short dismissal, but a rending commentary on the frivolous nature of the lawsuit, using such words as:

  • Frivolous
  • Alice in Wonderland
  • Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony
  • remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof
  • Although counsel has managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.
  • has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits
  • not plausible on its face
  • She alleges no factual basis for her “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not born in the United States.

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay defense expenses, and Taitz was threatened with sanctions if she brings another frivolous suit.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Massive defeat for Orly in Rhodes case

  1. Chris says:

    Judge Land’s decision is being discussed on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

  2. aarrgghh says:

    i’m shocked, i tell you, just shocked.

    … okay, i’ll admit it: i’ve had a tall bottle of birfer tears chilling in the fridge since the last one was emptied after major cook’s case. keep ’em coming, orly!

  3. Bob says:

    Interesting footnote to Cook v. Good: Taitz filed a notice of appeal, but she filed it one day too late (actually, seven minutes from what I hear).

    As such, the 11th Circuit lacks jurisdiction. “Ooops.”

  4. Per Son says:

    Where did you hear this about the notice of appeal? There is nothing on pacer for the district or appellate court.

  5. JM says:

    The commentary was great!

  6. Bob says:

    It is the notice of appeal in Cook’s case, not Rhodes’ case.

    And it was filed at 3:12 a.m. EDT. So Taitz was late even if she thought it had to be filed by midnight PDT.

  7. Bob says:

    Guess who Taitz now says needs to be tried for treason?

  8. Rickey says:

    Orly was up at the crack of dawn today to complain about people supposedly claiming that her husband has some connection to swine flu vaccine, but she has yet to say a word on her blog about the Rhodes decision. However, she now wants Judge Land to be tried for treason.

  9. Per Son says:

    This is great. Good call. She missed the time on the Notice – you are right. lol

    That is hilarious.

  10. Jez says:

    I think it’s “Connie” Rhodes. You might be thinking Pamela Barnett from the CA case.

    But, then again, they are all basically the same case.

  11. meson says:

    Smackdown for Oily Titz and the birfers yet again…..woohoo!

  12. Mary Brown says:

    Finally a judge has served the demented dentist her just deserts. And the Captain will be going to Iraq.

  13. JM says:

    Wow. Sorry of this is off topic but have you guys seen this video of Orly? This is hilarious!

  14. kimba says:

    Holy Cow! Wavey Davey says Judge Land’s ruling is great news for birthers! A HUGE win! Put these folks in front of a pile of manure and they dig for the pony! crrrazzzzzy.

    “In other words, Judge Land elected to discuss what he feels is the paucity of evidence presented to show the Obama is inelligible, not enough evidence to show the likelihood of a Taitz win on the merits — BUT HE ADDRESSED THE MERITS!!!

    This means, if anything, that DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL (Motions to Produce Documentation against Team Obama — birth records, college records, passport records etc.). Judge Land is saying that based on what Orly has produced, the case is frivolous BASED ON THOSE FACTS. Orly should take this landmark precedent of the Court addressing those facts and merits TO SHOW PRECISELY WHY DISCOVERY BEING MANDATED IS ABSOULTELY ESSENTIAL (and once there IS discovery, Obama will fall).

    Stated another way, the precedent has been established to address the merits and the facts of Obama’s eligibility; more than just dismissal on procedural or standing grounds.

    THIS IS A HUGE WIN (but Judge Land does it in a way to protect himself from the Obamabots by his clobbering of Taitz).”

  15. Reid says:

    Hey, can you use the full hyperlink please? Some of us are uncomfortable clicking on shortened URLs.

  16. kimba says:

    It’s in the comments on the post about Judge Land’s decision.

  17. Gordon says:

    Wow, that was like reading a hundred Heavies all at once.

  18. I respect your caution. The ones I use link to PDF’s and I don’t have access to the real locations.

    I personally won’t post a tiny URL unless I have tried it myself and trust the source.

