Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
That law degree that Orly Taitz got through the mail is looking about as legitimate as Kent Hovind's "doctorate" right about now as she continually screws up her filings in case after case. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just dismissed another birther case filed by Taitz because she didn't file the right paperwork.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal by an Army reservist who sought to avoid deployment to Afghanistan because he questioned President Barack Obama's eligibility as president.The reason: he didn't file the appropriate paperwork needed for the appeal.
This is the first of the two cases she tried to bring on behalf of members of the military:
California attorney Orly Taitz filed suit on behalf of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook on July 8 in U.S. District Court, arguing that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't serve as commander in chief. District Court Judge Clay Land dismissed the suit July 16, saying the Judicial Branch of government shouldn't "inject itself into purely 'political disputes' and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute."Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, who represented the government in the case, claimed Cook's suit was "moot" because the Army had already told Cook he didn't have to deploy, so the relief he sought was granted.
Cook appealed in September to the appeals court based in Atlanta.
The appeals court dismissed the appeal Nov. 17, citing Cook's failure to file a brief and record excerpts.
In the appeal, Cook states he wanted a review of the question about "whether an officer's obedience to his oath is a (sic) nothing more than a political claim [which] does not give rise to a case or controversy to be heard in federal court."
Taitz failed to sign the appeal, and she had to re-file the document.
To quote A Few Good Men, "Oh, I forgot - you were absent the day they taught law at law school!"
Politics
Comments
Unfortunately, even though Ms. Taitzs' law degree was from a mail order firm, she somehow managed to pass the Bar Examination in California, reputedly among the toughest in the country. Maybe they're asking the wrong questions on those examinations.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2009 9:35 AM
Taitz meets the classical defination of delusiona
Here is defination of delusion from Wikipedia
"The following can indicate a delusion:[3]
The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. (Adrian James Honan)
That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. (John Parsons)
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. (Matthew Ludgate)
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. (Matthew Ludgate)(Adrian James Honan)
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. (Matthew Ludgate)
Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien. "
Therefore, the solution to shutting down Taitz is start to treat the birther issue as a mental health issue. SWhat is goingn with Taitx is funny but she is really mentally ill and needs signficant amout of help to drill down the root of delusion and for her to accept the truth.
I think realizing the truth will bring tremendous clarity and mental happiness to Taitz. It is her own best interest to seek help out for the delusion and root it out of her.
It would be a great service to this country if she did that and to herself.
Posted by: Crisco | December 19, 2009 9:59 AM
The issues here are not simply the lamentable failure to use the calender and alarm function in Outlook I'm afraid.....
Orly also needs to
Invest in a proofreader
Limit sentences to no more than 15-20 words, one random epic fail in a filing had over 130 words
Use generally agreed principles of punctuation
Cut down on the histrionics
Focus on relevant issues in filings as opposed to throwing in the latest paranoia of the week (currently multiple SSN's)
Drop inflammatory wording like "Usurper" and "Abomination"
Drop the use of BOLD/ITALIC, it doesn't help a filing
Base a recusal demand on a judges 401K filing
etc
etc
Then again if she did where would the fun be......
Posted by: Bovril | December 19, 2009 10:01 AM
ed, you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy...
Visit:
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=3449994
Posted by: atheistfool | December 19, 2009 10:11 AM
Relative to Ms. Taitzs' research activities, a query on Barack Obama on Anywho.com turned up 6 people named Barack Obama in the US, only one of whom was the president. A search on Obama turned up 29 names of whom 1 was the president. Ms. Taitzs' detective abilities are rather rudimentary, at best.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2009 10:12 AM
This doesn't make any sense. Why they allow anyone, not just people with a law degree, to sit for the bar, and why they don't check for accreditation I don't know.
That's populism for you in the worst manifestation.
Posted by: Katharine | December 19, 2009 10:35 AM
Taitz may know enough to have become a lawyer, but that says nothing about her batshit level of 11. Like I have said before in reference to Randazza, there's a LOT about being a lawyer that you don't learn in law school or even in bar prep.
I am curious what the standards are for disbarment. I would imagine that they're pretty high and generally related to ethical violations with financial ramifications, but there's got to be some kind of "stop vexing the courts, asshole" rule and she has to be close to triggering it.
Posted by: barry21 | December 19, 2009 10:51 AM
SLC @5: Not to question your statements, but how are they relevant? Is there confusion in her "work" about who she refers?
