Joy Behar hopped on the Orly Taitz train last night, interviewing the Birther attorney for her new show. Before sparring with Taitz about her conspiracy theories, Behar raised the issue of the $20,000 fine imposed by a judge on Taitz yesterday (which Taitz has refused to pay).
Noting the judge described Taitz as delusional, Behar asked Taitz to respond:
Taitz: Absolutely no. It's a delusional and corrupt judge.Behar: But he was appointed by George Bush. Just FYI.
Taitz: Listen, people make mistakes, what can I say.
Watch (starts about :40 into the clip):

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 9:16 AM
I actually thought Orly did well on the show.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 14, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to Just Browsing
I really think Orly will do well in jail!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to GTFOOH
Actually, she should have been in jail a while ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
October 14, 2009 9:33 AM
This woman is really bucking to get disbarred.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
October 14, 2009 9:35 AM in reply to jsfox
My thought exactly. What exactly does it take for someone to get disbarred these days?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
October 14, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to counter coulter
Well given that she has two pending complaints at the Bar already, including one from her client in this case, and that the judge pointedly directed that a copy of his ruling be sent to the Bar for whatever action they deemed necessary I suggest Orly's days as a member of the California Bar are dwindling.
And Judge Land has the patient of a saint all things considered. I am no lawyer but I am thinking that calling a judge "delusional" is pretty conclusively contempt of court, Orly is one ef-it from Judge Land from cooling her ass in jail until her hubby ponies up that $20 grand, assuming the judge doesn't double down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
October 15, 2009 4:32 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
If her husband has any sense, it will be a cold day in Hell when he ponies up any money to get her out of jail.
Can he divorce her in California for abandonment?
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
October 14, 2009 9:44 AM
Seriously, who cares what she says?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
October 14, 2009 9:52 AM
I think that she sums up the whole birther movement perfectly: delusional and in denial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 14, 2009 10:00 AM
Spare me this. The woman is nuts. I am tired of sharing the planet with these fucking idiots
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
October 14, 2009 10:01 AM
She needs a good lawyer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 14, 2009 10:03 AM
Well, I think Orly's career bringing these cases is certainly over, except maybe in California -- because I don't think any judge in the future is going to waive the requirements that she associate herself with local counsel, who are MUCH more amenable to threats of sanctions. Part of the reason she has gotten away with this is that she appears to most courts as a "one hit wonder" and so long as the court thinks it won't have to endure a repeat performance, it's willing to let this kind of thing go. Judge Land practically said exactly this in his opinion and sanctions order.
It's just the fact that as a judge, you have only so much authority over the lawyers who appear before you. A single round of sanctions isn't normally why lawyers get disbarred, but it should lead to a hearing and admonition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
October 14, 2009 10:10 AM
It is certainly possible that the Judge may call here and her local counsel into Court for this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chilidog
October 14, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to eric the red
What local council. Orly has appeared on her own in Texas and Georgia. She pulled the same crap both times, showing up without local council at the last minute and begging the judge to let her appear pro hac vice.
Word gets around. She's toast outside California.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 14, 2009 10:35 AM in reply to Chilidog
Right -- the judge waived the local counsel requirement because of the expedited nature of her request, and said in the opinion that within about 10 minutes into his first meeting with her knew that it had been a big mistake. I am sure other judges will more than get the message.
