Taitz to appeal sanctions in Rhodes case

Orly doesn’t call her practice “Appealing Dentistry” for nothing. Orly has already taken one unsuccessful appeal all the way to the Supreme Court (Lightfoot v. Bowen) and now she’s planning to appeal the $20,000 sanction imposed by Judge Land.

Orly said:

Judge Land’s remarks amount to nothing short of political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob. [Ooooh. She used the “L” word.]

RHODES v MacDONALD – 29 – NOTICE OF APPEAL – Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.29.0 by Jack Ryan

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

28 Responses to Taitz to appeal sanctions in Rhodes case

  1. Greg says:

    Picking a nit – this isn’t her appeal, it’s notice to the court and the other side that she will appeal. That means we have another filing to look forward to. Unless, of course, she’s made another filing error and thinks this is her appeal.

  2. DavidH says:

    This is called “double down on stupid”.

  3. Texlaw says:

    Orly Taitz: Our Lady of Perpetual Motions.

  4. misha says:

    That disbarred felon sure writes well.

    Instead of apologizing for her cultist writing a threat, she poured more gasoline on the fire.

    Brilliant people.

  5. rigs says:

    The appellate rules are pretty tricky. Since she can’t handle the filing of a civil case in district court, the odds of her horribly bungling an appeal are high.

  6. wendy says:

    It’s a soap opera. I don’t want to admit that I watch such garbage.. but I can’t imagine anyone being that clueless.
    She got one part correct…

  7. Bob says:

    It really is amazing. Taitz had a colorable appeal. A grown-up could make the argument Judge Land went over the line. It might prevail, but it wouldn’t be laughed at.

    This kind of nonsense, however, will not only ensure that the sanction is affirmed, but might actually make it larger.

  8. Corrected.

  9. MsDaisy says:

    Okay, I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that if one wanted to appeal a judicial decision, (or in this case a sanction) one would logically argue the points of the sanction. Judge Land stated, “When a lawyer uses the court as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.” (Yep, she did that,) “When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law.” (Yep, she did that too.)

    So now in her “appeal” instead of arguing those points she pretty much confirms them by accusing Judge Land of “ Extreme and outrageous (extra judicial) prejudice and bias.” She also goes on to accuse him of being extremely rude and demeaning, of intimidation and political lynching and making threats. (Reckless accusations?)

    Then she goes on her regular rant about Obama not being a legal citizen and his use of multiple SSN’s and how all of this “evidence” was sufficient not only to grant her further discovery but sufficient enough that Judge Land should have forwarded the complaint to the FBI, police, Attorney General (etc.) for criminal investigation and prosecution for massive SS fraud and public corruption. (Political agenda?)

    Talk about batshit frigging crazy!

    Isn’t there a law against all these wild accusations she continually makes against Obama?

  10. Ted says:

    You initiate an appeal by filing a “notice of appeal” in the District Court, as Taitz has done. The relevant rule is Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. That being said, this is not how a competent lawyer files a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal is not supposed to contain argument. A proper notice of appeal reads as follows: “Notice is hereby given that [the party] hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the ____ Circuit from the order [description] entered in this action on the _______ day of ________, 2009.” See Form 1, published with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    But my guess is that Taitz’s notice of appeal will be sufficient to preserve her appellate rights.

  11. JoZeppy says:

    I don’t think Taitz really has much to appeal. While his opinion was certainly contained harsh language, I’ve seen much worse, and even with all the harsh language, he supports everything with facts. Taitz paved the way for the opinion. She files an Emergency Motion for a TRO that doesn’t take much time in law school to figure is on shakey ground. Refuses to answer a judges questions in the hearing, rather to rant on about her conspiracy theories (a judge isn’t a talk show host…he asks a question, you answer it right away). Get’s upset when the court issues a quick response to her “emeregency motion.” Call the judge names in her motions, accuses him of being corrupt and a traitor (both in the press and in her motions), files clearly fake “Kenyan Birth Certificates” without the slightest bit of research as to if they even look like a real Kenyan Birth certificate, files an affidavit claiming Eric Holder was seen in a cafe across the street the day of the hearing, if even if true, is hardly evidence of undue influence (if you’re going to lie, at least say he was seen with the judge). Answering a Order to Show Cause with a motion to recuse.