Posted by: xebecs | December 19, 2009 10:55 AM
Somehow, the comments on the bar exam remind me of this old story from Ms. magazine. A husband & wife both took the bar exam in their state. He was told that he passed; she was told that she failed. He started to practice law and she went back to housekeeping. Eventually, she asked to see a copy of her exam so that she could see where she went wrong. When she got the exam, she saw that it was her husband's answers. When she pointed out the mistake, she was able to start pracising law and he went back to school (not housekeeping, I noticed).
Posted by: Monado | December 19, 2009 10:56 AM
SLC @ 1:
I'm still struggling with this concept. I can't imagine how someone who writes like Ms. Taitz does, and the inferred thinking skills that create such written product, is able to pass a Bar Exam. I'm still cognizant of Kurt Kehsram's rationalization in previous blog post threads but I remain skeptical.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 11:09 AM
Taitz was selected as one of the craziest people of the year at Salon's Year in Crazy. Kirk Cameron also made the list.
Posted by: Joe Blough | December 19, 2009 11:15 AM
To quote A Few Good Men, "Oh, I forgot - you were absent the day they taught law at law school!"
It appears soon-to-be-ex Major Cook slept through most of his classes at OCS, as well. Let's see, how many of the fourteen leadership traits has he violated so far?
Justice, judgement, tact, dependability, integrity, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge and loyalty; fail.
Initiative, decisiveness, enthusiasm, and endurance – pass. Although as we used to say in my former line of work, lousy judgment trumps great initiative every time.
Posted by: Shay | December 19, 2009 11:45 AM
SLC @5
So one out of every 5 people with a surname of Obama has a given name of Barack? Don't you think that's a little odd? That the sort of ratio we'd expect to see if someone were planting records in order to create a false sense of legitimacy! Oh my god, Orly is right!
(Quote-mined by a birther in 3... 2... 1...)
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 19, 2009 11:54 AM
Re Michael Heath
Is Mr. Michael Heath implying that there was hanky panky involved in her bar examination?
Re xebecs
Ms. Taitz has claimed that the president has multiple social security numbers, apparently based on finding other people named Obama in the US.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2009 11:56 AM
SLC: Oh, right. I had forgotten about that. It's been a tough week...
Posted by: xebecs | December 19, 2009 12:14 PM
Something about profesional licensing that puzzles me:
In all 50 states, if you want to become a registered professional engineer you have to
1. Complete a four-year degree in the appropriate field at an accredited educational institution.
2. Complete a specified period of work in your field under the supervision of a licensed engineer.
Then you will be permitted to take the state exam.
The purpose of requirement 2 is to allow the newly-minted engineer to develop the judgment and experience needed to put their book learning to safe and effective use.
I'm told that there are similar experience requirements for aspiring CPAs, doctors and dentists.
Why not lawyers? A few years spent clerking in a law office, doing research and writing legal documents under the guidance of a successful practitioner ought to help the noob to develop their researching, writing and thinking skills to an acceptable level. At the very least it should help to weed out the hopelessly incompetent before they take the test.
Posted by: Ktesibios | December 19, 2009 12:47 PM
SLC @ 14:
I've never taken a bar exam, let alone California's so I can't judge the chances fraud are at stake - though I certainly don't rule it out either. Perhaps she was previously sane and the symptoms of her current insanity has led to her currently demonstrated behaviors since she gained notoriety, e.g., failures in speaking and writing coherently, epic critical thinking failures, and being able to fill out forms.
If she was as nuts during her exam as she is now, I think the body that administrates CA's Bar Exam has some 'splaining to do. I wouldn't trust any CA attorney right now unless he had some empirical evidence he wasn't Orly II; such a perception and entirely rational reaction surely hurts the lawyers with their own offices with unreffered clients.
I do think licensing boards should be able to act more quickly than they are in this case when it comes to pulling the license of someone who has easily proven their inability to provide the very service California licensed her to perform. Right now her practicing law hurts their profession.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 12:49 PM
I have to kind of wonder about this myself. If the bar were only an objective, multiple choice test, then I could see someone with Taitz' limited writing ability passing without incident, but with as poorly as she writes, I have to wonder what their criteria are for the written/free response portions. How the hell did she pass? Was there an 'option B' exam that she somehow got instead of the regular exam. Was there an error and she got a passing grade by accident? Did she take it 30 or 40 times and finally they gave her a pity pass? Did she find the head of the California Bar in bed with a dead woman or live boy?
Seriously, what the hell...?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 19, 2009 1:51 PM
Like in all other professions the ability to pass a test is in now way connected in your ability to do the job.
Posted by: yoshi | December 19, 2009 2:33 PM
yoshi @ 19:
Not true. There is no way Ms. Taitz could become APICS certified, which is what I became long-ago as a young supply chain management professional. Our classroom requirements are far less stringent than a good law school, but having tutored dozens of young professionals who worked for me through their certification process, I'm pretty certain Ms. Taitz could not come even close to passing the first test, let alone the remaining five tests.
In addition, we're not considering a mere disconnect between what passing a test demonstrates and such passing not providing predictive power regarding one's ability to succeed at the practice of law. I see that in my current profession (Real Estate). Instead we're talking about Ms. Taitz's demonstrated inability to comprehend the written word, defective communication skills, and some downright zany opionions, all of which strongly infers she possesses fatally flawed critical thinking skills. Let's be clear here, Ms. Taitz is unable to even fill out the proper forms required to litigate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 3:49 PM
Is it possible for a stand-in to take a test for an applicant? What security precautions are in place? Fingerprints? Has anyone checked?
Posted by: Bob Carroll | December 19, 2009 4:26 PM
"Is it possible for a stand-in to take a test for an applicant? What security precautions are in place? Fingerprints? Has anyone checked?
Posted by: Bob Carroll"
The rules vary from state to state, and I've no idea what California's are. I know in Massachusetts 20-odd years ago they required fingerprints and all the rigamarole. But that didn't prevent the occasional cheater slipping through. The "multi-state" portion is, or was, multiple choice; the state portion here required a written answer. Though on mine, I had no idea what the correct answer to the written question was, so I basically winged it and passed with a very high score. Not sure anyone actually read the essay.
Posted by: Tom | December 19, 2009 4:46 PM
I wouldn't trust any CA attorney right now unless he had some empirical evidence he wasn't Orly II; such a perception and entirely rational reaction surely hurts the lawyers with their own offices with unreffered clients.
Since my sister is a practicing attorney in the San Francisco Bay area, and graduate of a reputable law school (Santa Clara), I am afraid I am going to have to take exception to Mr. Michael Heaths' comment here. She ain't no Orly Taitz.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2009 5:13 PM
Ktesibios@Some countries do have requirements like what you suggest. To become a lawyer in Canada, after law school you have to spend a year "articling", which effectively means as a sort of law clerk. The firm with which you article must be approved by the Law Society (the equivalent of the bar) and in addition to using you as clerk, takes on certain responsibilities for your further education. You take the bar exam at the end of the articling year.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 19, 2009 5:29 PM
SLC @ 23 - you miss my point. I wasn't claiming all CA attorneys were untrustworthy, I was claiming that without reliable references or some empirical evidence of a lawyer's competency (like being well-established within a large successful firm), I have no basis to determine whether a lawyer is able to perform at even a level that they are indeed sane, have some minimal reading and writing skills, and can fill out the proper forms. That's a very scarily set bar (pun intended).
I state this as one of those rare people that actually defend lawyers in public and covertly cringe when the lawyer jokes come up (though I think they're funny as well). The businesses I've engaged in all require lawyers and I have dozens of stories testifying to their value with only a handful of horror stories. I can't say enough good things about the two lawyers who services I use now.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 5:47 PM
Michael Heath,
I'd suggest that Taitz' ability to pass a California bar exam is because she actually is capable of sane legal reasoning, just so long as the questions in no way touch upon her pet conspiracy theories. Or she may have been only slightly batty at the time of the exam, and has fallen off into the deep end only recently. The more she thrashes about now in her complex delusions and in hostile environments, the more likely she can get even simple things, like using the correct form, wrong.
That's just a guess, of course. If she obtained her degree through some sort of hanky panky instead, that would be a much more satisfying explanation.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | December 19, 2009 7:25 PM
Anyone else tired of the above spammer?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 19, 2009 7:45 PM
I find that the way people like Orly Taitz get credibility is by being outrageous. Imagine her for another 2-3 years fumbling over the law, uttering ridiculous conspiracies, losing court battles, ...
And then one day, she comes on a TV show and apologizes. Cites past medical problems with her mental health, and in a flash, people forget and start adoring her.