I've been involved in multiple TROs and NEVER asked for waiver of the local counsel rules. I've never asked for the waiver of any rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
October 14, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to rb6
Wow, that's odd. I am sure that from this point forward, if she every tries anything like this again, she will not only have to get local counsel, but the Court will require that local counsel to stand right next to here at every hearing and to co-sign every document.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 14, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to eric the red
Yeah, it's odd, because most of the time all you need to do is sign a pleading and be willing to accompany someone to a hearing to serve as local counsel. Maybe no one would help her, but more likely, she never even bothered to look.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to Chilidog
PA also. No pro hac vice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WineDarkSea
October 14, 2009 10:10 AM
I'm still wondering whether she really is Sasha Baron Cohen. Seriously, have you ever seen them together? She can't possibly be for real, can she?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
October 14, 2009 10:12 AM
Orly reminds me of a spoiled, bratty child who HAS to have the last word over her parents, simply because she's right. Only this is the real world and she's an idiot, not a child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 14, 2009 10:22 AM
Where's that judge that put a black kid in jail for yawning out loud in his court room. How come the Orly Taitz's of the world never run up against judges like that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
October 14, 2009 10:25 AM
Didn't see that one coming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
October 14, 2009 10:25 AM
Orly said that Hawai'i Gov. Linda Lingle never said Pres. Obama's birth certificate was authentic, but US News published a story stating the Gov. did validate his birth record as Joy stated on her program. However, I can find no confirmation of the Governors’ confirmation, nor can I find a State of Hawai'i dispositive statement on the disposition of Pres. Obama's birth record created at time of his birth: did the State destroy it or not? I think Pres. Obama was born in Hawai’i and that the birth record he provided is dispositive by law. However, what I find disturbing is the State of Hawai’i keeping crazy nuts like Orly and Berg in business spreading their racist antilocutions but failing to close the book on them. Protecting the confidentiality of birth records is one official priority (the State’s reason for making no further statements on the matter). Providing grist for racists by failing to resolve a national libel is another.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 10:35 AM in reply to Anasazi
The actual statement that was paraphrased by media sources was:
"No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i." by Chiyome Fukino October 2008.
If there were any other statements, I've not seen them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 14, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to Just Browsing
I thought the Secretary of State issued a statement saying, specifically, that whatever has been released is, in fact, the official record of the State of Hawaii and that no other records (i.e., the "long form") exist as official records in Hawaii, not for Obama and not for anyone. Most states are not keeping original paper documents of the kind that your parents might have received when you were born. I have certified copies of the birth certificates for all of my children and they don't have any additional information than Obama's does. I had to send away to the Office of Vital Statistics or whatever and get the "certified" copy. I don't have an original because the original is an electronic record somewhere. If this bugs you, you can blame the state but not Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to rb6
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
----------------------------------------------------
::shrugs::
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kiri
October 14, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to rb6
Discovery is far more complex and difficult than birthers recognize, and no matter what a judge rules about "discovery", it is unlikely to yield what Orly et al. desire.
Every step can be challenged. Colleges will note the Federal and state laws that prohibit release of student records. A simple subpoena does not override such laws. Ultimately, some court of appeals will have to decide whether a civil lawsuit--whatever its gravity, but less than a criminal case--is sufficient to abrogate existing law.
A subpoena issued to the State of Hawaii will definitely be challenged. At issue will be whether a Federal Court can override a state's privacy laws. State's Rights will be invoked. It will take months or years to get a definitive ruling.
The subpoena might even be ignored. The only recourse would be a contempt of court citation; but how would this be enforced? An interesting stand-off can be envisioned as Federal Marshals are blocked by Hawaii's State Police.
If the Obama documents are in fact moved to a bank safe-deposit box, Hawaii officials can claim, rightly, that they no longer possess the documents. It will be argued, of course, that they have "constructive possession", that is, that they know where the documents are and could yield up the key. However, it might be very difficult to determine exactly which official has this information.
In all, the birthers are praying for an activist judge to make new law from the bench.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 15, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to kiri
Oh please. No one is getting to discovery until they can overcome the threshold legal issue identified by the court, which is, WTF does the president's alleged ineligibility for office have to do with the validity of your military orders or whether you have suffered a cognizable injury giving you standing to pursue relief?
Let's take a clearer case, where the president openly and obviously commits a "high crime or misdemeanor" that clearly qualifies for impeachment and removal from office. Until he is actually removed he is the CoC -- and as the court pointed out, that power to remove him rests solely with the Congress, not the courts. What Taitz is effectively trying to do (with as gross a level of attorney incompetence as I can possibly imagine) is to bypass the normal course of any inquiry into the suitability of a president by creating a private right of action for people who assert that his presidency isn't valid. It's clever but in her zeal to uphold one small part of the Constitution, the presidential qualification provisions, Taitz would essentially tear up other parts, like, the branch of government vested with the constitutional authority to decide whether those qualification provisions have been met.
