“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!
Do you believe everything that a judge says or that they are impartial? Have you argued a case in front of a judge and personally experienced judicial bias? I have a high regard for judges, but only up to a point as they are human.
The judge gives the appearance of "protesting too much" by going out of her way to name Lucas Smith in a footnote and, then declaring that he (and also the Riverniders) had no material influence on the "issues" and then ruling consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith and in contradiction to Taitz's testimony and claims.
Judge Snow took the word of an allegedly disbarred attorney, Lincoln, over a member of the bar in good standing (so far), Taitz, when Judge Snow had Lincoln dead to rights signing Taitz's name to a filing instead of signing his own name with a notation that he was signing "for" Taitz. Yet Judge Snow chose to believe Lincoln over Taitz.
The attorney who says something to the jury that he knows will be objected to, also knows that the jury will have heard it even when the judge says "disregard what was just said by attorney X."
Judge Carter and Judge Snow can claim that the affidavit or testimony of Lucas Smith did not influence their respective legal rulings, but the judges read or heard what Lucas Smith had to say and couldn't help be influenced by it to form an impression of Orly Taitz especially when that impression is reinforced by her own behavior towards judges in court and in her filings.
Judge Snow didn't necessarily need to use Lucas Smith's testimony to determine that Taitz was still the attorney of record for the case and that Lincoln was, at worst, only filing a response under her name for which she was still responsible to file under the deadline.