  19. ImaForener says:

    Orly’s fan-boys are beginning to come to her aid.

    ‘I have challanged Judge Land to a round of “Fist a Cuff’s” in the Couthouse Square, via E-mail… I told him that I might possibly beat some sense into him….The man has insulted Me,U and 1/2 the Citizenry of the United States, by tossing ur case and calling it “Frivolous”….No such thing as a Stupid Question, and I want to know who or what this thing in the Whitehouse is…. I will let u know what Judge Land’s response is…’

    I would think that the danger in challenging a judge to ‘fist a cuffs’ is that one may end up with ‘wrists in cuffs’.

  20. Reid says:

    It’s more the url-shortening service itself. Why should you trust Why should I? What kind of security practices do they use? There have already been instances of URL shorteners being hacked and all links being redirected transparently to attack sites. What happens if runs out of money? How do I know where the link is going?

    Anyway, here’s the full link for those who are interested. I didn’t see in the comments but a quick Google search for “Rhodes v. Macdonald” and it was the first hit.

  21. June bug says:

    Sadly, lawyers at PJ are saying that the extra 3 days that has always been allowed for mailing time still applies in these days of electronic filing, so I’m afraid Orly beat the clock. However, I somehow don’t see the 11th Circuit taking too kindly to her post-decision trashing of Judge Land.

  22. Greg says:

    There’s no such thing as a stupid question, but there is such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit!

  23. sarina says:

    This is what Lucas Smith posted on his video in YT tonight:
    “Dear 2009WarriorLass, I hate to say it but the truth is that Orly doesn’t haven jack. She has no expert nothing. I too was fooled at first. Believe me the woman is nothing more than a body of lies. She has the attention span of a small child. She has not hired any experts to authenticate or discredit any thing. She spends her days eating at expensive restaurants (with donated money) and talking on the phone to hear her own voice. Respectfully, Lucas Smith.”

  24. Mary Brown says:

    It takes one to know one. I guess this convicted forger has found a very good way to get himself out of lying under oath. Luky for him the attorney is Orly. Orly is about Orly and only Orly.

  25. nbc says:

    Nonsense, the judge rejected based on 12b(1), lack of standing, and also hints that it would have been rejected based on 12b(6) “failure to state a claim”.

    No Discovery is granted through this, and no precedent can be gained from this ruling.

    The case clearly falls on 12b(1)

    Although the Court has determined that the appropriate analysis here involves principles of abstention and not an examination of whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court does find the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis helpful in confirming the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim has no merit.

  26. kimba says:

    yes, it’s ridiculous. wavey davey is trying to suggest is that if the Judge dismissed as frivolous based on the facts Orly has, well, then gosh darn it, that’s why you need discovery is to get some facts that aren’t frivolous. Ianal, but even I know you can’t sue someone with no evidence and hope to learn what you need to prove your case with discovery.

  27. sarina says:

    Mary Brown

    I agree with you.

  28. Nullifidian says:

    kimba:’s in the comments on the post about Judge Land’s decision.

    I’ve got to admit that they do have a point:

    Yes, many of you are accusers if you think some “perfect” attorney can do a better job.

    It’s true. Not even a resurrected Clarence Darrow could make this turkey fly.

  29. myson says:

    This wasnt a comment by PJ’s Wavey, its a comment made by one of Orly’s pple which Pjers are encouraging. We expect her to file a motion to reconsider & then ……..

  30. Nullifidian says:

    It seems from the comments that baseless accusations of “treason” are not solely the province of the far-right:

    I hope you’re not joking. Because this is exactly right. The left is too shy about calling out obvious cases of treason on the right, just because false charges of treason have been so long used against the left.

    Fortunately the author was called on this baseless accusation, but I’d also observe that the actual left is suspicious of yelling “treason!” because it legitimates the idea that the State has the moral authority to suppress revolutionary action.