It would be one thing if the Constitution were silent on the method for removing a president, but it's not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DancingBear
October 14, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to Just Browsing
Come on, folks, no need to paraphrase anything:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to DancingBear
Thanks for sourcing my quotes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kiri
October 14, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to Anasazi
Hawaii officials did not take the birthers seriously for the last year. But security forces have begun to worry about a potential armed invasion of the Vital Statistics Office in Honolulu. The scenario is that an armed posse could briefly take over the office, get the Obama documents, and immediately fax copies from the office's own machines to media and blogs.
The office rarely has even one LEO present, so a small group of 3-4 could accomplish this easily. It would be a self-sacrificial act, since arrest would be inevitable.
To forestall a potential attack, officials are considering removing the Obama documents and placing them in a safe-deposit box in a bank. The bank could be located anywhere--maybe in a foreign country, like Luxemburg or Switzerland.
This plan would preserve the documents for history and could also effectively prevent them from being subpoenaed.
Similarly with Obama's college records.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rathskeller
October 14, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to kiri
You write this like it was a scene from a summer movie. Armed birther commandos are going to invade a bureaucracy, figure out its filing system, extract the evidence, and fax it to a hungry world? You further assert that an effective defense for this armed invasion will be to involve foreign banks to hide away the evidence. I do not know if you are writing a parody or revealing the serious delusions you have about the way the world works.
Alternative scenario #1: Many thousands of angry white guys rage about black president being illegitimate, somehow magically not born in this country. Nothing happens.
Alternative scenario #2: One or more idiots are arrested at the airport, trying to bring in guns to Hawaii.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kiri
October 14, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to Rathskeller
Do you deny that extremist birthers could carry out such an adventure? The "logic" of their position is clear---find the 'truth' at all costs. This scenario of intimidating the office's employees is not so unlikely. The attackers would be heroes to the ultras; in the name of "protecting the Constitution".
Hawaii can move the documents to a safe-deposit box in a bank, which eliminates this threat.
Hawaii security has considered an alternative that a leftist group could similarly obtain the documents and burn them.
This is very low in priority concerns.
BTW, there are plenty of guns in Hawaii.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rathskeller
October 14, 2009 9:47 PM in reply to kiri
Yes, I deny that this is likely. Just because it is conceivable does not mean it should be considered as probable. If you have some source that you can provide for the views from "Hawaii Security" on this matter, please provide them. Otherwise, it's garden-variety speculation. Nutjobs will do whatever they will do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kiri
October 14, 2009 11:31 PM in reply to Rathskeller
You are right, it is not probable. But Hawaiian officials did not initially think about all the efforts launched by Donfrio, et al., prominently on WorldNutDaily.
These successfully caught Hawaiian officials in contradictory emails.
Indeed it is speculative--my thought in posting was to add to birthers' concerns.
(My source for Hawaiian Security is my sister, a 'haole' in the state police force administration (and also a member of the National Guard). She alerted me to the considerations her department are having, based on so-called 'intelligence' ... or rumors.)
Cheers, Kiri
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seafarer
October 14, 2009 11:12 AM
Even if this all somehow gets from Orly to the Supreme Court, the moment that they decline to hear the case (Is there any other ultimate end to this even feasible?) she will simply be able to say something like:
"Even the US Supreme Court is in on it!"
And we're exactly back to square one except with the extra gravy of legal martyrdom.
This will never end unless she's legally prevented from filing cases, and then we're back to square one, with the extra gravy of...
Legal martyrdom.
