Posted on 10/13/2009 10:39:05 AM PDT by GoldStandard
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land, in Columbus, has come down hard on birther attorney Orly Taitz, fining her $20,000 for willfully abusing her right to practice law. I suspect Taitz won’t have that right much longer.
“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
I think Carter wants to decide the case on the merits, or at least order disclosure of the BC before dismissing for improper venue.
I also think that's why he let Kreep in the case and told Taitz to work with him since Kreep seems to know what he is doing.
She has seen this Judge exactly twice. In that time, he has done his own job of going berserk. She released her client before proceeding, and rather, refiled for the 48 other clients faced with the same problem. The military did not excuse them, and so the judge would have to hear the case, or throw her out, the easiest way is to quote misbehaviour, she tried to have him recuse himself. IMO if he had done so, it is just possible that another judge would hear the case, and see that HE was as unreasonable as she. The creates Judge presedence IMO... She had to go, and no other judge could hear the case....that again IMO is extreme prejudice...
I’m with you on the particulars in this case. And maybe there are other more respectable law firms waiting for her to self-implode, but right now Orly is Orly’s worst enemy.
The judge took time out of a busy schedule to arrange a special hearing for her. He produced a lucid opinion detailing via case law and precedent why the case she filed wasn't viable. The bases he cited for that conclusion are not new or controversial in the legal profession.
Judges declaring cases nonviable will often say things the proponents of that case find harsh. Tough luck. You should have filed a better case. As this same thing had happened before, he specifically told her not to do it again, as is the court's prerogative. Courts have pretty full dockets, and they don't have time to waste with rehearing the same case over and over again.
At that point, Orly acted like an aggrieved child instead of a lawyer. She filed a ludicrous brief whose obvious intention was to salve her wounded pride, filled with language so intemperate no lawyer would expect anything other than a sanction. Which is what happened.
I have to admit, it was difficult to have to read all 44 pages of the antics on both sides of the bench. Regretably everyone is taking their eye off the goal here. Perhaps on purpose, perhaps not.
I hear you sir, and will only point out, that the Judge was in error in the interpleadings where he said that she first dropped the officer, then refiled recklessly. In fact, she responsibly filed for the remaining clients she was trying to protect. She covered this on her website.
I agree that she is alot over the top, but I really think this judge wanted to shut her up, for the purposes of NOT hearing this case on its merits...
Anyway...she is never boring...that’sa for sho...
I’m through with putting my faith in people who I would never chose to represent me in court, and I would never ask Orly to represent me in a real court of law. Put this in the hands of competent lawyers and I’m all in. Otherwise there are more pressing issues.
BTW, it has been a pleasure discussing this issue with you. Hang in.
Leo
I passed the New York Bar Exam (which then had the second-highest fail rate in the country) in 1978, and the California Bar Exam (th ehighest fail rate) in 2002, each on my first try, and I have been saying on these threads for months that Orly Taitz is a disgrace to the legal profession.
He did dismiss it without sanctions, but warned her not to file frivolous pleadings in his court again. (This was actually the second case Orly had filed in his court on the Birth Certificate issue, and both were dismissed without sanctions.)
Orly then filed a motion for reconsideration which (a) she had no right to file, because her client had fired her in the interim, and (b) accused the judge of "treason" and made other sanctionable claims. The judge then ordered her to show cause why she shouldn't be sanctioned.
An apology by Orly would probably have done the trick at that point, but she then filed a ridiculous motion to disqualify the judge because he owned stock in Microsoft (so what?) and because someone who looked like Eric Holder was seen near the courthouse (even though Holder was in Los Angeles at the time). That is what finally got her sanctioned.
Read the judge's decision-- he lays it all out.
Whatever it says on her website, the actual motion for reconsideration has been posted here on FR and it was brought only on behalf of Captain Rhodes, who had already fired her. So it was actually sanctionable regardless of its tone, although the tone is what did her in (as it should have).
I read the decision, and I don’t disagree with you that she doesn’t have a clue about civil procedure.
All I am saying is I just don’t think she is worth the effort to sanction, because she is going to appeal the sanctions as being excessive and it’s going to go to an appeal which will take several months and likely referred back to a different judge because the sanctions are clearly excessive, which indicates prejudice against Taitz.
The judge should have simply informed the clerk to not accept any additional pleadings from Taitz. That would have been the simple solution. The US supreme Court does this 3-5 times a month.
Taitz will appeal it, I'm sure, but (unless she is smart enough to hire another lawyer to represent her on appeal, which I doubt), she will probably say enough stupid things in her appellate brief that the Court of Appeals will conclude that $20,000 wasn't excessive. Heck, if she continues like she has been, she may get another sanction for a frivolous appeal.
A rather presumptuous post on your part. If I want to pose a specific question to you, I will direct it to you.
Thanks for your unsolicited self-congratulatory commentary however. It speaks volumes.
I probably have not read all of them but I don’t find her to be “off the wall rediculous”. It’s positively amazing to me that this is not of UTMOST importance to the courts and to the populace. Are you not interested in WHO this man really is??CO
I probably have not read all of them but I don’t find her to be “off the wall rediculous”. It’s positively amazing to me that this is not of UTMOST importance to the courts and to the populace. Are you not interested in WHO this man really is??CO
I probably have not read all of them but I don’t find her to be “off the wall rediculous”. It’s positively amazing to me that this is not of UTMOST importance to the courts and to the populace. Are you not interested in WHO this man really is??CO
I probably have not read all of them but I don’t find her to be “off the wall rediculous”. It’s positively amazing to me that this is not of UTMOST importance to the courts and to the populace. Are you not interested in WHO this man really is??CO
Well, they are off the wall ridiculous, what can I say?
"It’s positively amazing to me that this is not of UTMOST importance to the courts and to the populace. Are you not interested in WHO this man really is??CO"
"who this man is" is not the same question as "is he eligible". If you want to know who he is, you investigate, not sue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.