    One of my goals is to emigrate to a country where authoritarian, center-right liberals like this cannot style themselves as the “left” without getting laughed at.

  31. NBC says:

    Reality is often too harsh for one to acknowledge.

  32. Lupin says:

    O learned Judge!

    This is why the appropriate State Bars should sanction attorneys such as Taitz, Apuzzo and Berg, who knowingly abuse the system by filing these frivolous cases.

    I have no standing to file a complaint in the US, but I hope that other practitioners will act in this matter.

  33. Lupin says:

    She should be disbarred, possibly charged with fraud. (I have no idea of the statutes.)

  34. Mario Apuzzo says:


    You are dreaming. And watch yourself in stating to the public that I have done anything wrong to merit any sanction from my State Bar.

    I expect a retraction from you on this immediately.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  35. Nullifidian says:

    I expect a retraction from you on this immediately.

    To quote from someone in this very thread, “You are dreaming.”

  36. misha says:

    Lupin is domiciled in France. I believe he is a contracts attorney there. He speaks French and English at the native speaker level.

    I doubt he will issue a retraction. Pursuing libel against him is basically impossible.

  37. AdrianInFlorida says:

    I forwarded the link and a PDF of the page to the US Marshalls Service last night, ad the Judg probably will if the Orly fan really did send that email.

  38. kimba says:

    Mario, you got lumped in with Taitz and Berg because you incorporated all their whack-job conspiracy foolishness into your complaint. You’d be better off to argue just on “two-fer” theory and leave the Kenya granny, travel ban to Pakistan, himalayan mountain of Obama-nonsense to the conspiracy theorists.

  39. Lupin says:

    I have accused you, as well as Taitz, Berg, etc, of abusing the US Court system by filing frivolous suits.

    (Judge Land would seem to agree, as far as Taitz is concerned.)

    I assume that your Bar Associations must have some rule against that kind of things, presenting claims not warranted, etc.

    But perhaps I am mistaken.

    If you have NOT, in fact, filed such a suit, and have no intention of doing so, and are only expounding your theories on the internet, just like the rest of us, then I’m more than happy to exclude you from my infamous list.

    I agree that you’re otherwise entitled to your opinions, no matter how ill-founded, just as I am entitled to mine.

  40. Lupin says:

    I do believe that anyone on the internet is entitled to his or her opinion, no matter how loopy, ill-founded or meretricious.

    I find the birther movement delusional, hypocritical and racist, but they’re clearly protected by the First Amendment.

    However, I do take the matter of the filing of frivolous and meretricious claims seriously, which is why I’m happy to see J. Land being serious about this.

    I’m sure there’s a grey area between what is frivolous and what’s not, and different judges will surely rule differently on the matter.

    But the birther cases are, by all professional standards, utterly frivolous, sometimes built on outright deception.

    I believe in the saying, you do the crime, you do the time. Any attorney willfully engaging in this kind of practices is, in effect, running the risk of being sanctioned, just as if he was advising a client to commit a fraud, for example.

    I’m not saying that the lawyers who file birther suits should be deemed guilty outright, but I think they should be investigated, and, if found to have acted in violation of their own Bar regulations by their peers, appropriately sanctioned.

  41. Black Lion says:

    It looks like Orly’s site may be “down again”. If this is the case it would seem to be might coincidental that every time she experiences a massive defeat she does something to take the attention off the defeat and put it back on her. If it is down I am sure she will blame either someone else or some “Obama brownshirt” for trying to silence her. I do know as of yesterday evening it was up and she had not yet addressed her defeat. So who knows. Either way the walls are starting to close in on her. I will admit the comments by Lucas Smith make me laugh. A convicted felon and forger claiming that Orly doesn’t have a clue and is living the “life” off people’s donations. I guess he may be upset that he did not figure that scam out for himself. He and Larry Sinclair make a good pair. As each loss mounts it seems like the fringe birthers are starting to realize the truth and the hardcore ones are digging their heels in and refusing to accept the truth.