    What Orly did was to give a road map to future lawyers on how to get a court slap you with Rule 11 sanctions sua sponte. She was thumbing her nose at the judge basically daring him to slap her down. All he did was to give her exactly what she was asking for.

  12. Black Lion says:

    I think the loses and the fact that Obama is still President is getting to the birthers. I mean over at tROSL, 1 year old debunked theories are being rehashed….The most recent one is that President Obama did not go to Columbia…


    “Root is no fan of the Democratic nominee: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that,” he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. The guy’s a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she’s the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her.”

    But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …

    “I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …

    Class of 83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.” …


    I see the fringe birthers begining to give up…Only the hard core ones that hate the President are still hanging on, recycling the same putrid nonsense. If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be laughable…

  13. Bob says:

    There are some legitimate due process and notice issues raised by the sanctions. Not necessarily winning issues, but meaty enough issues that reviewing court wouldn’t roll its(metaphorical) eyes at a brief raising them.

    Taitz (Lincoln, really, as he’s the one writing all this) will of course not be able exercise any moderation. This behavior is just begging for even more sanctions.

  14. It would seem at best, that Orly would just have to be given more time to reply to the sanctions and still lose.

  15. “I don’t care what anybody says.”

    That’s the key phrase pointing to the prejudice-based thinking behind this stuff.

  16. JoZeppy says:

    I really don’t see any due process or notice issues raised by the sanctions. It’s well established law that Rule 11 sanctions are within the good discretion of the court. Judge Land warned her that the filings were frivolous, and she should be very careful with further filings. Her motion for recon was nothing more than a repeat of her TRO with a few extra insults to the judge. The judge then gave her an order to show cause, which is supposed to be your chance to say, “oops sorry, you seem to have misunderstood what I was going for, here’s wny you shouldn’t fine me.” Instead, Orly fires back with a clearly bogus motion to recuse, with an even more bogus affidavit (suborning perjury, anyone?), and even more insults. The only straw Orly has to grasp at is that the judge doubled the sanctions from the Order to Show Cause. But as he pointed out, considering her filing in response to the potential $10k sanctions, it’s obvious that was not enough to discourage more frivolous filings. Considering she has yet to be deterred from filng garbage, I would venture that $20k wasn’t enough either.

    The thing to remember is an attorney making a filing in a court is held to higher standards than some shmoe filing pro se, and even a pro se plaintiff can be sanctioned under Rule 11 for frivolous suits whose puprose is merely to harass, rather than to resolve a case or controvery and to have the court redress a problem with some form of relief. The due process you are entitled to as an attorney violating your obligations under the Rule of Professional Conduct and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are very different than the Due Process rights a criminal defendant is entitled to in his criminal trial. Orly got what due process she is entitled to. She just used them to insult the judge even further.

  17. wendy says:

    the original sanction to Orly, answered your last line.
    Freedom of speech means that you and I can rant all day long about “omg, that colb is fake and doesn’t count” or whatever we want.

    That stops at the courtroom door, and in particular, a LICENSED LAWYER no longer gets to play that game. By being licensed, they are expected to live up to professional standards, among which is included “you DAMN WELL better be able to define what is a fact/proof, before you put it in front of me”. A lawyer is EXPECTED TO KNOW the law (duh) enough to know what is or isn’t a frivolous case. And the legal definition of frivolous is not the same as ours.. it is a case that HAS NO GROUNDS. It includes KNOWING the authority of the court, and if you don’t agree with a ruling, you know when and how to appeal it. You SURE AS HELL don’t have a website, telling persons how to contact the judge and exert pressure on him. You DO NOT confront a Supreme court justice at a speaking event.. and shove a load of papers in his face. He could be disbarred for accepting/ reading them, outside of the court.
    And you don’t call the Judge names.

  18. wendy says:

    since her site apparently goes to the next level..which is asking persons to dig up dirt on RELATIVES OF THE CLERK IN THE CARTER CASE.
    THAT might cross the line into possible criminal charges.
    They are not related to this case in any way, shape or form, and she is invading their privacy.

  19. Bob says:

    She was not given notice of the $20,000 sanction. The judge denied her request for an extension of time to respond. The size of sanction may be large enough to trigger more due process protections.

    All of these are nonfrivolous arguments. For the third time, not necessarily meritorious, just sufficiently grounded in law that they could be raised with a straight face.

