This was a final adjudication of an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Lincoln had committed a fraud on the Court, which he was accused of doing by Taitz in her letter to Judge Snow that triggered the hearing. Lincoln is out of the woods on that accusation.
Lincoln was exonerated and Taitz was not believed by Judge Snow which is consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith that Lincoln could be trusted and Taitz could not be trusted.
My impression is that Taitz, by accusing Lincoln of fraud, was trying to get herself out of any liability to the Riverniders that she might have from being the attorney of record on the case when she failed to withdraw before the response to the motion to show cause was due that Lincoln signed on her behalf (his version).
“Lincoln was exonerated and Taitz was not believed by Judge Snow which is consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith that Lincoln could be trusted and Taitz could not be trusted.”
Please tell me where does it say that Lincoln was exonerated and Titz was not believed by Judge Snow?
Tell me where it shows that Lucas testimony can be trusted?
...”Plaintiff Lincoln also called as witnesses Lucas Smith and Robert Rivernider. However, the testimony of these witnesses was NOT MATERIAL to the issues to be resolved at the hearing and willnot be discussed in this Order. Similarly, the voluminous filings by Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln attacking one another’s credibility will not be discussed or considered because any connection they may have to the issues are too tenuous and remote to be considered.”
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on a review of the pleadings and the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the undersigned finds that Dr. Taitz had agreed in principle to represent plaintiff Lincoln in various legal proceedings involving real estate. Dr. Taitz filed the initial Motion to Substitute Counsel on behalf of all three plaintiffs in the instant case. No later than November 4, 2009, Dr. Taitz informed plaintiff Lincoln that their professional and personal relationships were at an end, and that she would not be representing him in the instant case.
The undersigned further finds that plaintiff Lincoln prepared, signed and filed the First Amended Motion to Substitute Counsel. Instead of signing his own name “for” Dr. Taitz, Lincoln utilized an approximation of Dr. Taitz’ signature. The pleading was filed in haste in order to meet the Court’s deadline, and at a time when the professional and personal relationship between Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln was in turmoil. The undersigned finds that at the time the First Amended Motion to Substitute Counsel was filed, plaintiff Lincoln correctly or incorrectly believed he was authorized to prepare, sign and file the pleading on behalf of Dr. Taitz. Additionally, the undersigned finds that plaintiff Lincoln did not prepare, sign and file this pleading in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on this Court. Finally, the undersigned finds that the Riverniders played no part in the events which resulted in the instant controversy.
This Circuit has held:
Courts have the inherent authority to control the proceedings before them, which includes the authority to impose “reasonable and appropriate” sanctions. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545 (11th Cir. 1993). A court also has the power to conduct an independent investigation to determine whether it has been the victim of a fraud. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed. 2d 27 (1991); see also In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company-Benlate Litigation, 99 F.3d 363, 367 (11th Cir. 1996)(concluding that district court had jurisdiction to conduct an independent civil action for sanctions based upon allegations of fraud in another case). . . . To exercise its inherent power a court must find that the party acted in bad faith. See In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995). Martin v. Automobili Lmmoborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002). See, also Johnson v. Cherry, 422 F.3d 540 548-49 (7 Cir. 2005)(trial court had the inherent power to sanction attorney who falsely claimed that her signature had been forged on a court document). However, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. at 44.
With the Supreme Court’s caution in mind, the undersigned concludes that the imposition of sanctions against any of the plaintiffs is not warranted. However, the undersigned is NOT CONVINCED THAT DR. TAITZ ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN HER COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT, and there is not a sufficient basis to impose sanctions against her. The undersigned notes that if plaintiff Lincoln had signed his own name “for” Dr. Taitz, the issue of fraud would not have arisen.
Therefore, being duly advised, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that NO SANCTIONS will be imposed by the Court on the plaintiffs or Dr. Taitz, and the parties and witnesses shall pay their own attorney’s fees.
NOW TELL ME THAT THE COURT TOOK SIDES ON THIS MATTER!