    Link to Orly’s site…

  42. misha says:

    In the immortal words of VP Cheney: F’em.

  43. I gather that state bar associations are slow to act except in cases where a client is injured or defrauded.

    Mr. Apuzzo has clearly violated federal court rules by signing a complaint filled with outlandish assertions he neither knows to be true nor has any any reasonable hope of proving.

    Berg’s front man in Hollister v Soetoro was sanctioned. Apuzzo will be lucky to escape the same fate.

    I hope the courts will send a clear signal that federal lawsuits are not to be used to legitimize political smear campaigns or as harrassment.

  44. Robert47 says:

    If this idiot thinks 1/2 of the American population agrees with him then 1/2 of America’s population has reached the hight of stupidity. The again I doubt if 1/4 of America’s population back the birthers!

  45. Lupin says:

    I couldn’t agree more.

    It is indeed deplorable that professional associations like the AMA and the State Bars more often than not act to protect the worst of their members instead of cleaning up their houses.

    (France is no better in that respect, I might add.)

  46. Try without /blog1.

  47. Rickey says:

    Orly posted this on Facebook a few minutes ago:

    My third web site was hacked. I can’t post anything at the moment. I just filed a request for stay of deployment of Captain Connie Rhodes MD pending decision on motion for reconsideration. If you are an attorney or paralegal and want to help wit…h drafting, call me at 949-683-5411 or e-mail Write attorney or paralegal in the heading. I have over 80,000 e-mails and it might get lost otherwise.

  48. Greg says:

    Here’s the emergency motion for a stay while she drafts a motion for reconsideration:

    Emergency Motion for Stay

    Some good bits:

    This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.

    Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court.

    Wow, accusing the court of treason is always a good way of getting what you want!

  49. Paul says:

    The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  50. nbc says:

    She seems to be intent on not only undermining her case in Georgia but also the progress she believes she has made in California.
    At least, in true Orly tradition, she still did not sign the motion.

  51. kimba says:

    Either that or Lincoln is trying to get her disbarred and thrown in Jail! Orly didn’t write that.

  52. ballantine says:

    Wow. That is seriously nuts. Make a filing like that after being threatened with sanctions. What would any sane person think such a filing will accomplish?

  53. Nobody says:

    My favorite passage is:

    Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.

    I predict that Orly will be faced with an order show cause in the near future.

  54. Bob says:

    “this Court ignores some of the soundest and most carefully researched and professionally assembled and presented evidence, collated and substantiated by a former agent of England’s Fabled ‘Scotland Yard’.”

    Explain this sound and carefully researched evidence. Someone goes to a database and enters Obama’s name? A convicted forger claims to have gone to Kenya and buys a birth certificate riddled with errors?

  55. misha says:

    “I have over 80,000 e-mails and it might get lost otherwise.”

    I hope it gets [expletive deleted. Doc] lost. That rabble rouser should get disbarred, with her diploma mill “degree.”

    She has a screw loose – or maybe all of them.

  56. misha says:

    Of course, Orly did not write that. She can’t even speak textbook English, much less write a coherent paragraph.

    Her convicted felon BFF wrote it.

    She is the proverbial bull in a china shop. I am watching the wreckage with glee.

  57. misha says:

    Whoever said Orly was sane? Someone could write an entire textbook about her and her coterie. They have opened a whole new area of mental illness.

    Years from now, a professor will begin a lecture with “We are now going to explore the Orly syndrome.” And the med students with listen in rapt attention.

  58. Black Lion says:

    Additionally there is some news from Orly’s other case in front of Judge Carter. As expected the Defendants motion for a stay of discovery until October 5th was granted. If you recall that was the date that the Judge selected to hear the Defendants motion to dismiss. So as much as Orly was claiming that she was allowed discovery, anyone familar with the law knew that the Judge would not allow discovery until he ruled on the dismissal motion.

