Birther Lawyer Orly Taitz Faces Sanctions

[toasty]

Title kinda says it all, but the article linked includes links to all of the relevant legal documents, which I found kinda interesting. Of particular note is the letter from Taitz's client in which she disavows giving her permission to file things on her behalf and indicates an intention to file a bar complaint against her. Whoops.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/birther-lawyer-fine-client-rebels/

[Yao]

Re: Birther Lawyer Orly Taitz Faces Sanctions

Serves Taitz right, trying to make politics through the judiciary system. It is sais that African politics is a 'zero sum game', but nowadays in the West people tend to behave the same way (I can draw parallels with this case in my country as well).

degenerate retards.

[toasty]

Re: Birther Lawyer Orly Taitz Faces Sanctions

This just keeps getting better. The letter from the soldier firing Taitz? Yeah, Taitz suggests that it was forged:

I don't know if this letter came from her, since she is in Iraq now and the Office -max store from where it came, states that they don't send faxes for customers. The signature on her notarized letter from Kansas and this letter looks different.

Taitz explanation is signed, and this is not a joke, "Orly Tatiz DDS Esq."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/taitz_client_letter_renouncing_me_may_be_forgery.php

I will say this, in her defense: I would not necessarily seek my client's consent before filing a motion for reconsideration of a ruling -- sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldn't, depending upon the situation, but your client has already authorized you to pursue the case, and a motion for reconsideration is consistent with and in furtherance of that goal, so it isn't the sort of thing that per se requires additional consent. For this sort of case, I would think that good practice would dictate that you'd consult with your client before filing, but to each their own, I suppose.

There are a couple of other nuggets in her response that shed additional light on her legal acumen, however:

Well, all good that ends good. This threat of sanctions gives me an opportunity to demand rule 11 discovery and get all of Obama' records through the back door

Even if you ignore the horrible grammar, this literally makes no sense. Rule 11 basically says that when you, as an attorney, put your signature on a document and submit it to the court or an opposing party, it is accurate to the best of your knowledge, supported by sound legal reasoning,and is not being submitted for any improper purpose. If you fail to heed Rule 11, you are subject to sanctions, which is exactly the situation in which Ms. Taitz currently finds herself. I've never heard the phrase "Rule 11 discovery" and it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, but to the extent that discovery might be conducted on a Rule 11 matter, it will be directed to her, as opposed to giving her the opportunity to conduct discovery herself. It simply makes no sense.

The signature is also telling, apart from being fucking ridiculous. I don't know very many attorneys that signs anything "Esq." Unlike MD, Ph.D, or other similar titles, "Esq. is something you use to refer to other attorneys, but never yourself. There might be rare instances where you would use it to refer to yourself -- on a letterhead, for example, or some other situation where it is important that the other party understand that they are communicating with an attorney but it might not otherwise be clear -- but it is traditionally used as a show of respect for colleagues, not self-aggrandizement. The few people that I do know that use it to refer to themselves are the biggest pricks on the planet.