This is never gonna end until either January 20th 2012, or January 20th 2016.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Browsing
October 14, 2009 11:19 AM in reply to Seafarer
This did get to the Supreme Court. She asked US Justice John Roberts to recruise himself for exparte meetings with Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
October 14, 2009 11:24 AM
As my dad says, she doesn't believe fat meat is greasy. She won't stop until she's disbarred and fined into bankruptcy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
October 14, 2009 11:25 AM
Not going to toot my own horn, guessing the $20,000 sanction to the dollar. This one is tougher, she is not making her allegations in her court pleadings, so the First Amendment enters into the equation. At the risk of losing my street cred, my prediction; judge sets OSC re Dismissal and Attorney fees. Dismisses her non-case with prejudice and sanctions her attorneys fees, court costs, and $25M sanctions. You heard it here first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
October 14, 2009 11:32 AM in reply to Prefabfan
I was thinking an Order to Show Cause as well. However, I am guessing she refuses to appear or to otherwise respond. Judge finds her in contempt and precludes her from ever appearing in the jurisdiction again until the sanctions are paid. Not sure how much $ he will add to the $20,000, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
October 14, 2009 11:32 AM
In addition to probably being disbarred she may face being barred as in criminal contempt if she keeps up her remarks disparaging the court. I also think her dental license should be looked at.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chilidog
October 14, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to ejg3
Like her Real Estate license, Her "grip on reality" license expired a long time ago
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chilidog
October 14, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to ejg3
Doesn't she have to file her appeal of Judge Land's order with the appelate court?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mitahn
October 14, 2009 11:50 AM
Joy Behar is a horrible interviewer. She couldn't get her points across. Instead of hitting hard with facts, she just meanders with no purpose. She did not push back with any hard facts on any charges what Orly was throwing. It's just he said she said, although there are plenty of hard evidence she could have backed up her argument. It just made Orly Taitz look more legitimate with her phony documents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Bowman
October 14, 2009 11:56 AM
Orly and her fellow travelers in the New Republican Party need a theme song, and I suggest they contact Ozzy Osbourne:
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train!
Lets go!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
October 14, 2009 12:03 PM
sad that so many folks these days are getting rich SOLELY for their stardom.
The media makes so much of abnormal people that they then become stars and cause my food prices to go up (advertising pays them).
My food doesn't taste near as good as it used to...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
October 14, 2009 12:12 PM
"Listen, people make mistakes, what can I say?"
-- Birther Attorney Orly Taitz, 3pi(t4ph
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Technowitch
October 14, 2009 12:26 PM
The sum total of Orly Taitz's defense:
"I know you are, but what am I?!!!"
She's toast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
robcat2075
October 14, 2009 12:44 PM
She seems to be constructing sentences from random items in a lawyers' phrase book.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MT from CC
October 14, 2009 1:33 PM
Is that Orly Taitz or gnarly 'taint? Or all of the above?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Private Citizen
October 14, 2009 2:14 PM
Now that Orly's famous, and on TV all over the place, when will we get to see the TMZ video of her embarrassing private moments? Surely some patriotic paparazzo can step forward, come out of the bushes, and catch her paying off her dissatisfied dental clients or something?? Heck, at this point I'd settle for seeing her caught on camera without the platinum blonde wig and foot-long black eyelashes on. Of course, she doesn't embarrass as easily as the ordinary celebrity, that's true, but goodness, she's had enough polite media treatment so far. Time for the mean kind!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greggp
October 14, 2009 3:26 PM
Even scarier than her being admitted to the bar, is the fact that she's a dentist, too. Why would anyone voluntarily get into a chair, open his or her mouth and let this woman stick sharp metal objects into it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mixedcontent
October 14, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to greggp
How to tell if you're in a drug induced nightmare: Orly Taitz's tool is in your mouth, and you're paying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 14, 2009 5:43 PM
DISBARRED IN CALIFORNIA!!!
Are you guys nuts??? NOBODY is ever disbarred by the worthless State Bar, Ca. Bar Ass.
Not even the West Coast Michelle Bachmann Oral-y Taitz will get disbarred.
Pete Wilson, former governor, senator, Reagan-esque Alzheimer's puppet, who needed 3 TRIES TO PASS THE BAR EXAM and is completely senile is still a practicing a-h*le... I mean attorney in California.
Question: What does California have more of?
A. Lawyers
B. Real Estate Agents.
C. Worthless Politicians
D. C is both A & B.
E. Trade them all to Nevada for Prostitutes who are not worthless.
F. Just the whores A,B, C are worthless.
Okay, speech over...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greggp
October 14, 2009 9:36 PM in reply to Problem Is
NOBODY is ever disbarred? Nonsense. Orly's law clerk, Charles E. Lincoln, is himself was disbarred by the Califorinia Bar in 2004.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=171793
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 22, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to greggp
greggp: Look at my post... the whole thing.
Does it look like something a fact checker for the LA Times would write?
Or does it look like something one of Jon Stewart's writers would concoct?
Do you even understand the concept of satire and farcical retort??