    Some interesting points from the order…

    “Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake contend that the Court should decline to exercise its discretion to stay discovery because a stay would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs express concern that they would be prejudiced by the stay because “it will allow Defendants to blanketly block all discovery requests on the basis that the discovery has no relevance to subject matter jurisdiction.”
    Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion (“Pl. Opp.”) at 11. Plaintiffs’ concern is ill-founded because the Court, through Magistrate Judge Nakazato who handles discovery matters, is the arbiter of whether the discovery has relevance to subject matter jurisdiction, not Defendants.”

    “Plaintiffs also argue that “if discovery does not commence until October 5, 2009, all parties would have limited time to conduct discovery prior to the discovery cut off date, due to the January 26, 2010 trial date.” Pl. Opp. at 10. The Court appreciates that Plaintiffs may find that a delay in discovery hampers their ability to be ready for trial by January 2010. However, the January 2010 trial date has not been finalized.”

    The interesting language from the order is that Judge Carter stated that Judge Nakazato would decide what discovery has relevance in the case. In additon he also stated that the January 26, 2010 date has not been finalized. I know that some felt that this case would move along because the judge had set a tentative trial date. From this order you can tell that the trial date is not certain.

    However the most telling language in the motion is the following…

    “In a case such as this where a claim of political question is asserted, limiting discovery to jurisdictional issues serves the important function of respecting the separation of powers until such time as the Court resolves the motion to dismiss and determines that it is properly exercising jurisdiction over the matter.”

    If you note the judge is putting everyone on notice that it is not even sure if the court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. That is why all of these cases will ultimately be dismissed. Because the Constitution clearly details the only ways that a President can be removed (which is by Congress), and due to the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, it may not be allowed to hear this case and have to dismiss it due to lack of jurisdiction or standing. It will be interesting to see what happens in October when Orly receives her smackdown.

  59. I agree with other commenters that Orly didn’t draft that.

  60. Ima Foreigner says:

    With regards to the ‘former agent’, he seems to have symptoms of Orlyitis – painful inflammation of credentials and inability to comprehend the ironic nature of one’s own pronouncements.

    From a letter that he wrote to a Hampshire police newspaper in 2002:
    “I AM AN ex-Hampshire police officer, having served from 1961 as a cadet, and 1964 through to 1980. I served as a cadet at Aldershot, Winchester and Headquarters…it was then a small Force with about 12 patrol cars covering the whole county. In the regular Force I was stationed in Lymington. After amalgamation with Southampton and Portsmouth, I the went to Shirley CID and later Southampton Drug Squad with Alan Grimwood as DS, Mick Jones and Bob Staples and myself as DCs.”

    This morphs into the following on his current website:
    “As a Detective Sergeant, he served extensively at New Scotland Yard. Working in Special Branch he was responsible for detailed research in the concept of Revolutionary Criminality, which is an intriguing aspect of the Cold War with particular emphasis on the Irish problem and international terrorism…also served with the Regional Crime Squad, and he worked extensively in the areas of international drug trafficking and apprehension of career criminals.”

    Back to the letter for some irony – “I have worked in many parts of America on some very interesting cases involving some famous and
    household names. It would be indiscreet to give details, but being in the presence of, and in the homes of Burt Reynolds, James Garner and the late Gene Kelly, to mention but a few, are all experiences
    which I shall remember.”

    Yes indeed, discretion is a must.

  61. ballantine says:

    Cancel the tickets to Hawaii. The birther lawyers don’t seem to think much about subject matter jurisdiction, thinking they are losing based only on standing. If Orly wants to survive this motion to dismiss, she should be thinking pretty hard about some argument that the court has authority to hear the case.

  62. Chris says:

    I don’t understand how the 3-day mailing rule could apply here. The 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of entry of judgment, not mailing or service of the judgment. Since entry of judgment does not require mailing, the 3-day mailing rule does not apply. In other words, Orly is not benefited by the 3-day mailing rule. She blew the deadline!!