  20. Chris says:

    I think this misses the point (made above) that Orly should not be arguing anything in a notice of appeal. It’s not an argumentative document like a memorandum or a motion or a response to an order to show cause. It’s a purely administrative document designed to transfer jurisdiction over an action from one court to another court.

  21. MuhommadMcLovin says:

    Is it against the rules to argue in a notice?

    Every aspect of Obama’s defense has been to make sure he doesn’t have to put up a defense.

  22. wendy says:

    No.. I agree there should be no argument on it. My point is the absolute and total lack of any competence on her part..and the legal requirements for being a lawyer in the first place.
    For that matter, military persons (above all) are expected to know and follow the concept of chain of command.. the idea that any military person would sit around and say “let’s see, I think I should have the authority to dispute or rule on the President being eligible to be in office”.. that alone, fries my brain. A soldier thinks that they have a reason to dispute orders, needs to bring it to the attention of the military.
    Taitz used Rhodes, and she used Cook, by failing to act competently by standards expected of any licensed attorney. I suspect someone in the military explained a few things to Rhodes, or the light came on in her brain, that the Judge was totally correct.
    I’m just pointing out that the more Taitz rants and screams about the judicial system, the clearer it becomes that she is exactly what Land said..

  23. nBc says:

    Sven, that’s because the Constitution protects defendants from meritless, frivolous suits. The last thing you want to do is get involved in the somewhat outrageous ‘claims’.

  24. wendy says:

    MuhommadMcLovin: Is it against the rules to argue in a notice?Every aspect of Obama’s defense has been to make sure he doesn’t have to put up a defense.

    hate to put this in such blunt terms…
    NO. He does not have to put up any defense. NO FRAUD HAPPENED. The proof of his birth and being eligible is not in question by ANY VALID AUTHORITY.
    The operative words in what I just said..
    No crime occurred, which is obvious to 99% of the free world. Thus, no private citizen has the right to drag him into a court, to prove what he already has proven.
    Accusations of a “crime” CANNOT happen, when there is NOTHING believable to show that a crime happened.

  25. Bob says:

    It isn’t against the rules.

    But it serves no purpose. And the result will be the opposite of the intent: Instead of alerting the court that this is a serious case, it screams crazy.

    When the district court sanctioned you for frivolous filings, the last thing you want to do is filing anything that might indicate the district court was correct.

  26. JoZeppy says:

    I haven’t done the reseach as to how much notice one needs in reference to the judge doubling the size of the sanctions between the Order to Show Cause, and the granting of sanctions, so I really can’t say one way or the other. Given that judges have broad discretion in giving out sanctions, I’m inclined to guess there isn’t much there. Denial for a request for additional time is a non-issue. She wasn’t entitled to the extra time, so there can be no due process claim based on what she is not entitled to. As for the size of the claim, I seem to recall Judge Land cited instances of even higher penalties that did not raise issues (I may be wrong here, correct me if so). So weighing what Orly claims against what Judge Land quotes, I’m going with the judge.

    Not to harp. I just don’t see very “meaty” issues here. There might be something with the doubling (I’d have to research it if I really cared enough), but when one answers an Order to Show Cause why you shouldn’t be sanctioned $10k for filing frivolous pleadings in violation of Rule 11, with yet another sanctionable filing, my gut tells me odds are good the law is in the judge’s corner on this one too.

  27. Bob says:

    I just don’t see very “meaty” issues here.

    Neither do I. They are, however, nonfrivolous. Meaning if they were raised by a competent attorney, Taitz would be out “only” $20k.

    But if she handles this appeal like she handles all her other cases, there’s a decent chance the total will be higher.

  28. JoZeppy says:

    Let’s see. You have the option to dismiss the case early on, before incurring very expensive discovery costs (that you and me as the tax payer are going to incur, because Orly has sued government officials in their official capacity). Do you:
    (a) Move to dismiss the case on jurisdicitonal grounds in a Motion to Dismiss at the earliest possible moment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)-(6)?


    (b) go through costly discovery so you can have the satisfaction of having the case decided on a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming all the “facts” are undisputed and out for all to see, and the case can be decided as a matter of law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)?


    (c) spend even more tax payer money so you have the satisfaction of having a jury trial, and a panel of American citizen say, “why are we wasting our tax money for a very costly trail when any idiot knows everyone born in the US is a natural born citizen (except for the diplomats and their staff), and anyone with two brain cells firing can see Obama was born in Hawaii?

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.