Satire:
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
Look at my picture...is it satire or do you think that is me?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
October 15, 2009 10:05 AM in reply to Problem Is
Well, actually, a couple of years ago I dealt with a guy who had been disbarred in California (I don't know why) who henceforth became a "professional" plaintiff, and allied himself with a barred attorney. Basically, the licensed attorney signed all the pleadings while the disbarred guy was the plaintiff and did most of the work. It was crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 22, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to rb6
rb6: You realize I am being sarcastic, right?
Did I say "The Ca State Bar has only disbarred 3 attorneys in the last 8 years proving lack of enforcement.." like I had research and convincing evidence?
Or was it over blown satirical retort? But then do you see the poll? Can you see the satire? Does everything Jon Stewart say reside in fact or rhetorical comedy? I thought the farcical poll would convey that.
Let me use an analogy:
Washington is full of corrupt, campaign bribed politicians who NEVER get arrested for corruption.
Is this statement intended as fact or farcical satire?
Okay so Ted Stevens got charged, the guy from Louisiana had cash in his freezer, Duke Cunningham was a spectacular bribe taker...
My Uncle was a judge in Calif. I am fully aware attorneys actually do get disbarred here. The fact remains the State Bar hides complaints against attorneys from the public and it takes a whole lot to get one disbarred. An attorney under investigation by the bar can continue to take money from clients for the same kind of work he may have complaints on and it will be purposefully hid from the public. The bar will claim "personnel matter."
By the way, Pete Wilson is a senile political hack taking crony jobs for big cash...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 14, 2009 5:48 PM
DISBARRED IN CALIFORNIA!!!
Are you guys nuts??? NOBODY is ever disbarred by the worthless State Bar, Ca. Bar Ass.
Not even the West Coast Michelle Bachmann Oral-y Taitz will get disbarred.
Pete Wilson, former governor, senator, Reagan-esque Alzheimer's puppet, who needed 3 TRIES TO PASS THE BAR EXAM and is completely senile is still a practicing a-h*le... I mean attorney in California.
Question: What does California have more of?
A. Lawyers
B. Real Estate Agents.
C. Worthless Politicians
D. C is both A & B.
E. Trade them all to Nevada for Prostitutes who are not worthless.
F. Just the whores A,B, C are worthless.
Okay, speech over...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greggp
October 14, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to Problem Is
NOBODY is ever disbarred in California?
Nonsense.
Orly's own "law clerk," Charles E. Lincoln, was disbarred in 2004.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=171793
If she's letting him deal with clients directly, that's another violation for her. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 6133.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 14, 2009 5:56 PM
Sorry... internet connection hanging up again... thanks AT&T....
Oligarchies provided for crappier products and services at higher prices... a dead weight loss to society.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kaolin
October 14, 2009 6:35 PM
I predict a rosy future for Orly in cheesy reality TV. After a brief stint on Dancing With The Stars or Celebrity Apprentice (you're fired!) watch for her in "I Flipped, So Can You" or TLC's heartwarming "Baby Don't Fear the Dentist."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greggp
October 14, 2009 9:59 PM
Actually, I think Orly has committed another violation. Since she allowed Charles Lincoln to negotiate with the U.S. Attorneys to stipulate to discovery in Barnett v. Obama, she has violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-311(B)(4).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20772446/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-82-2-Exhibit-2nd-response-from-the-US-attorney-Roger-West-Gov-uscourts-cacd-435591-82-2
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
the true enduring majority
October 15, 2009 5:44 AM
Oh wow! Orly's on the tee vee again! And talking out of her ass too!
Ah yes, the sky is blue, water is wet and Orly Taitz is in the news and getting just one step closer to the clink, or even better, deportation. So otherwise, nothing new.
Call me when she becomes an hero or is deported. If by some miracle she's deported I hope they show her being dragged onto the plane raving like a lunatic and in a straight jacket on live TV. Now that would be entertainment, amirite?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johnsnottoodistracted
October 15, 2009 7:28 AM
But the hair??!! Should she be arrested just for the hair?
Is this real or solid hair spray or what?
Does she know what she looks like?
Maybe she's ok with it.
She makes joan rivers doo like awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problem Is
October 22, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to Johnsnottoodistracted
I think she got mixed up and put the Real Estate Agent wig on instead of the Dentist or Lawyer wig... too many hats to wear makes our nutter Oral-ly confused...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?