  63. misha says:

    My apology to DrC. I got carried away, because Orly is a shonde, and I am furious with her dirtying all of us.

    To the gentiles out there: shonde is Yiddish word, and it means a disgrace to the Jewish people.

    She gets my prize as a shonde to the Jews.

  64. Bob says:

    I’m not on PJ, so I’m not following that debate (if someone who is cares to give a highlight, that would be great), but you are correct that that three-day rule does not apply. Start with the entry of judgment, and add the 30/60 days, and that’s when the NOA must be filed. (See FRAP 4.) That’s it.

  65. thisoldhippie says:

    On the “oil for immigration” site – is it just me or is hypocrisy the word of the day for these people??

    Good memo, Neil.

    I would suggest that David should require some reasonable standard of evidence before allowing any more such memo’s to be published here.

    It is not a violation of free speech or open access to require some modicum of veracity when making such evil accusations. I recognize that Orly is making some mistakes, but the real problem is with the cowardly/corrupt federal judges, not Orly’s work. There are not any errors that cannot be corrected or overcome.

    I have supported her financially and morally…. and will continue to do so until we succeed in removing the treasonous bastard squatting in the District of Corruption from claiming to be POTUS.

    I will add my disappointment in our alleged law-enforcement people, including the CIA, the FBI and the defense establishment.


  66. Chris says:

    My comment above needs correction in one respect. Because the U.S. was a party, Orly had 60 days (not the normal 30 days) in which to file her notice of appeal under FRAP 4(a)(1)(B). She still blew the deadline. Arguably, blowing a 60-day deadline is more egregious and negligent than blowing a 30-day deadline, especially since all you have to do is file a 1-2 page document.

  67. Chris says:

    What is “PJ”?

  68. So charges against Orly require substantiation, those against Federal judges do not?

    Rampant hypocrisy.

  69. thisoldhippie says:

    Or against the President of the United States, it would seem.

  70. milspec says:

    Do you have a link to that info, I know some place’s I would LOVE to post it.

  71. nbc says:

    My spin on the recent filing on Rhodes v McDonald following the motion to stay for reconsideration by Orly, showing that Orly has been accepted as Pro Hac Vice.

    What next?

    Step 1: Gain jurisdiction over Orly Taitz, who filed to be admitted as pro hac vice’. Now the Georgia Court has jurisdiction over Dr Taitz. Next step: Get Orly to sign the document. Although, I believe the Court may accept the document unsigned.
    Step 2: Read up on FRCP Rule 11
    Step 3: Read the Court’s Local Rules

    Whenever an attorney applies to be admitted or is admitted to this Court for purposes of a particular proceeding (pro hac vice), the attorney shall be deemed thereby to have conferred disciplinary jurisdiction upon this Court for any alleged misconduct arising in the course of or in the preparation for such a proceeding which is a violation of this Court’s Local Rules and/or the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court as provided in these Rules.

    Does anyone see where this is going? I predict Rule Rule 11(c)(3)

    09/17/2009 Attorney Orly Taitz admitted pro hac vice as of 9/14/09 for Cpt. Connie Rhodes. Pro hac vice fee paid 9/14/09 $100.00 Recept #404677. (nop) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

    If the Georgia Court decides to disbar Orly, you may check out Local Rule 83-3.1.9 of the California Central District Court.
    Just my $0.02, after all IANAL

  72. Ima Foreigner says:

    Why certainly. The letter in question is on Page 14 at the following location:

    You will see that the agent in question has also completed the Lucas Smith course in advanced photo evidence – he includes a snapshot of himself in Beverly Hills.

  73. misha says:

    “She still blew the deadline.”


  74. nbc says:

    Someone much smarter than me raised the valid question: Can someone who is pro hac vice be disbarred, and the answer appears to be ‘unlikely’. Furthermore LR 83 refers to pro hac vice admitted attorneys, not ones admitted by being a member of the CA Bar.
    Seems that ‘at most’ the Judge can order some monetary sanctions, a rebuke, or perhaps being blocked from being admitted pro hac vice in his court.

