TPMMuckraker

Taitz Alleges Judge Secretly Met With Holder -- And Cites Coffee Shop Sighting To Prove It

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!


Orly Taitz

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In a 24-page filing littered with all-caps, bold, and underlined text, Birther attorney Orly Taitz is demanding that a federal judge recuse himself in a case that has morphed from a soldier's attempt to resist Barack Obama's orders to what Taitz sees as a prosecution of herself.

Taitz alleges that Judge Clay Land met with Attorney General Eric Holder, who was allegedly spotted at a small coffee shop across from Land's courtroom in Columbus, Georgia, on the day of a Birther hearing. A strange affidavit by one Robert Douglas describes the putative sighting of Holder, sans entourage, who "probably thought he would not be recognized."

Douglas writes:

I looked up and immediately recognized an individual entering and approaching the serving counter, due to his well know [sic] TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion.

That alleged sighting is "circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in fact Judge LAND was influenced by prior association or direct ex-parte communications with Attorney General Eric Holder, acting as agent on behalf of de facto President Obama," Taitz writes in her motion.

Her motion for the judge to recuse himself comes, remember, after Land shot down Taitz and her Army captain client's case alleging Barack Obama is not legitimately president. At that point, despite a warning against more frivolous filings, Taitz challenged the judge's order. And he gave her until last Friday to explain why she shouldn't be fined $10,000.

Which brings us to Taitz's motion for Land, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, to recuse himself, and another motion asking for more time to respond to the threat of sanctions.

In the motion, which you can read in full here, Taitz, among other things:

  • Takes umbrage at judge's use of the term Birther to describe her, noting that it is often coupled with "even more colorful epithets such as 'batshit crazy'"

  • Says Land may be disqualified because he allegedly owns stock in Microsoft and Comcast which are "aligned both politically and economically with a key Defendant in this case" -- "the de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama" (emphasis hers)

  • Says Land cannot be an impartial adjudicator of whether she should be sanctioned by the court because he has "radically PREJUDGED" the facts of the Birthers' case (caps hers)

  • Accuses Land of issuing "blitzkrieg-like rulings"

  • Compares Birther crusade to movement for desegregation, suggesting Land, whom she calls "this distinguished Southern Judge" would have been on the side of Jim Crow:

Surely this distinguished Southern Judge would have jailed Thurgood Marshall in the 1940s and '50s for contempt when the future Supreme Court Justice repeatedly filed cases demanding on constitutional as well as social and psychological grounds the desegregation of primary and secondary public schools against well-established precedents such as Plessy v. Fergusson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Finally, Tatiz asks for more time -- until October 16 --- to respond to his order requiring her to explain why she shouldn't be fined $10,000. As she puts it:

The preparation of the response to this Order to Show Cause is in large part dependent upon whether the chief complaining witness, Judge Clay D. Land himself, will also serve as prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury of his complaint to impose a penalty for the undersigned attorney's alleged misconduct in the amount of $10,000.00

Join the Conversation!

67 comments

Recommend Recommend (8)

October 5, 2009 10:47 AM   

talk about guano loco....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:00 AM   

I don't think calling her batshit crazy is fair to the batshit. Am I missing something or she pretty much demanding the judge fine her, or daring him to at least, presumedly so she can holler VICTIM even louder than she is now. Underlined and bolded, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:11 AM    in reply to Bullsmith

Seriously. Bat shit (and bird shit) was a major source of nitrates and phosphates for fertilizer in the 19th century. Bat shit harvested in the Pacific fertilized the wheat fields of the prairie states. Bat shit is patriotic, man! This nutjob, not so much.

(By the way, by using the term nutjob, I don't mean any offense to the independent growers and harvesters of America's nut crop, who provide many sorely needed nut jobs in these troubled economic times.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:14 PM    in reply to Bullsmith

You are correct, she is waiving the red cape in front of the bull. OSC says, "You are getting fined this amount unless you can show me why I should not do so."
She is going to get the $10,000 sanction for her earlier filing, and an additional fine for this new batch of nonsense "motion to recuse due to having judged her a lunatic."
I think it will be 10+10=20M.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:31 PM    in reply to Prefabfan

Agreed... while guano loco is a useful product (don't forget gun powder!), OT is absolutely worthless. One must wonder why her mother didn't drown her in a bucket of water at birth. It would have saved all of us a lot of trouble.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 2:00 PM    in reply to Bullsmith

Underlined, bolded, and italicized.

And probably having explanatory feetnotes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:10 AM   

she needs a psychiatric evaluation

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:14 AM    in reply to docrocktex

She needs money, and what better way to raise it than to make a martyr of one's self, then beg the wingnuts for $$$ to fight the big, bad Obammunist conspiracy?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 1:30 PM    in reply to rynato

Zackly!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 3:56 PM    in reply to rynato

How much money do the wingnuts have to waste on Orly? Do they have unending resources for this kind of idiocy?

