Cook v. Good Appeal: More Error Than Action
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sure is picky.
Orly Taitz
Attorney at Law
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688Appeal Number: 09-1469S.CC
Case Style: Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good
District Court Number: 09-00082 CV-CDL-4
For rules and forms visit
www.ca11.uSGourts.govThe enclosed documents you recently submitted to this office are being returned for the reason(s) state:
A. Brief Deficiencies
I. Certificate of Interested Persons must be included
2. Statement Regarding Oral Argument must be included
3. Summary of Argument (currently, it is combined with Argwnent,
which is not allowed)
4. Handwritten Signature is required on Conclusion and Certificate of Selvicc
5. Pages are numbered incorrectly according to Table of ContentsB. ReCOrd Excerpt Deficiencies – the following should be included
I. Appeal Information on Cover (like information on cover of brief)
2, Index
3. Index Tabs
4. Complaint
5. Answer or Motion to Dismiss
6. Certificate of ServiceC. Motion to Reinstate Deficiencies
I. Motion must be separated from brief
2. Handwritten Signature
The above document is dated December 16, 2009.
12/16/2009 MP-1 (Multi-Purpose letter) issued. To:Orly Taitz; c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:Mark B. Stern
The appeal of Cook v. Good had been dismissed in late November:
11/24/2009 Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-2(c), this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file brief and record excerpts within the time fixed by the rules.
And the Order published on November 30:
11/30/2009 17 USCA Order dismissing 11 [RECAP] Notice of Appeal filed by Stefan Frederick Cook. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter – 11/24/09)(tls) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
The appellant brief was finally submitted on December 8, 2009, when Taitz claimed she did not know the briefing schedule, although she had been advised on October 16.
10/16/2009 BR1CIV (Letter confirming brief due date) issued. To: Orly Taitz; c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:George F. Peterman, III; c:Hugh Randolph Aderhold, Jr.; c:Mark B. Stern; c:Rebecca E. Ausprung, Major No
The appellant brief appeared on the Eleventh Circuit docket as “tendered,” rather than accepted or “filed,” which means the brief has not changed the “CLOSED” status of the case, to this point.
12/08/2009 E-Brief Tendered: Appellant by Orly Taitz Stefan Frederick Cook
The dog ate my homework:
Undersigned counsel respectfully motions the court for leave of court to file documents out of time due to the fact that she did not receive the briefing schedule.
There was a “corrected” brief dated December 31.
The brief was returned for error:
01/13/2010 MP-1 (Multi-Purpose letter) issued. To:Orly Taitz “Aplt’s unfiled brf is being rtnd because brf is incorrectly printed on both sides of the paper. [See enclosed FRAP 32 (a)(1)(A)
Most recently (no docket link as yet):
01/21/2010 Motion to Reinstate Appeal w/compliant brief and record excerpts (Atty: Orly Taitz)
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. testified last month at a forgery hearing in Rivernider v. US Bank in Florida held on January 12, that Major Cook does not wish to pursue further appeals. And who can blame him?
From the California Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 3-110 Failing to Act Competently.
(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
(B) For purposes of this rule, “competence” in any legal service shall mean to apply the 1) diligence, 2) learning and skill, and 3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.
(C) If a member does not have sufficient learning and skill when the legal service is undertaken, the member may nonetheless perform such services competently by 1) associating with or, where appropriate, professionally consulting another lawyer reasonably believed to be competent, or 2) by acquiring sufficient learning and skill before performance is required.