  75. dmon says:


    83.1.9 states .

    “Upon receipt of reliable information that a member of the Bar of this Court OR any attorney appearing pro hac vice”

    It appears that it does apply to California Bar lawyers.

  76. Rickey says:

    Welsh Dragon: (Page 14) also any of his birther affidavits:

    Interesting discrepancies between Sankey’s website and the letter he wrote in 2002. There is even a discrepancy about when he moved to the U.S.

    I’d like to hear from someone in the U.K. who could take a look at the letter and tell us if any of the experience which he cited could be construed as working for New Scotland Yard.

  77. Bob says:

    Unfortunately, it means any member of the Central California District Court bar or any attorney appear pro hac vice in the central district.

    Perhaps the Middle District of Georgia local rules regarding attorney discipline is similarly worded.

  78. nbc says:

    And it continues with the latest ruling

    The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.

    He is following the rule book here. Read the ruling, it’s hilarious

  79. nbc says:

    14 days, that’s just a few days short of October 5…

  80. thisoldhippie says:

    My, my, Orly will just never learn. On her blog today:

    I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits, when they summarily dismiss the case within a couple of days while they are supposed to give the counsel 20 days to respond by their own rules, when they take away from the plaintiffs their right to trial by jury, when they stifle free speech and take away right to counsel by threatening $10,000 sanctions if the attorney ever brings Obama illegitimacy case again, that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly.

  81. ballantine says:

    Of course. She’s going to make another filing and call the judge a few more names.

  82. Orly wrote on her blog: not only I don’t [sic] owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys [sic] fees. These fees just went up significantly.

    Interesting philosophical question: what is a reasonable attorney fee for an incompetent attorney? I would be sympathetic towards Pamela Rhodes except that Orly Taitz is such a visible public figure that Rhodes couldn’t help but know what she was getting into. It also seems somewhat implausible that Rhodes engaged Taitz on a fee basis.

  83. Marc Elw says:

    My Guess:
    Monday, she will file an insulting reply to the Judge.
    Wednesday the Judge will respond to her reply with Sanctions.
    Thursday she will complain that she was not given the full 14 days to keep responding/slandering the Judge as is her right.

  84. Rickey says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: Orly wrote on her blog: not only I don’t [sic] owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys [sic] fees. These fees just went up significantly.

    She lost the case, and the defendants owe her fees and expenses? I hereby nominate Orly Taitz for attorney general of Bizarroland.

  85. Nullifidian says:

    The first comment on that blog post is classic:

    Go get him, Orly. You tell that Judge Land that he is a Usurper lover and a traitor. You tell him you want Rule 11 discovery on Obama’s birth certificate to show your case had merit. And you tell him you’re not paying him a dime — since all money is worthless. And that you want 10 pounds of gold from the government for opposing all your motions.

    And good luck in the Barnett case, too. I saw that Kreep filed something but I am sure that what you file will knock their socks off.


    I can’t even tell if it’s a parody or real.

    Yes, Orly, tell him that you want a Rule 11 discovery in order to show your case had merit. Don’t argue that the case had merit in the first place, just argue that the judge has an obligation to let you go on a fishing expedition in order to bolster a case that currently has no merits. And do it while calling him a traitor. That’s certain to get an agreeable response.

    Then to top it off, demand ten pounds of gold—or the equivalent sum in Ron Paul Dollars—from the government for opposing your motions. Take no time to consider that such monetary awards to you personally, rather than to the court, can only be made after a successful lawsuit or settlement. Don’t even consider the fact that suing the government for their opposition to your motions would be the nonpareil of frivolous and vindictive litigation.

    The power is yours, Orly! Do it for the good of the country (and for my sense of schadenfreude)!

