Some years ago I used an attorney for a real estate transaction. The other party asked the attorney whether he specialized in real estate. The attorney replied that while real estate “kept the doors open” what he really liked was a messy divorce where everything was contested, “that pays for the yacht.”
Jesus was aware of how messy lawsuits get, saying:
58For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59“I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent.”
Luke 12 NASB
The Liberi v. Taitz (et al.) defamation lawsuit(s) was a long and messy affair with countless court filings (and a few dollars in sanctions to Taitz). In fact there were no less than 6 federal cases/appeals between May 4, 2009 and July 14, 2011.
|Case Number||Docket entries|
I don’t know how this turned out or even if it has turned out. The point is just that it is messy, and no one should know this better than Orly Taitz, a defendant in the suit.
So it is an interesting turn that Orly Taitz has taken the defamation lawsuit route herself, piling on defamation on top of the usual birther Obama business with two lawsuits, Judd v. Obama in California and the Indiana Elections Commission suit. In both of these instances anti-SLAPP laws will likely come into play, and Orly Taitz will lose and be required to pay costs to defendants, but mercifully long before the cases have run their otherwise lengthy courses. Maybe she won’t be buying a yacht for anyone at least in the defamation part of the lawsuits. I’m not sure about the rest.
Liberi v Taitz is sitll on the books.
But as to your point about Orly taking the defamation route… it appears to me from Orly’s writings and actions that Orly feels she can defame anyone and everyone she wishes but no one else can say mean things about her (most of which do not rise to defamation).
She really doesn’t even seem to think her defendants deserve a defense and anyone who represents them is a traitor or worse.
In a word… sne’s nutz.
Liberi v Taitz is the American version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce
“Jarndyce v Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.”Charles Dickens, Bleak House
Defamation and deification, are about the only things that screech owl in a wig can do.
I fail to grasp how a legal contest with Orly is any more deserving of my time than, say, a mud-wrestling contest between her and Sarah Palin.
Well, that just killed my sex drive for the next six months!
This is a bit off-topic, but I really hate these flat, dull new translations of a great work of imaginative literature. Here’s the old KJV:
When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.
I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.
Admittedly not one of the great lines in the bible, but still … Perhaps if these birthers gave themselves to the pleasures of great art and literature, they’d be less obsessed with the origin of the President.
Although it has to be said that the Bible and Shakespeare are both full of fascinating conspiracies, so perhaps I’m wrong. But at least they’d use more soaring language in talking about them.
That’s a medical condition.
I remember one guy from a forum who kept slinging insults at others (clear insults of the “a-hole” kind), yet when somebody attested him “a strange way of looking at things”, he tried to sue the person.
It’s one symptom of total detachment from reality.
English common law provided a double defense against the charge of defamation. Lawyers defending people accused of defamation would basically plead 1) he never said it and 2) if he ever said it, it was true.
US law, on the basis of the Constitution added a third defense 3) if it was not true, it was political satire.
Orly, as a defendant adds 4) I am human rights dispenser, I can diffame and no get sued”.
Orly as a plaintiff just claims “I am human rights dispenser and sue will anyone who dare talks bad of meeeeee”.
I had thought Liberi v. Taitz would give birthers their first win, but near as I can tell, both sides lost.
New order in Liberi v. Taitz, just yesterday: