Disbarment of Orly Taitz Sought

Disbarment of Orly Tatiz Sought by California Bar

Complaint to the State Bar of California

IN RE: ORLY TAITZ
STATE BAR NO. 223433

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

Preface

A California attorney has decided that President Obama is ineligible to be president, and has taken on the mission of removing him from office -- by force, if necessary. On at least two occasions, she has openly called for armed rebellion by the military, to arrest and imprison the elected President.

Her name is Orly Taitz. Using the power of the Internet, including blogs, online radio and television shows, and YouTube, she has become the national leader of a fringe movement. She has literally thousands of followers who think she is waging a lonely battle to uphold the Constitution, in the face of a conspiracy to place a usurper in the White House. Because her cause is so important, she has ignored the laws of the United States, established court procedures, and specifically, the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Specific violations are alleged below.

I just used the title of the article for thread title, but as you can see it was just a complaint filed with them.

So now the question to ask is, is the Cali bar going to follow up on this? It really sounds like sour grapes to me. Somebody is questioning Obama so she has to be stopped.

Well, time will tell.

It would be more entertaining if she were allowed to dig her hole deeper

then pull the mud in on top of herself

THEN disbar her

Wait, this is the woman who is a dentist, lawyer, financial broker, real-estate agent and Taekwondo black-belt instructor?

Is this the same woman who got her legal degree from a diploma mill via correspondence and somehow passed the State of California Legal Bar Exam after listening to Legal Books on Tape while driving her kid to soccer practice?

Is this the same woman that John Stewart refers to as the "Lost Gabor Sister" or "Your One-Stop Shop for All Things Tooth, Legal, and Shelter Related”?

OMG! It all of a sudden makes perfect sense now!

(I bet she forged her Legal Degree just as she forged the Kenyan Birth Certificate...someone might want to check her Broker and Real-Estate licenses as well.)

EDIT to fix grammatical errors.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by fraterormus]

This lady is a threat. She was the attorney for Stephan Frederick Cook the soldier who refused to go to Afghanistan because he did not believe Obama was legitimately the President. The governnent changed his orders and they dropped the suit. Believe me, TPTB let that one slid for a reason. She must have some goods on him - that's all I'm saying.

This is what gets me about all this, this article pops up on the week that Obama's "Kenyan BC"(supposedly) popped up.

What it really sounds like is she is starting to touch a nerve with some people prompting the complaints.

Why are you mocking someone whose is a dentist, lawyer and has a black-belt? Sounds pretty capable to me.

As for getting an online degree in law, so friggn' what? Abraham Lincoln did not even go to law school.

Bash away.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by sad_eyed_lady]

Taitz has zero credibility with all but fanatical Obama-haters

But she does have comic value

Originally posted by fraterormus
Wait, this is the woman who is a dentist, lawyer, financial broker, real-estate agent and Taekwondo black-belt instructor?

Is this same woman who got her legal degree from a diploma mill via correspondence and somehow passed the State of California Legal Bar Examine from listening to Legal Books on Tape while driving her kid to soccer practice?

Is this the same woman that John Stewart refers to as the "Lost Gabor Sister" or "Your One-Stop Shop for All Things Tooth, Legal, and Shelter Related”?

OMG! It all of a sudden makes perfect sense now!

(I bet she forged her Legal Degree just as she forged the Kenyan Birth Certificate...someone might want to check her Broker and Real-Estate licenses as well.)

Does it really matter how she obtained her knowledge? If you could study yourself and pass the CA BAR exam all while saving tens of thousands of dollars, wouldnt you? I applaud this lady for her HARD WORK. You make it sound like she is a joke. Dont you know that there are plenty of people who go to highly decorated schools only to FAIL the BAR exam? Do you not give credit when credit is due? This is a lady who through hard work and perseverance passed the BAR exam - the same exam every lawyer has to take.

How would you feel if you worked hard for something and gained it through non-traditional means all while achieving the same knowledge and passing the same exams as your fellow people, only to say its not good enough because she didn't spend tens of thousands to go to a "university".

If she passed the exam, she obviously knows what she is talking about. I fail to see how she gained her knowledge as being a means of discrediting her.

I think the summary clarifies exactly why this is more then just touching a nerve.

By openly advocating armed revolt, accusing virtually the entire federal government of treason, and using poisonous invective against President Obama, she is making it significantly more likely that someone will attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. I recognize that, however distasteful, many of her actions are likely protected by the First Amendment. However, in her capacity as a California attorney, she has violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, as detailed below.

Listing the multitude of reasons why disbarment proceedings are being requested ... this woman has shown she has no respect for the responsibilities of the judicial system - as such, disbarment is appropriate.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


post starred
whatever your views on the subject, this is a VERY intelligent lady and it sounds to me like she's definitely touching a raw nerve somewhere as there seems to be an active campaign against her
(just to clarify something, the whole birth thing means nothing to me as I'm English) but as you say, she's nobody to sneer at, I'd like to see the credentials of those who are bashing her.

reply to post by TLomon


The thing is though, the government is no longer abiding by the constitution.