  86. SixToeMoe says:

    Who the flock is Pamela Rhodes?

  87. Connie’s second cousin’s aunt’s hairdresser.

  88. aarrgghh says:

    rickey said:

    i hereby nominate orly taitz for attorney general of bizarroland.

    at least one freeper beat you to it:

    in 2012 when obama is out and palin is the new POTUS, wouldn’t it be nice if orly was the new attorney general?

    and i seriously doubt he’s the first …

    that’s some powerful kool-aid they’re selling over there.

  89. Mary Brown says:

    How funny. Now Palin and Taitz would be like the Keystone Cops.

  90. kimba says:

    Never overestimate the American voters. Palin still has a vocal base and I think she’s being “managed” by Bill Kristol and the neo-cons. Not a tweet for weeks. She didn’t respond to Levi’s Vanity Fair interview. No NPD can voluntarily remain quiet. Someone has a muzzle on her. Or it might just be like the rumor mill is saying that she’s had a little “work” done and has been in seclusion…..She is a scary, dangerous woman who wants armageddon to come and rapture her and her ilk.

  91. aarrgghh says:

    not everyone in the land of the free(p) is quite so enamored of our lady of liberty. these little ditties were posted today:

    there once was a lawyer named orly
    who practiced her legal skills poorly.
    her clients all lost.
    the cases got tossed.
    the birthers, they all took it sorely.


    there once was a lawyer named taitz
    who fired off lawsuits in spates.
    but none of them won.
    there were blanks in her gun.
    and, obama WAS born in the states.


    parsy, who says she ain’t entitled to all the documents to defend herself against sanctions

  92. Rickey says:

    The latest fantasy in Orlyland, posted by one of her fans, is that Judge Land intentionally issued an “inflammatory” order in order to give Orly an opportunity to get Rule 11 discovery:

    I suggest that there is a third possibility that exists that no one seems to have publicly mentioned — that Judge Land is brilliant by handing down a deliberately inflammatory ruling bordering on judicial misconduct thereby inviting Rule 11 discovery.

    Just think about it for a minute.

    If Judge Land had granted the TRO, the case might have dragged on for months before getting to the discovery phase. On the other hand, the judge could have dispassionately denied the TRO by narrowly interpreting the law in favor of the defendants and Cpt Rhodes would have deployed to Iraq, making further motions moot.

    By ruling as he did, as though he was having a judicial melt-down, it seems he has practically handed you an engraved invitation to submit a motion for Rule 11 discovery. Did he do this deliberately in the hope that you would take this route? We’ll never know. Even if this case blows up in Obama’s face, Judge Land’s thought processes may remain forever hidden (unless he has his memoirs published after he retires or dies). The point is that you now have, in this case, the best possibility to go for discovery – perhaps even better than in the case pending before Judge Carter. Craft your arguments carefully – Obama’s defense team may come to really hate Judge Land for his seeming melt-down.

  93. nbc says:


  94. thisoldhippie says:

    And this on AXJ:

    “The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit with Rule 26(a) FRCP and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be produced in the early stages of discovery, because at the Scheduling Conference the Court will impose tight deadlines to complete discovery.”

    * NOTE: Apparently Dr. Orly Taitz has obtained a true legally certified copy of the 1964 divorce decree including missing page 11, and corresponding documentation that proves Mr. OBAMA was in fact not born in the USA, which will be presented to the Court at the Scheduling Conference while all parties are legally served as well. Orly will be sending this order to Hawaii and the Hawaiian Authorities could be in contempt of Court if they do not reply by October 5, 2009.
    UPDATE: Also presented to the Court is a sworn Affidavit under penalty of perjury by Mr. Lucas Daniel Smith, present, and a copy of Mr. OBAMA’s Birth Certificate proving that he was born in Mombasa, KENYA in 1961.

  95. thisoldhippie says:

    She claims she will have him out of office in 30 days?? What “evidence” is she claiming to have now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.