Talk:Orly Taitz

Law school
Please justify the notion that it is irrelevant that the law school attended by Taitz is unaccredited. I assure you that I added it on the basis that it *is* relevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's not to the state of California, as they have qualified its graduates for admission to the Bar. The school is linked at first mention; anybody concerned with details of their rating can check with one click. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In California's weird system, Taft Law School is unaccredited, as opposed to ABA-accredited or CALS-accredited. See here. However, Taitz was admitted to practice in California, and the fact that the law school she went to is unaccredited is not noteworthy. Equally important, it has the potential effect of tarnishing her by implication. It shouldn't be in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that you're up in arms about the use of a single adjective actually proves that the detail is noteworthy. James David Manning, another birther, is also noted as having an Doctorate in Philosophy from his own University, and notes that it is unaccredited. The fact that it is unaccredited is a neutral fact. That it may or may not tarnish her by implication is literally your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.27.174 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is very interesting that Orly has several missing years in her life on USSR. There you graduate grade school at 16, and can go on to University or other further education. At 18, join KGB, get married etc. Therefore, 5 years must be accounted for. At least one Federal judge has commented that her court motions show more familiarity with Soviet law than US. Has anyone tried to fill in these missing years? She absolutely will not divulge anything at all. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Majorly "Duh" Moment
From the "Taitz v. Fuddy" section: "alluding to the novel Don Quixote, he wrote, 'The Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.'"

The expression "tilting at windmills," meaning to attack imaginary enemies, is not some novel expression that Judge Lamberth came up with. It's actually been around for quite a while. To actually point out that it's alluding to the novel Don Quixote is an affront to the reader's intelligence. If Lamberth had said, "She has sown the wind and she shall reap the whirlwind," would you point out that he was "alluding to the Scriptural book of Hosea"? Of course not. Readers have heard it and can probably guess it's from the Bible and can look it up for themselves if they care to.

The point being is that "tilting at windmills" has long been used as an expression. To point out that it's alluding to Don Quixote, besides being vaguely patronizing, suggests that Royce Lamberth had invented this metaphor and therefore it must be explained. It no more needs an explanation than any other idiomatic expression that might exist in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.27.174 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Vexatious Litigant
(Quickly putting on NPOV hat) Recently Vexatious litigant was added to the "Known For" section of the article and then removed. Being a Vexatious Litigant is something that is actually decided by a Judge (or in some cases a Special Master apparently) based in some cases on specific criteria. I have found references that in January 2012, the state of Hawaii apparently made an effort to have her declared a Vexatious Litigant, but I can't find anything on whether that was successful. If she is legally declared a Vexatious Litigant it belongs in the article, but I'm not sure whether it belongs in the infobox or not.Naraht (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I am the editor who removed that addition, on the grounds of no sourcing/possible OR. If adequate sourcing is found which shows Tate was found a Vexatious litigant, I agree it should be in the article and have no objection to it being added to the Infobox, as her litigation (generally dismissed by judges) is what she is most known for. But as there is no such sourcing currently, we cannot add it to the article. Killer Chihuahua 17:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed also. "Vexatious litigant" is a term defined under California law. According to the legal definition someone like Taitz (in my opinion) qualifies to be so designated, but no one up until this point has moved in court to have her so declared, so she is not a vexatious litigant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge.
It has been suggested that the section dealing with Taitz's lawsuits be merged with the article about Obama eligibility litigation (as that is primarily what Taitz files). I would instead propose there be a link to that article, and the section here be trimmed of the cases that do not specifically reference Taitz. In other words, if the judge, litigant, or other interested party commented on Taitz's actions, abilities, etc., the case should remain here (but perhaps edited down); if there's no specific commentary about Taitz, it can be deleted here. --Weazie (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should gut that section, if not remove it entirely. Wikipedia is not a list of stuff. It follows that the article about the Birther Queen need not list every single court case she's had a hand in. The Editorial Voice (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a list of stuff, but I do think judges' commentary on her abilities is notable, and should not be removed entirely. --Weazie (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to note that judges, and the legal profession in general, tend to view her as batshit crazy-- with, perhaps, one or two supporting quotes. I don't think we need every quote from every judge that's said that, and I don't think we need to maintain a list of all of the cases that she's been involved in. The Editorial Voice (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Manchurian Candidate
Something from this might fit in the "Taitz's claims regarding Barack Obama" section

