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.
“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?”
Let’s base the argument on what was the written decision. I don’t care about your “judicial bias” argument. Of course, if you lose a case, then you’ll say the judge is treasonous...like what Orly asserted all this time!
“then ruling consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith and in contradiction to Taitz’s testimony and claims.”
The ruling did not consider Lucas testimony, the ruling was not about how credible a witness Lucas was. The ruling regarding Charles Lincoln was based on his belief that inspite of him having written Orly’s signature for Orly, that he did not intend fraud. The ruling regarding Orly was that the court was not convinced that there was malice in Orly’s assertion of fraud.
“Judge Snow took the word of an allegedly disbarred attorney, Lincoln, over a member of the bar in good standing”...”Yet Judge Snow chose to believe Lincoln over Taitz.”
WRONG! Read the whole transcript. The ruling regarding Charles Lincoln is separate from the ruling regarding Orly.
There is nowhere to be found in the transcript that there is an inference for the judge choosing 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.”
SORRY! It was not a jury trial!
“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.”
SORRY! Purely speculative!...You can’t even prove that!
“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.”
Judge Snow did NOT CONSIDER Lucas testimony IN WHATEVER SHAPE OR FORM! Judge Snow did not even consider all documents that dealt with character assasinations submitted by both parties.
“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”
NOW...THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE...IN THAT HEARING.
Therefore...LUCAS SMITH’s testimony was never considered in the Judge’s decision! Which were:
1. Lincoln signed Orly’s name but did not intend to commit fraud upon the court...NO SANCTION!
2. The court was not CONVINCED that Taitz FALSELY claimed that her signature had been forged on a court document...NO SANCTION!
3. Lincoln and Taitz have to bear the cost for their respective counsels.