Here’s a screen shot in case this particular post [link to Taitz web site] from the Taitz web site gets scrubbed:
The Court decision doesn’t say that the respondent must “cover” costs, but rather that the respondent may “recover” costs, i.e., Orly pays.
In this action, the respondents did not file any responses, leading one to think that they will not have much in the way of costs to recover.
Update:
The article on the Taitz site is gone this morning. I think the importance of retaining my article is not to leave a monument to how clueless Orly Taitz is, but rather to give a possible example of the kind of error she makes that contributes to her being the conspiracy theorist she is—the lack of a high-functioning nonsense filter. Orly Taitz expressed surprise that she should lose her case and the other side have to pay costs—recognizing something that makes no sense whatever; nevertheless, the way her mind works, that recognition of nonsense was not strong enough to effect a change in behavior and to prevent an embarrassing mistake.
She posted this on Facebook, too. Even one of her own pointed out that it said REcover, not cover.
This was one of her empty chair defeats, so, unfortunately, no respondent will be recovering costs.
I had to read it several times to make sure I was getting it right. I kept thinking “Gee, she can’t be that stupid!”
So…..can any of the Socal lawyers tell us what kind of hit she’s facing?
Surprised she didn’t just say: “I won! I won! I won!”
As sad as it is that she misread that verb, what really funny/telling/revealing is that she found the idea that something was in her favor to be “surprising” 😀
This is completely delicious. I hope it reverberates all over wingnuttistan before any of them realizes the truth: that Orly’s level of comprehension is just below Golden Retriever.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think that while the empty chair is undeniably a skilled litigator, it doesn’t command much of an hourly rate…
i prefer to think that she’s not restrained by the confines of competence.
Not only surprising, but plausible. She apparently believes that it was even remotely possible that the court would order the President of the United States to pay her court costs even though she couldn’t figure out how to get a single defendant to respond in either the trial court or the appeals court.
She’ll figure this one out and delete it soon, but it would be hilarious if she actually submitted something to try to get her costs paid. Maybe she’ll bill Obama for the costs she incurred during her ill-advised side trip to federal court and the $4000 Occidental sanction. And all those failed attempts at serving him. LOL.
Ah….’tis true but in some jurisdictions I believe they can also go after court costs in especially egregious cases. Hmm.
I like that……a lot!
Two and a half hours on it’s still there. Maybe she’s out celebrating, spending the money she thinks is coming her way.
Either that or she’s standing on the end of the Huntington Beach pier trying to decide what to do next.
With a mistake this obvious, she usually deletes it as soon as Doc C or NBC post about it, which I’m guessing sets off her google alert. She must be too busy to google herself right now.
Damn! I knew we should have sent the rhesus monkey!
That’s pretty harsh on the Retrievers. They are pretty smart. Pretty too. Not the case with Oily.
I have a roll of tape smarter than Oily Titz.
Much better.
Clearly, this should be “reupholstering costs.”
That’s hilarious!
Apparently (and I’m not braving the Miasma and infested halls of Taitz’s blog to see for myself) this has been scrubbed.
I guess it wasn’t as victorious as she saw initially
Ok. I checked. Its gone.
This article has been updated to add:
There’s more of the same today. She got a response to her FOIA request about the President enrolling under the ACA. Basically, they have her the finger, with every request effectively denied by saying there were no responsive records. Genius that she is, she interprets this to mean that her allegations are vindicated. What it actually means is that, as always, she asked the wrong questions.
Unfortunately, Orly Taitz’s incompetence at lawyering cannot be adequately described without developing a logarithmic scale that reflects the exponential growth in legal blundering that results from each additional hour she spends working on a case multiplied by the number of logical fallacies with which she preposterously manufactures the unevidenced conclusory allegations which she laughingly calls “proof”!
She should be disbarred and heavily sanctioned financially as a vexatious litigant.
And we get robbed of our entertainment?…. Her incompetence is legendary….
She asked the wrong questions of the wrong party. A third party contractor provides the identity verification for the state health insurance exchanges, and alas, that contractor is not subject to FOIA.
But that seems to be her stock in trade, in each and every case she brings forth. She consistently asks the wrong questions of the wrong people and can’t seem to find the ones she needs to serve or ask. At least she has been 100% consistent all the way through.
I predict that within six months at least one Birther will claim in a forum post or comment somewhere that a court in California ordered Barack Obama to pay costs to Orly Taitz.. Bonus prediction: when challenged to prove that claim they will never reply.
Doc, re Orly’s “lack of a high functioning nonsense filter”, Hemingway put it this way: “The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in shock proof (expletive omitted) detector.” I submit you can’t continue to be a birther if you develop Hemingway’s *nonsense* detector.