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/01/obama_orly_taitz_spy_indonesia.php Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sandy Hook conspiracy : recently deleted. It was covered by hufpo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/orly-taitz-sandy-hook-obama_n_2325671.html so I think it could go into either Obama (regime) or Other theories. Alanf777 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mississippi case
The text now reads:


 * Taitz accused the party of aiding and abetting in forgery and fraud when it submitted to the court a copy of Obama's birth certificate. In response, the party filed with the court a certified verification from Hawaii's State Registrar attesting to the accuracy of Obama's birth certificate.

More precisely it was the Party's attorneys (not the Party) who were accused of misconduct in a motion by Taitz for sanctions against them. The referenced Salon.com article is in error. I think it would be useful to mention her RICO complaint and list the many defendants named by Taitz. Sourcing is up-hill on these things. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion
Since Orly has not been seen or heard from lately, apart from her blog, this article should be removed. Orly, despite the adoration of a lunatic fringe movement, is irrelevant. Orly Taitz fails to meet the notability criteria that justifies her having a page and this page should be removed. 173.169.144.174 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree with nomination. Although Taitz's visibility has waned, she was notable; notability is not dependent on current popularity. She also has a pending lawsuit in Texas that is getting some media coverage. --Weazie (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree that Orly was ever notable. She's an incompetent attorney at the forefront of a fringe conspiracy theory. Uttering a falsehood, however loudly, does not make me right or notable, nor does it make a blatant falsehood worthy of consideration. 173.169.144.174 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite everything, she got enough coverage to meet our notability requirements in the past. For what she gets today, she would fail but once someone is notable, that's all that counts. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Non-NPOV:She's a loon. NPOV: She's a loon who meets the Notability requirements. Heck, I'd be willing to consider pages just for any lawyer sanctioned for more than $10,000 by a federal court. *That* takes work!Naraht (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, she was sanctioned $20,000, not $10,000. Judge Clay Land, after having warned her in the past against this type of lawsuit, demanded Orly's response as to why she shouldn't be sanctioned 10,000. Orly's response was so breathtaking in its disrespect, that he doubled the sanction. 173.169.144.174 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading presentation
This article misleadingly presents Taitz's claims, which largely arise from her actively racist imagination. The claims should be quoted directly to her statements so that they aren't conflated by readers as statements of fact. Fdsawyer (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Orly Taitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528001143/http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/8fc0c9eea056e9e78825765e005ccf99/$FILE/SA09CV00082%20DOC(ANx).pdf to http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/8fc0c9eea056e9e78825765e005ccf99/$FILE/SA09CV00082%20DOC(ANx).pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111100034/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Orly Taitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528001143/http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/8fc0c9eea056e9e78825765e005ccf99/$FILE/SA09CV00082%20DOC(ANx).pdf to http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/8fc0c9eea056e9e78825765e005ccf99/$FILE/SA09CV00082%20DOC(ANx).pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111100034/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111215045314/http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Woman-denied-request-to-see-Obamas-birth/y4QI8hJQJUOXLOl1IwWDWw.cspx to http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Woman-denied-request-to-see-Obamas-birth/y4QI8hJQJUOXLOl1IwWDWw.cspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

COI tag
I have placed a COI tag on the article as the article has been substantially edited by the subject of the article. Once the article is reviewed by independent editors for unsourced content, neutral language, and to be sure the content neutrally reflects what reliable sources say (positive and negative, per WP:NPOV), the tag can be removed. Please do make a note here after you have done the review. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Those edits (nothing "major") today were removed and the article protected. Show is over, at least for now.--TMCk (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is sad to see someone relentlessly pursuing COI edits not even knowing when to place the COI template.--TMCk (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that there is autoconfirmed pp; i agree that with that there is no need for the tag. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)