This lady is actually stating what people should be stating and also doing, minus the armed rebellion, there have been countless unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

reply to post by yellowbeard




If she were even half as intelligent as you seem happy to state, then she would have approached this matter far differently

and would display much more professionalism

and wouldn't need your professed recommendation


All we've seen from her is a lot of mouth and grandstanding.

She's relied upon these to generate publicity and support

like a side-show barker

So you feel she is exempt from paying filing fees? It is perfectly acceptable to hand two suitcases over to a security guard and claim you filed a motion? It is perfetly acceptable to tell people to harrass your superiors?

I am not stating questioning Contitutional law is forbidden, but there is a process to follow, and a person can't go around making up their own set of rules to follow and expect the system to look the other way.

reply to post by TLomon


What are people supposed to do when the courts are not following through on proper procedure?

What are people supposed to do? Just sit back and let the gov run over them? That isn't going to happen, especially when the courts are trying to say that US Citizens don't have "standing" to file suits against the prez.

If she is not following proper procedure she should be fined, but there is no grounds for disbarment in my opinion.

She is hitting on several people's last nerves. If she is such an inept, insane, and awkward crook, why not just let her fail?
People who are in power are hurt by challenge and change.
I hope she continues to do what she wants, when she wants.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife



So now she's to be portrayed as a 'victim' too ?

Look, if she had cast-iron evidence against Obama, she would have followed procedure to the letter. Failing her ability to do that, she would have pursued the matter in professional manner.

Instead, based on spurious at best 'evidence', she took it to the streets like a common hawker, giving press conferences like a wannabe someone .. and hoping, hoping, that this would instigate massive publicity and support for her alleged cause.

She has zero credibility and is regarded as a joke.

She has only herself to blame for that. And releasing fraudulent documents online finished her off.

Maybe that's the way shysters like to do things, but it hasn't worked for her and no-one with an ounce of intelligence regards her as a victim .. other than victim of her own lack of professionalism and clue.

Never mind, maybe she'll take a course in cookery next month, to add to her resume

Originally posted by deadline527
I fail to see how she gained her knowledge as being a means of discrediting her.

Forgive me, but how is that different from the Birther argument? (Hint: replace the word "knowledge" with "Birth Certificate".) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

As to your other questions:

Anyone with a Laser Printer, Bank Account, and a P.O. Box can start their own Diploma Mill. It's a common scam, and touting a law degree from a known Diploma Mill displays an unusual level of credulousness in the least or that she was a scam artist herself.

Anyone can pass any exam with the proper coaching, including the California State Bar. Being coached for successfully pass an exam doesn't denote possession of practical legal knowledge. Acting in manner which gets you Legally disbarred for violating numerous Rules of Professional Conduct actually denotes how little respect she has for the legal system, as well as how little she actually understands about it.

Either forging or presenting forged (knowingly or unknowingly) Documents is a Federal Offense. That doesn't show much knowledge of the law or respect for the law either.

If she is going to lead the crusade to scrutinize the Birth Certificates of Barack Obama, despite these documents having been satisfactorily scrutinized by State & Federal officials and experts already, then she deserves the same level of scrutiny of her own credentials.

So far, her credentials aren't holding up.

Orly Taitz is acting like another Sarah Palin but without the naughty librarian looks to back her up. Heaven knows she doesn't have a legitimately valid argument to stand upon. (No wonder Republicans are bailing ship en masse and claiming to be Libertarians all of a sudden.)

reply to post by St Vaast


You obviously haven't been keeping up with the issue.

The court ruled that citizens have no standing to challenge the presidents eligibility. Which is a flat out lie.

I'm not saying she is a victim, yet. This is a smear campaign being run against her. She's hitting a nerve and credibility has yet to be determined.

reply to post by St Vaast


And your credentials are ?
At least she's going out into the world and standing up PUBLICLY for her beliefs, not sat behind a keyboard whining about it while hiding behind an anonymous username. whether or not I believe what she says, I admire her for that.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife



I saw her on tv about a month or so ago, I guess. Sure, initially, she caught the attention, standing with the refusnik, gabbing away to the media about Obama's alleged 'ineligibility', etc.

Then, the critical mind asks 'why' ? Why would this woman be shouting her claims to the rooftops, if indeed she had the goods, if indeed she was a fully qualified solicitor ?

It was clear, within her grandstanding, that she was intent on engaging people's emotions, with her talk of ' I come from a communist country. We're supposed to be repressed there. But I tell you, there's far more repression here in America '.... blah blah, words to that effect.

Then it clicks: people only talk and behave like Taitz when they know either (1) they don't have a leg to stand on and (2) when they've already lost ... but want to do as much damage as possible (and slip in character assassination) to their intended victim.

As the man said: ' Walk softly and carry a big stick'. And that's how solicitors/lawyers behave when they know they have the goods and know how to achieve their objective.

Instead, Taitz swaggers, yells loudly and waves around a feather duster.

If she had the goods on Obama, she wouldn't need to yell to all and sundry from outside the court. Instead, she would WIN first, then would give a statement .. a professional summation .. to the media.

She'd lost before she began, and she knew it.

She's just getting as much mileage out of it as she can. And the anti-Obamists know this and are doing exactly the same.


edited due to messed up italics

[edit on 3-8-2009 by St Vaast]