I think she does it deliberately, to prolong her cases and to show that the regime is fighting her.
Even the biggest moron in the world would learn how to properly service people in 5 years. Even she would know how to look up and send something to the right address. She’s messing this stuff up deliberately
The “Look the regime is fighting me!” plays right into “Please send more money, to aid me in my struggle!”.
If serving process were the only relatively easy thing she consistently screws up, I might agree, but she screws up so many easy things. She betrays no knowledge of any other aspects of the law. She can’t format documents properly. She can’t figure out how to use a spell checker. She misuses words all the time. She regularly falls for obvious hoaxes. She thinks a guy who used to work for the Coast Guard is an expert on fake selective service applications. She wears clothes that are two sizes too small. I could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs.
She’s a clueless moron who has no idea what she is doing.
I used to give some credence to the “Orly messes up on purpose” theory but now I am solidly in the “no she is really that stupid” camp. Of course I used to think she might have passed the bar by herself too.
Still, she does financially benefit from having supporters who are slightly dumber than she is, which I guess is like saying “Dumb as a slightly larger box of rocks.”
I’m thinking both. Some stuff she screws up on purpose (like serving), some stuff she screws up subconsciously (like asking the wrong questions), some stuff she doesn’t get because she has no concept of satire/irony/sarcasm (easily falling for hoaxes), some stuff she just doesn’t get because she’s mentally ill (like ignoring the de facto officer doctrine or claiming a judge agreed with her when he clearly didn’t).
It’s a slightly more complicated version of the loaded question:
“Show me the documents proving Obama is not a space lizard.”
– “There are no such documents.”
– “Therefore Obama is a space lizard.”
It’s difficult to see the cover/recover screw-up as anything other than monumental stupidity as it doesn’t help Taitz in any way. Even if she mis-read the words, she should immediately have thought “hey! that’s unlikely! why would a court order a non-existent defendant to pay for a losing plaintiff’s case? I need to look again”.
Taitz’s reluctance to serve properly when a judge held her by the hand could be due to her suspecting that this was some clever trick by The Man And His Minions to bounce her case out. Perhaps she feared the judge might say “OK guys, you’ve all been served, so now I can dismiss the case with prejudice” or something like that.
There is no reason to suspect a clever ploy behind Taitz’s failures; the flood of stupid hatred is common to all her vile antics.
Besides keeping the cases in slightly non-vegetative state longer the other benefit for Taitz mucking up process of service royally is that it lessens the possibility of her getting nailed for costs or sanctions. Look at the cases where there has been a non-government defendant who actively participated:
In Mississippi the defendant’s attorneys will almost certainly move for costs and sanctions when Judge Wingate dismisses the case. You can bet this one keeps Orly awake at night.
Occidental College was represented by Carl Botterrud and Jay Ritt who were able to extract costs with one brief. Orly messed up service in that case too but Occidental decided to show up anyway.
I would put that in the “mentally ill” category, not the “just stupid” category. She so desperately needs any perceived “win”, no matter how insignificant, and losing a case but having the defendant ordered to pay costs would be the kind of “best case” win she actually expects (I’m not sure if her quest for “one honest judge” – wasting her resources on what she calls a corrupt system anyway – is deliberate propaganda or mental illness) – something like a judge secretly telling her “I agree with you but the Mafia does not allow me to rule in your favour, so I’m sending you a secret message”.
Speaking of what’s next from Orly……check out her website for her latest gambit. She wants to run for (Alert: Swallow that coffee before you go any further.) California Attorney General on the following issues:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=444743#comments
But, first, she needs someone to pony up the $3,022 registration fee.
Well, if Mark Kessler is any indication, I doubt she’ll get much in the way of votes, even if she does manage to get her name on a ballot. The voting public isn’t very fond of kooks, and you can bet that all her nastiness will be brought front and center to the public eye, if she were to run for ANY office.
Didn’t she run for Senate, or something, a couple years ago? Obviously she didn’t win.
Hmmm, sounds like the perfect opportunity for me to start up that Super-PAC I’ve always wanted. Orly supporters are easily separated from their money, so if someone would please just tell me what combination of keystrokes I need to press to create a PayPal button, I’ll be livin’ the dream in no time.
She tried and failed to win the Red nomination for the honor of getting trounced by Feinstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2012
I take it that hubby has cut her off?
Oh, I half-expect that “hubby” is a desiccated husk she keeps in her basement. But he still tells her what to do.
The woman has a strong masochistic streak running through her life.
If the pictures I find are him I’d say he’s anything but dessicated. Looks pretty healthy to me!!
(Note: I didn’t post his name just in case Doc thinks it would be inappropriate. If not it can be added later.)