Next, she on Oprah, Olbermann, reviled by Hannity.... at any rate, he cashes in.
Heck, Joe the Plumber is still cashing in.
I think the responsible thing to do is to mention the wingnuts only once in a while, unless they have gained prominence because of something that is actually of significance.
Following the birther queen to the end of the world is really a disservice. If we ever see "Life with Orly" on TV, you should know that you had a small hand in putting her there.
What could be of great service in highlighting that MSNBC's Pat Buchanan is currently featured on David Duke's site:
http://www.davidduke.com/
Skip a few articles, and there you'll see Pat amidst that Jew-hating diatribes of the Dukester!
Posted by: Shripathi Kamath | December 19, 2009 8:59 PM
Seconding Sadie Morrison (#28).
C'mon Ed, ban 'he who cannot be named'* - DJ
------------------------
* If I mention him, the comment gets held in 'moderation limbo'. never to be seen again!
Posted by: DingoJack | December 19, 2009 9:07 PM
Will discurse a little and invent a few words. One misconception bouncing around in the thread is that there exist similar, perhaps parallel, expertises in professions. Not so. I never met but four or five doctors whom I thought were not experts. But I have met hundreds of lawyers who were not experts, and some defense lawyers are a walking violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel in criminal matters. Why have them then? Are they expert to anyone? Yes, to some laymen. When you consider that lawyers and their clients are in an adversarial system, that someone must win, someone must lose, that the lawyer represents a niche of society that is perhaps stupid (think Orly's here) then it is obvious that they must have their lawyers too. [Then there's the judge and perhaps the jury. You see we are talking a whole other matter among persons than with say doctors or chemists.](Are engineers ever adversarial? Some college disciplines are but verdicts are slow. )
Second misconception is that Orly is speaking for herself. She may think the same, that she is speaking for herself. But lawyers can take either side of an argument. She is paid in some way to say what she says, paid with money in hand probably preferred, but she may be getting other types of rewards, or expect some future reward in the way of clients or business.
Third misconception is that the lawsuit is frivolous. For me it is, but not for the law, not yet. A showing would have to be made that it was filed knowing it had no merit to find it frivolous. It has merit to her clients, characterized above. However, as the courts inform them that it has no merit, they get closer to frivolous legal action by any refiling or attempted amendments. Sanctions are possible. They are set out in writing in every state, usually based on the model disciplinary rules of the American Bar Association.
But, surprise, we need Orlys who will bring what seem to us ridiculous and preposterous lawsuits for their clients. If they cannot state their case well, it is highly likely there is no case to be stated. We assume Orly is being paid well, and we assume an ethical limit exists beyond which she will not go, such as deliberately filing based on a known falsehood.
So this amounts to a defense of Orly, no matter how obnoxious she may be. Nonetheless, her appearance is that of not very competent--perhaps her clients aren't either-- and for the once I've seen her speak, not an artful speaker. They who have the right to complain about her lack are her clients, not me. She is fulfilling a function, and it has some entertainment value.
As to California and entertainment...but you can take it from there.
Posted by: david | December 19, 2009 10:43 PM
This does not belong with the other reasonable suggestions.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 20, 2009 1:14 AM
Wow. It seems that some are missing the jest about Ms. Taitz. Irrelevant of Ms. Taitz accreditation as a lawyer she has proven herself inadequate as a lawyer. This is both for using the courts as a vehicle for her conspiracy theory and for failing to follow court procedures. There are people who understand the principles of their professions, worked hard to get their credentials, but have been an utter embarrassment.
One important thing Orly Taitz has acted at time in her own self interest. Yes, she has worked with people with the same interests. However, time and time again she has put her interests ahead of he clients.
Posted by: Anthony | December 20, 2009 1:42 AM
David - Firstly, If Orly were an engineer, a surgeon, or an airline pilot, she'd have been fired long ago. These professions take their competency (mostly*) seriously and train their members thoroughly because mistakes can be extremely costly, to the practitioner, the profession as a whole and to the clients and/or general public. Wouldn't you say it would be reasonable for a client to expect their lawyer is, at least, able to do basic tasks associated with their job? Isn't that what is called professionalism?
Secondly - Orly is speaking for herself. (In an earlier case she had a client but they fired her ass once they realised what a complete fruit-loop she was, in another she 'represented' a client who never even hired her).