And speaking of waste - how much does it cost to write and publish the news about her? Is she taking up news space that should go to more informative subjects, or is she filling the comic-relief slot?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:15 AM   

I think Judge Land needs to multiply the fine 10-fold.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:26 AM   

Why has this woman not been disbarred already?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:37 AM    in reply to jheartney

I think even she knows she is on the fast track to disbarment, and is going for maximum notoriety while she still can.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:11 PM    in reply to Tulkinghorn

The wingnut lecture circuit beckons. She can't stand to see Sarah Palin making ALL the money.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Bingo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:27 AM   


So love The Orly Taitz saga. It's a rainy Monday here, and now there's sunshine in my heart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rb6

user-pic

October 5, 2009 11:33 AM   

This is the kind of thing that really infuriates judges and brings home how little power they actually have. I know that sounds crazy, but he really can't just go off on her without spending a lot of time explaining why. What is truly amazing for the judge, I am sure, is that this filing was submitted by an actual member of a state bar. This is more like what you see in pro se petitions from prisoners or people who lawyers have determined are a little crazy and will no longer represent.

What I really want to know is -- does she have local counsel? Is he or she signing the pleadings? That's where the judge has authority, not for the attorneys that he might see only once during their career.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 2:17 PM    in reply to rb6

I actually thought that this was on the level of a sophomore in high school who watched a lot of Perry Mason.

Can't wait for Land's withering repost -- pass the popcorn!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:42 AM   

Shorter redneck affidavit: I saw a black guy with a moustache in a coffee shop near the court. Could have been Holder--they all look alike.

I'll see that ten, and raise twenty. She's going to hit a hundred before this case is over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:55 AM    in reply to rumpole

Thanks. Made me smile!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 2:04 PM    in reply to rumpole

And note that the mustache was above his upper lip. Rather than above, or below, his lower lip.

That's an important detail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:43 AM   

Please stop covering this woman. She lives for this shit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:45 AM   

My question is this. Asking for an extension to file a response to the judge's show cause order is one thing, but as to filing a motion to recuse, can she do that if she is no longer the attorney representing the plaintiff?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rb6

user-pic

October 5, 2009 12:05 PM    in reply to Chilidog

A sanctions proceeding is probably separate and apart from the underlying matter, and really, is an action against counsel, not the lawyer's client. So even if, procedurally, you could make an argument that she lacks standing to demand recusal, she is correct that where the proceeding is against her in personam, it would be problematic not to permit her to seek recusal in appropriate cases.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:46 AM   

I can now appreciate why Eric stalks Orly

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:47 AM   

She must be trying to get the judge to hold her in contempt, to further her career.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:51 AM   

i...love this

orly never dissappoints

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:53 AM   

Apparently meth use can increase your sensitivity to fungal infections such as histoplasmosis, commonly found in batshit.

http://www.mdlinx.com/PsychLinx/news-article.cfm/2738173

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:59 AM    in reply to Chilidog

Oxycontin makes people batshit crazy, so could it be? She doesn't act that different from rushky, now that I think to compare them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 11:57 AM   

The basis for her motion is: (1) some dude saw a black guy; and (2) the word birther appeared in your order. Therefore, you can't be fair.

She's been ordered to show cause, not sanctioned. And so much of the brief is legally wrong that the judge is going to have to restrain himself from getting so pissed off that he gives her grounds for appeal. If I had to handicap this, I'd say he might even raise that motion if he finds this to be frivolous.

It's either the straight ten or thirty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:53 PM    in reply to rumpole

Indeed, it is clear that "they all look the same" to Orly...unless "they" are distinguished by a moustache.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rb6

user-pic

October 5, 2009 1:23 PM    in reply to rumpole

It's true -- it's a show cause order but since the judge more or less said he was going to impose it if she didn't "show cause" it's definitely a sanctions proceeding at this point. Even withdrawing the case won't make it go away -- it has a life of its own.

There is no doubt, she is nuts, and you are right, the biggest risk for the judge is not to fight fire with fire and create a basis for appeal. I've seen this often enough -- but it's almost always with pro se clients. This is not a joke: I once had to review the records of a case for a potential client on appeal who had represented himself pro se after all of his prior lawyers had quit, and it included "orders" that the client had written to the judge instructing him that he was not permitted to schedule hearings without the client's final say, because the client was very busy with his practice (the client was a doctor). The judge wrote the nicest kind of order in response when the client failed to show up at a hearing: "I understand that doctors are very busy, but that's why doctors usually hire lawyers, and if you want to be your own lawyer you are going to have to make time for your case."

In this case, the judge needs to write the exact same kind of response to make it clear Taitz hasn't gotten under his skin. IMHO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 8:01 AM    in reply to rb6

The appeal is inevitable. And grounds or no grounds it will be filled up with the same nonsense.

The appeals court will throw the appeal out without comment to avoid further engagement, or they will up the fine significantly and refer it to the bar soc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:03 PM   

First Ann Coulter, now Orly Taitz. What's the attraction that the GOP has for female impersonators?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:36 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

... this is an insult to female impersonators! :) Actually, the GOP has a thing for haters....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 2:03 PM    in reply to merlot

Blond ones at that. I think it's the Aryan Attraction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:17 PM   

You forgot to mention the part where she calls the judge biased because he owns shares of stock in Microsoft and Comcast.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:20 PM   

"First Ann Coulter, now Orly Taitz. What's the attraction that the GOP has for female impersonators?"

