Remember that appeal that Orly Taitz lost1 in California, Taitz v. Obama et al.? Of course you do. OK, please raise your hands if you know what Orly Taitz did next?
I see that everybody has raised their hands. You there in the blue helmet, what do you think? You say she would ask for reconsideration? I see everybody is shaking their heads in agreement. Wait, I see one young lady wearing a lei with her hand up. What do you say—that Taitz would file for reconsideration incorrectly? Yes! Absolutely correct. 50 points for the State of Hawaii team.
Referring to the Appellate Court Docket we find:
| Date | Description | Notes |
| 10/31/2013 | Opinion filed. | (Signed Unpublished) Affirmed. Ikola Fybel Thompson |
| 11/13/2013 |
Returned document for non-conformance. |
faxed a motion for reconsideration received by fax on 11/13/13, not a fax file document thus no action will be taken by this court. (Aplt faxed over motion twice to the court both fax rejected). |
| 11/14/2013 | Rehearing petition filed. | filed by aplt Orly Taitz. |
| 11/14/2013 | Order on motion filed. | Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the order on appeal received on November 13, 2013 is DEEMED a petition for rehearing. The clerk of this court is ordered to file the petition for rehearing forthwith. |
1The lower court ruling dismissing the case per rule 8.140(b) was Affirmed in full on 10/31/2013.
Um, Doc? How can we be sure the contestant in the Lei is Hawaiian? She looks awfully Kenyan to me.
If there are three ways to mess up, Orly will at least mess up in 10 different ways. She is THAT good…
Too bad, a motion for reconsideration, improperly filed, can be met with sanctions… A petition for rehearing focuses on errors by the court, a motion for reconsideration deals with new evidence. IANAL
Also
The time for granting or denying a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal may not be extended. If the court does not rule on the petition before the decision is final, the petition is deemed denied.
So the time may run out…
We can gauge the likelihood of success:
A petition for rehearing normally will not be granted unless the court has requested an answer.
I doubt that the court will grant a rehearing as Orly is responsible for the court reporter to be present for the ex parte hearing.
As I read the decision, and IANAL, if the Court of Appeals had the transcript it would have made no difference.
Dr. Taitz moved to compel compliance with a subpoena from a prior dismissed case. As that is the most charitable explanation. And then she gave Occidental 24 hours to respond but complained that she only had minutes to review the response. Which asked for sanctions.
Indeed, she set herself up for sanctions through her foolish actions. This case involved failures at countless levels. Not beyond what is normally expected from our dentist friend.
One can hope that a heap of sanctions will be forthcoming.
There is the right way and the wrong way and then there is the Orly way.
Anytime Orly files something, sanctions seem appropriate 🙂 However, in most cases, the court may forgive her for being a pro-se. In the State of CA however, she happens to be a licensed attorney and thus is bound by stricter rules of ethics and law.
As such I am amazed how many mistakes she can make in an area where she could be presumed to be familiar with the law and rules… She hardly ever disappoints…
I’m not sure who said it, but previously, long previously, it was suggested that the CA Bar/Courts were reluctant to discipline any lawyer unless they have cost their client extra money, or jail time. Since Orly only really represents herself, and there was never any hope of her client’s getting any money even if she HAD prevailed, there’s not much to show injury to her client.
I do notice it didn’t take much for the $4000 sanction though. In that case the College in question was able to show that her incompetence had cost them money.
Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer… or a clinical psychologist.
Yes, the CA Bar is not going to take any action here, however the courts have some leeway and at least one has hinted, I cannot remember where, that the court may address sanctions if the defendants were to ask for such.
First: WND lost (and Klayman with them) the Esquire thing in appeal
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/dc-farah-v-esquire-magazine-affirmed/
Good to read. They lost because of Swift and Franklin. Dastards.
(Idownloaded it. Makes reading much easier)
Second:
Does anyone know what happenend to this thing ??
/quote
Activist lawyer Larry Klayman sues Cleveland family court magistrate Lawrence Loeb under federal civil rights laws for discrimination
Klayman Alleges that Loeb Issued False Findings To Destroy Him
(Ocala, Florida, June 17, 2013). Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and a former Justice Department prosecutor, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ocala Division) (Case No. 5:13-cv-267-oc-10-PRL) against Cleveland family court magistrate Lawrence Loeb, alleging hate-filled religious and other forms of discrimination and dishonesty.
As set forth in the complaint, which asks for $3 million in damages, Klayman alleges that Loeb issued false findings of fact and viciously portrayed Klayman in a derogatory way to harm his personal reputation and career as an activist attorney and religious conservative. In an unprecedented 93 page singled spaced opinion, which reads like an ad hominem attack, it is alleged that Loeb mocked and belittled Klayman’s religious beliefs as a Jew who believes in Jesus Christ, and made a false finding that Klayman had “inappropriately touched one of his children,” when in the fact of Cleveland Department of Children and Families and the local district attorney had investigated these false charges by Klayman’s ex-wife and found that no such thing had occurred. Moreover, Klayman had voluntarily taken a polygraph test and passed, while his ex-wife refused to. The false charges are alleged to have conveniently been made by Klayman’s ex-wife only after Klayman had filed a custody petition.
As documented in the complaint, false charges of child sexual abuse have become rampant in family court proceedings, as they are used tactically by sleazy family lawyers and their clients. Despite this, as alleged by Klayman, Loeb, who is a liberal Democrat and a Jew, took it upon himself to smear Klayman, viewing Klayman as in effect a “Jew for Jesus” and a political conservative to boot, for which he took extreme offense. Importantly, it is also alleged that Loeb sought to make his malicious false findings knowing that Klayman adversaries would use them to destroy him in the media.
“In the corrupt and incestuous world of family law courts, where sleazy divorce lawyers, judges, magistrates and guardians ad litem feed at the trough of broken families, it’s high time that they be held personally accountable for their actions, as too many lives are being destroyed. I sued Loeb not just for my children and me, but for all of the families who have been victimized in the family courts by persons like him,” stated Klayman.
/endqote
Klayman v. Loeb is still an active case.
There is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pending since 7/18 with lots of motions flying back and forth about leave to file/extension of time and opposition to same. Loeb filed a brief supporting the Motion to Dismiss Nov. 10. Loeb argues that a Florida court does not have jurisdiction over an Ohio magistrate. He also argues wrong venue, and judicial immunity.
Thanks, Doc. I left the Fogbow some time ago, so I am not always up to date.