That's a mannn, baaaby!

WTF nice eyelashes!

I don't know where TPM gets its info for the assertion that critical comments against judges are typically overlooked. Where I live, in Arizona, I would expect any attorney who publicly questioned the integrity of a judge to be sanctioned.

This surrender of First Amendment rights might seem on its face abhorrent but it makes sense when one considers that judges cannot defend themselves. One can file a complaint against a judge; just not in the press.

I thought I had read here (or elsewhere) that she has a correspondence school law 'degree' but that she's never passed the bar exam? Is this correct or incorrect?

Because if she has never passed the bar exam in California... what power does the California bar have over her?

Why do you keep posting Carol Channings' picture here?

Tiparillo wins the thread--give her 15 years-- then she can go for the Phyllis Diller award . . . (with all respect to both Carol and Phyllis who have more talent in their little fingers than Orly does in her whole family). mbb

California Bar membership records are available on a public web site: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member.aspx

Here are Taitz' records. She was admitted in 2002:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=223433

The CA Bar does not list on these public records other bar memberships held by its members. However, if it's any consolation, California has no reciprocity with other states. If she has been admitted anywhere else, she would have had to pass their bar exam.

Member of the State Bar of California

This is an idiot test. If you verbally respond to Orally, you may be an idiot. If you call her a lawyer, you may be an idiot. If you legitamize her in any way, you're definetly an idiot.

OK, who wants to do an "Orly in Joker makeup" shot? Anything would be better than the one on this post...

"...writes Subodh Chandra, who practices in Ohio and is also an inactive member of the California bar."

so her standing is what? about the same as Orly's to question Obama's eligibility to be president?

Sorry, I have to ask the question...if Orly Taitz married Bill O'Reilly she's be ______? God, I can't wait for these answers.

It's the wrong complaint.

I'd prefer to have Taitz disbarred for something that it is easy for the public to understand. That isn't the duty of a lawyer to the court system. Instead, disbar her for her failure to her own clients and her demonstrated incompetence in legal reasoning.

At the September 8th hearing, she got caught doing the truly unbelievable.

From http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/naranja-news/orlys-day-in-court/

"At some point, Kreep, Drake and co-plaintiff Markham Robinson decided to part ways with Taitz. Taitz refused to sign a change-of-attorney form, and then filed a motion stating Drake and Robinson’s desire to be removed from the lawsuit. Those two plaintiffs say they authorized Taitz to do no such thing."

I was flabbergasted. That's got to be amongst the most unethical things I've ever heard of a lawyer doing.

And Taitz's choice of actions shows she doesn't have a core competence of a lawyer, the ability to examine and research the best way to get the desired result.

Normal Lawyer
------------
Taitz wanted to rid 'her' lawsuit of two people who wanted to be represented by a different lawyer. A lawyer would think, this is a court procedure issue. I'll research how to have these people removed from my lawsuit. I'l research whether the judge has the discretion to allow or refuse my motion to have them dropped. The best I can hope for is have two separate lawsuits against the President, one where I'm the attorney and the other where Kreep is the attorney.

Taitz
-----
Instead, having to know that her ex-clients are going to go to court, she violates her duties to her clients and the courts. She's somehow failed to understand that this is all going to come out in court. She's risking disbarment for absolutely no gain. And she's managed to piss the judge off, so if he's got discretion, he'll exercise it in the way that's easiest for the court system and him. He'll also be inclined to follow the wishes of Kreep and his clients.

And that's what happened. There's now a very awkward lawsuit where Kreep's two clients can have separate representation and get the benefits of Taitz's war chest and researchers.

So a separate for disbarring Taitz is that she's put herself into the position of possibly being disbarred for zero gain and possibly getting less of what she wanted.

There's a good discussion of the details of what Taitz did and some specifics of what laws and rules she violated here.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=2354

TPM had better have recorded those comments.