Better a mannish girl than a girly-man, maybe?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 1:03 PM    in reply to Mooser

Please go easy on Miss Lindsay. She's doing her best to seem tough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:24 PM   

I wonder if Orly also has info on that meeting in Prague between the Iraqi agent and Mohammed Atta.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 12:47 PM   

So with the new "evidence" produced by this bizarre woman, will it be possible for the judge to remand her for psychiatric evaluation after he fines her for frivolous use of the court?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 1:06 PM    in reply to 714Day

Don't think so - psych exams are for criminal defendants. While Orly may be criminally stupid, she's not a defendant, and sanction proceedings are civil, not criminal. Nice thought, tho, excpet for the fact that the taxpayers would have to cough up even more dough to deal with this woman's silliness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 1:02 PM   

Attorney General Holder is easily distinguished by his upper-lip mustache. No so your typical southwest Georgia negroes, who regularly sport lower lip, ear lobe, eyelid, and navel mustaches in Columbus coffee shops.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 5, 2009 1:08 PM   

Sure hope the coffee shops runs video cameras. It would be sweet if the so-called witness was never even at that coffee shop!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 1:59 PM   

There is no wonder that the Republican party has gone off the hinges, with leaders like this nut, Beck and Limbaugh what else can you expect. I hope the judge throw the book at this nut.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 2:01 PM   

Moe, Larry, cheese! Woo woo woo woo woo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 2:03 PM   

"not large of stature"

Slender, yes. Pretty tall, though.

This case is getting tossed no doubt, but it would be funny to see this "informant" confronted with the real Holder.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 2:04 PM   

This woman is batshit crazy. I'll be amused to see how far she takes this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 3:49 PM   

She shall leave in her destructive wake these people she purports to represent...Good riddance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 4:12 PM   

Courts have to take everyone seriously--up to a point. All litigants and attorneys are entitled to be listened to respectfully until they demonstrate that they have no case, and then they need not be listened to any longer. Lawyers like Orly Taitz take advantage of the fact that any new filing she makes must be evaluated to see if it has any merit.

But talk shows and newspapers and internet news sites do not have to take this woman seriously. Why is she being given the time of day on CNN or MSNBC or on this site, for that matter?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 4:25 PM   

I could see her in a Palin administration along with Betsy McCauhey.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 4:35 PM    in reply to RichMc

So could Jonathan Swift.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 9:43 PM    in reply to Schmed

OWW!

That left a mark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 4:27 PM   

It's all performance art, I tell you. It's just that instead of a mime in the street doing silly things it's a lawyer in a court doing silly things.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 6:44 PM    in reply to robcat2075

Crazy Moldovan 'lawyer/dentist/real estate agent" walking against the wind?

A birther Gabor sister inside of an invisible box?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 4:55 PM   

She's about one leap from "the one armed man did it". She's actually fighting the fact that she could be fined for frivolous charges by filing another frivolous charge. So, if she gets called bathit crazy, she'll prove she isn't by acting more batshit crazy. Helluva strategy, Good luck, Ms. Taint!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 5:48 PM    in reply to Leftflank

Like Leftflank sez, she's demonstrated the frivolous nature of the motion she's getting sanctioned for by filing another one. The underlying suit was tossed because the judge (relying on some solid precedent) found he was required to abstain from interefering with the internal conduct of the military, whether or not Taitz/Rhodes could present credible evidence justifying a temporary restraining order.
In the final section of the recusal motion, Taitz (inadvertently?) blows herself out of the water by saying: "These are not matters on which a
reasonable jurist should wish to abstain or leave to the military courts."
In other words, "I don't agree with your reading of the law so you are obviously biased." I predict she'll end up at Fox as their go-to legal expert.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 5:37 PM   

What is with that signature on the affidavit? It certainly doesn't look like 'Robert Douglas'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 8:18 PM   

Come on......really?

This is a cut/paste from theonion.....isn't it? Some kind of viral thing for a new Monty Python movie maybe?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 10:12 PM   

Call the President a monkey's uncle, Orly, and you can get away with it. Do that to a federal judge, and you're headed for prison, dear.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 5, 2009 10:33 PM   

I just don't want to see her get disbarred...I want to see her lose her dentist's license and her real estate license. What an awful person!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 7:21 AM    in reply to 11A7E

Why not, while we're at it, also take away her charm school diploma?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 12:55 AM   

2013:

President Palin today nominated Oly Taitz to the Supreme Court to replace ailing justice

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 1:03 AM   

pretty tough to find a description of Taitz' mental state without insulting the thing you're using to describe her...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 10:35 AM   

She want's a contempt citation to take up on appeal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 6, 2009 12:47 PM   

Accuses Land of issuing "blitzkrieg-like rulings"

Uh-huh. Complaining about getting speedy rulings. As the judge noted in his initial threat of sanctions, she asked for an expedited hearing and then complained because she didn't have time to introduce all the "evidence" she wanted to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ph7

user-pic

October 6, 2009 7:12 PM   

due to his well know [sic] TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature

Eric Holder is 6' 3".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!