Skip to comments.Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000
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 wont have that right much longer.
The Court finds that counsels 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. Counsels pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Courts show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
How dare a citizen or soldier ask for proof. The judiciary is totally corrupt like the legislative and executive branch.
“borders on delusional” Does everything have to be overstated nowadays. If it is delusional, tell us Judge, if not then keep your yapper shut. Seems like teenagers have taken over every aspect of the American life. It’s funny, when I was a teen in the early ‘90’s there seemed to be adults in control. Now it seems as if everyone has arrested development these days.
Can a court imposed fine like this be appealed?
From an AJC article by Jay Bookman on May 29th:
According to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, biography matters. President Obamas nominee for the Supreme Court believes a persons gender, ethnic background and upbringing will inevitably affect how he or she interprets the law.
She is absolutely correct.
Ouch! Holy Tort Reform, Batman!
"..When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, Land writes. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judges rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice..."
Whatever, like an outbreak of herpes another eruption occurred, I noticed the support for Dr. Orly Taitz to be less and less vehement. Hopefully those of us who believe that the issue should be investigated and properly aired, will not be blackened as "trolls" because we tell the truth about this eccentric woman.
I’ll wait and see how this plays out. It is written like a personal attack and the judge does have a conflicts of interest. Of all the frivolous law suits I have heard of over the years I have never seen a judge take this kind of action. Sometimes it darkest just before the dawn.
What conflict of interest?
Yes, but the question is will an appeals court take it?
It happens, most lawyers just don't push judges that far knowing the risks.
>>> Yes, but the question is will an appeals court take it?
She absolutely MUST fight this tooth and nail.
It IS intimidation.
Judges cannot decide what cases are frivolous without considering the evidence.
If I read this correctly, he didn’t rule the case was frivolous but Orly’s actions themselves were what triggered the fine. It isn’t a ruling on the case but on the lawyer.
A lot of people have said it over and over, if she really believes this is as important as she says, she really should have gotten a more experienced lawyer to join her to at least give advice on proper filing procedures and to double check how she approaches things. It is too important to ‘wing it’.
She is weird, but when a judge rules that the “flying O’s” vetting has been tweeted and facebooked as proof, to throw out a case she seems like the only sane person in the asylum.
You can do a search if your interesred, but here is a start:
I hear you on that. I merely pointed out the flaws in her approach and suggested that she have her checkbook ready (for Rule 11 sanctions) and I caught a load of really ignorant and misdirected responses.
I’m admitted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of GA, and I see why she couldn’t find a local attorney to sponsor her pro hac vice admission. She’s nuts.
That doesn’t mean that there is not an arguable question on Obama’s status as a natural citizen - it just means she has demonstrated the wrong way to approach this.
Shouldn’t you let this play out? We don’t know for sure what the inside scoop really is. She may be everything you say she is; but I don’t see you out there on the front line trying to find out who Obama really is.
And you know how the LEFT loves to lie. Everytime a thread comes out on the Obama bc; the trolls fly to it like bees to nector.
I read the order to she if she was being sanctioned merely for challenging Nilbama’s credentials. She was not. She was sanctioned for being a nut—and it’s okay to be a nut, you just can’t use a law license to impose your nuttiness on the legal system.
Among other things, she moved to have the judge recused because he owned stock in Microsoft, she pursued the case after it was moot (the reservist’s orders to go to Afghanistan were withdrawn), she held news conferences to call the judge names, she accused the judge of ethical misconduct without any proof. It did kind of “border on delusional”.
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.