As a recent law school graduate, suddenly invested in the integrity of the legal profession, I have to admit, it’s often an uphill battle. For whatever reason the reputation of the majority of lawyers — good, smart, caring men & women — is held hostage to the few ambulance chasers who get all the news coverage for their various and sundry misdeeds.
And then there’s Orly Taitz.
Orly, you’ll recall, is the correspondence-school “lawyer” who declared herself to be a modern Thurgood Marshall, fighting her own battle for equality by trying to convince people, against all evidence, that the first black President is a secret Kenyan. It hasn’t gone well. In her latest bout, she called Judge Clay Land of the Northern District of Georgia a traitor, and sought to recuse him along with, basically, the entire federal bench. Now, for her efforts, she’s facing a $20,000 fine, and the State Bar of California is set to receive a nasty call from an angry federal judge. There will be blood.
Awesome. Now if we could just get people to stop misquoting Shakespeare…
Sometimes I’ll say my dad is an attorney, not a lawyer. I suppose it sounds better, more professional, as I think lawyer is the term more people attach to the unscrupulous aspects of the profession.
Posted by Kris | October 13, 2009, 1:14 pmOh that’s a very good point. I think I’ll change it up in my own speech
Go for Counselor, too. To those who’ve played Knights of the Old Republic it makes you sound like a Jedi!
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 1:26 pmmy dad was an attorney, my niece is at harvard law and my daughter has her sophomore year, spring term, as an intern at the Dept of Justice!! woohoo.
and i chose healthcare!
Posted by nancy | October 13, 2009, 2:11 pmThat is an accomplished family! Good for all of you!
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 2:13 pmthanks ACG, that must be why I enjoy your site so much.
Posted by nancy | October 13, 2009, 2:24 pmI have a plan to resurrect the image of lawyers in the eyes of the public. Simply replace the word ‘lawyer’ in every lawyer joke to ‘Orly Taitz’. For example:
Q: What’s the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead Orly Taitz in the road?
A: There are skid marks in from of the snake.
See, now all the shit falls on her and the rest of you are in the clear!
Posted by Jello | October 13, 2009, 2:30 pmThat’s in front of.
Posted by Jello | October 13, 2009, 4:31 pm“As a recent law school graduate, suddenly invested in the integrity of the legal profession”
Why the suddenly?
And if you are looking for any integrity as regards the birth certificate issue you won’t find it in a court of law.
If you think a sanction of $20,000 is “awesome”, perhaps you should learn a little about the case. Then you might realize the judge heard the case so he could sanction Taitz.
“Progressive political thought and a reaffirmation of the foundational values of equal justice and reason.”
What is more foundational in law than the Constitution?
Posted by annaleisea | October 13, 2009, 2:43 pm“What is more foundational than the Constitution?”
The unwritten rule that every political entity must have its very own cadre of idiots. Like the birthers.
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 2:49 pmPity he couldn’t hear the case just to have her disbarred for wasting everyone’s time with her trumped up law case.
Posted by Pi | October 13, 2009, 11:11 pmActually, that’s probably what’s going to happen. Judge Clay forwarding the ruling to the Cali bar is a more-than-subtle hint to them of what course of action he thinks is best.
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 11:18 pmHey there,
Sorry if I’m being the ombudsman lately, not sure what put a bee in my bonnet… anyway, I don’t follow your last comment (and link). The link seems to reaffirm that the “kill all the lawyers” line is, in fact, a lawyer joke. Did I miss your point?
Posted by John | October 13, 2009, 3:51 pmI for one appreciate your ombuds duties :). I hold with the first part of the link, that explains the “kill all the lawyers” line as in the context of a revolution, as in, the lawyers will defend the status quo and therefore the peoples’ rights.
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 4:14 pmYou probably shouldn’t have linked to a site that refutes your interpretation. It made quite a convincing argument.
Posted by Kris | October 13, 2009, 4:33 pmNothing to add beyond Kris’ comment, that’s exactly my point. Cheers.
Posted by John | October 13, 2009, 4:48 pmYeah… I choose to be nakedly optimistic about the quote’s actual meaning, but couldn’t find a better source on short time. And couldn’t find the quote I actually wanted. “As lawyers, somethingsomethingsomething, friends at night,” or something. Blast.
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 4:37 pmAnd apologies to the readers for linking to a bad source.
Posted by ACG | October 13, 2009, 11:19 pm