The 'clients' didn't draft the 'ransom-note' documents, force Orly to accuse the Judge of corruption in his own court, or compel Orly to use completely lame legal arguments (and imaginary laws) that even a first year law student would be embarrassed to be caught using. This is not just one case, but several cases in a row, representing different clients, in front of different courts. This was always about Orly, never her client.
Even if the client is an idiot (and frequently they are), a good lawyer sits them down and calmly tells them: "Either fire me and represent yourself, or represent yourself and retain me as a legal advisor, or provide me with the material facts of the case and let ME do the 'lawyering', The last is the option that's most likely gonna keep you 'out of jail' OK? You chhose.". If Orly can't control herself thought, I'd imagine controlling her client would next to impossible.
Thirdly - The law suit are frivolous. The cases have been thrown out because of thier glaring deficiencies (mostly in standing) in every case. If that ain't frivolous what is?
And finally, I doubt if Orly is getting paid much, she was hoping the publicity of success would shower-down benefits on her down the track. I'm guessing shes either pro bono or no win; no fee. - DJ
---------------
* in the lattermost case, Indonesia is clearly an exception
Posted by: DingoJack | December 20, 2009 2:19 AM
Palin-Taitz in 2012! Woo!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 20, 2009 2:55 AM
Off topic, sorry: made a blog post today which is the first post I've ever made that I consider worthy of linking to here. I love this blog (although Ed shunned me the only time I wrote him) and would love to see what Ed's fan's have to say about what I consider "The most offensive blog post ever!" - http://www.petetracey.com/2009/12/the-most-offensive-blog-post-ever/
Posted by: Pete Tracey | December 20, 2009 8:05 AM
Pete Tracey @ 35:
Not even close.
My advice when writing to the public is to write about issues where you are able to provide an informed perspective far superior to the general public's. The personal ruminations of a know-nothing does not make for attractive reading.
You may think this is overly harsh but your demonstrated understanding of history wouldn't get you out of a credible elementary school. Stick with what you know. If you care to have considered opinions about slavery or the origins of American civilization, then please first bone up on the topics. I'd estimate you have years of ardent study ahead to meet this minimal standard prior to another public exposition on these topics.
Ed's 'shunning' of you was an entirely rational proposition on his part unless he was looking for entertainment fodder.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 20, 2009 10:22 AM
Wait a second. They allowed someone with a mail-order degree to take the bar exam? Really? Well that explains a lot.
It should be get a degree form a legitimate, accredited, and very much non-mail order law school and only then be allowed to take the bar exam.
I am sure that one would learn quite a few things in law school that could not possibly be covered on a single exam. Don't law students eventually have to have go through the motions of being a lawyer in mock court much like science/engineering majors being required to take laboratory courses. If one can pay for a phony degree then one only needs to figure out what kind of questions the bar exam is likely to ask. Let me guess, Taitz might be able to memorize facts from books better than most people, but that is no where near enough to be a legit lawyer (or legit anything).
The bar exam (like exams from other fields) is useful for weeding out students who got a degree but managed to forget most everything after finals and other types of weak students. It is also useful in holding law school accountable as if too many of their students fail to pass the bar it might be worth considering their accreditation. But if it becomes a one-stop means of becoming a "lawyer" then I doubt that I could take it very seriously especially if the system is lax in debarring the incompetent as it appear to be with this kook.
Posted by: a lurker | December 20, 2009 11:43 AM
This is an issue with the practice of law in California. Most other states (such as Texas, where I practice) require study at an approved law school before one can sit for the bar exam.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | December 21, 2009 4:17 PM
For your reading pleasure, a letter written (and posted on-line) by Orly's former lover and law clerk, charles Lincoln.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24377512/Charlie-Orly-December-9-11-2009
Gah, I'm going to be sick, if I can stop laughing.
Posted by: Chilidog | December 22, 2009 12:21 PM
Nixon was a lawyer from California - I rest my case :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJsck | December 22, 2009 12:44 PM
Pete,
I replied to your post on your blog, didn't want to hijack the thread here.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2009 1:50 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24487989/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-105-NOTICE-OF-MOTION-AND-First-MOTION-to-Transfer-Case-to-District-of-Columbia-gov-uscourts-cacd-435591-105-0
Taitz just doesn't want to give up. Now she has decided that is best to have her dismissed case transferred to DC. Her strengths seem to be able to find legal principles, and her weakness is not understanding the application of those same legal principles.
Posted by: Anthony | December 26, 2009 4:11 PM