“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.
Here is Judge Snow recounting Lincoln's testimony:
“Lincoln added that Dr. taitz had authorized him to sign documents on her behalf on other occasions in the past.”
Here is Judge Snow recounting Taitz’s testimony:
“She denied that she had ever authorized plaintiff Lincoln to sign anything for her in any case.”
Here is Judge Snow's finding:
“The undersigned finds that...plaintiff Lincoln correctly or incorrectly believed he was authorized to prepare, sign and file the pleading on behalf of Dr. Taitz.”
How could Lincoln possibly believe he was authorized to sign at any time if Taitz had never given him authorization as she claimed?
If Judge Snow had believed Taitz’s statement denying that she had EVER authorized Lincoln to sign anything, Judge Snow could not have made a finding that Lincoln believed “correctly or incorrectly” that he could sign for Taitz on this occasion or on any occasion.
The clear inference is that Judge Snow believed Lincoln's testimony that at least on some previous occasions Taitz had authorized him to sign for her (contrary to Taitz's blanket denial) leading Lincoln to "correctly or incorrectly" conclude that on this occasion he was authorized to sign.