Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

just for ollie

5 Replies
Veteran Advisor

Re: just for ollie

Yep, She's quite a good lawyer!!!  lol  But it won't make any difference to big oll. Keyes v. Bowen

In November 2008, Taitz filed a lawsuit on behalf of independent presidential candidate Alan Keyes, suing California's secretary of state for allegedly failing to ascertain Obama's eligibility for president before placing him on the ballot.[1] The case was dismissed on May 4, 2009.[22] A California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal on October 25, 2010,[23] and the Supreme Court of California declined, without comment, to review the case on February 2, 2011;[24] Taitz was not counsel of record for the appeals.


Lightfoot v. Bowen

Taitz filed an emergency petition in the California Supreme Court in 2008 on behalf of Libertarian vice presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot to stop the certification of California's 2008 election results because of the challenge to Obama's eligibility.[25] The California Supreme Court denied the petition, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[1]


Barnett v. Obama

Taitz filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pamela Barnett, Keyes, other candidates in the 2008 federal elections, several military personnel, and some legislators from various states alleging that Obama is ineligible to be president. On October 29, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed the lawsuit.[26][27] The dismissal criticized Taitz's legal abilities, stated her behavior was "unethical", and suggested that Taitz "may have suborned perjury".[27][28] The appeal of this suit is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit.


Cook v. Good

Taitz represented Stefan F. Cook, a Major in the United States Army Reserve, who challenged his order to be deployed to Afghanistan because of his claim that Obama is not a legitimate president. The case was dismissed when the Army Reserve revoked his order to deploy.[29] Taitz filed an appeal in the Eleventh Circuit, which was dismissed on November 24, 2009, due to a failure to prosecute the appeal.[30]


Rhodes v. MacDonald

In September 2009, Taitz was retained by Captain Connie Rhodes, a US Army physician. Rhodes sought a restraining order to prevent her forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Landrejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous. In his opinion, the judge noted that Rhodes had not previously raised any objections to orders she had received from Obama since he had been sworn in. He noted that while she seemed to have "conscientious objections" to taking orders from Obama, she did not seem to object to serving under him "as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil". Land then upbraided Taitz for using military officers as pawns to further her claims that Obama was not qualified to be President. He also expressed astonishment at Taitz' apparent misunderstanding of American judicial fundamentals, saying that she was trying to make Obama "'prove his innocence' to 'charges' that are based upon conjecture and speculation".[31]

Within hours of Land's decision, Taitz told the news site Talking Points Memo that she felt Land's refusal to hear her case was an act of treason.[32] Two days later, she filed a motion to stay Rhodes' deployment pending rehearing of the dismissal order. She repeated her treason allegations against Land and made several other intemperate statements, including claims that Land was aiding and abetting purported aspirations of "dictatorship" by Obama.[33] Land rejected the motion as frivolous and ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process.[34]A few hours later, a letter bearing Rhodes's signature arrived, stating that Taitz filed the mot...[35] On September 26, 2009, Taitz filed a motion with the court seeking to withdraw as counsel for Rhodes, so she could divulge in court "privileged attorney-client communications" since the dismissed Rhodes case "is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment".[36]


Attorney misconduct

On October 13, 2009, Judge Clay Land ordered "Counsel Orly Taitz ... to pay $20,000 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Land's decision stated:

The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel's pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court's show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.[37]

Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[38] On March 15, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz, ordering her to pay the $20,000 fine.[39]

In July 2010, Taitz applied to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the enforcement of sanctions, arguing that "allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United States of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation".[40] The application was submitted to Justice Thomas on July 8 and denied by him on July 15.[41][42] Doubting that Justice Thomas signed the denial order, Taitz claimed to have requested of Chief Justice Roberts that Thomas's signature be presented to her for verification.[43]

In the meantime, on August 9, the federal government filed an abstract of judgment, a document placing a lien in the amount of $20,000 plus interest on all her real property,[44] prompting Taitz to say, "I will pay the money, and I will continue fighting," should it happen that her application for stay is ultimately denied and that the Supreme Court consents to her request to authenticate Justice Thomas's signature.[45] On August 16, after being resubmitted to Justice Alito who in turn referred it to the full court, the application for stay was again denied.[42][46] On January 10, 2011, the Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[47]

Senior Contributor

Re: just for ollie

What are these nincompoops going to do when  Obama's elected next year!! How about a suggestion?? !! MOVE!!

Frequent Contributor

Re: just for ollie

Has she ever paid her $20,000 fine for contempt of court?


Somehow I doubt it.   KenJ

Senior Contributor

Re: just for ollie

"Has she ever paid her $20,000 fine for contempt of court?"



I doubt she ever does.  I'm guessing if it is paid it is done using the Clinton payment method where you ask supporters to pay it for you.  I'm betting she will find plenty of birthers willing to chip in.


Frequent Contributor

Re: just for ollie

Actually, I'm LESS interested in WHO pays it, or HOW it's paid.  But I do think that since it was ordered, it should be paid.  Seems to me if she's dilly dallying about paying, or delaying payment unjustly, that should result in ANOTHER contempt of court charge....


Maybe she was appealing it, and it's still under appeal.......but my view is that it better get paid SOMEHOW, SOMEDAY.  KenJ