For truthseekers only, see #238. I explained it explicitly.
Taitz alleged that Lincoln committed fraud on the court. The Court found against Taitz by exonerating Lincoln of fraud. Lincoln won against Taitz's allegation.
The Court did not believe Taitz. The Court Believed Lincoln. Lucas Smith testified that the Court should believe Lincoln and not Taitz. The Court said Smith's testimony was "not material to the issues to be resolved" before the Court, yet the Court ruling was totally consistent with Smith's testimony. I can draw my own conclusions and I invite anyone reading this to draw theirs.
The Court declined to sanction Taitz for making a fraud allegation that the Court could not substantiate, and also declined to sanction Lincoln for signing Taitz's name because the Court ruled that Lincoln believed that he signed the filing in good faith.
“Lucas Smith testified that the Court should believe Lincoln and not Taitz.”...WRONG! Why do you insist that Lucas testimony has anything to do with the court decision?
“the testimony of these witnesses was NOT MATERIAL to”...”the voluminous filings by Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln attacking one another’s credibility will not be discussed or considered”....
The court did not consider any of Lucas testimonies nor the materials submitted by both parties!
FOR TRUTH SEEKERS...READ THE COURT DOCUMENT INSTEAD OF A POSTER’S OPINION!
“The Court declined to sanction Taitz for making a fraud allegation that the Court could not substantiate”...or MUST be STATED AS...
“THE THE COURT WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT ORLY ACTED IN BAD FAITH!”
“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”.
“To exercise its inherent power (SANCTION) a court must find that the party ACTED IN BAD FAITH.”
You seem to want to put Lucas in a high pedestal here...HOWEVER, IT’S IN THE COURT DOCUMENT THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED!