Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 10/13/2009 | Jay Bookman

Posted on 10/13/2009 10:39:05 AM PDT by GoldStandard

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-163 next last
To: Mr. Lucky

I guess that non-response means you failed.


101 posted on 10/14/2009 6:09:07 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End
Actual facts are kind of a distraction to Orly's fan club, apparently.

I am, by the way, admitted to practice before in one state supreme court, the United States Tax Court, the United States Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board, several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Thank you.

102 posted on 10/14/2009 6:18:04 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Then you, of all people, should know better.


103 posted on 10/14/2009 6:21:22 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
and the United States Supreme Court.

You and hundreds of Thousands of other attorneys. All it takes is $200, admission to practice in a states supreme court, and two letters of recommendation from other members. Pretty much anyone 2-4 years out of law school can become a member.

104 posted on 10/14/2009 6:25:18 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

California is the only state in the entire U.S. that allows people who didn’t attend an ABA approved college to take the bar exam.

Any other state would laugh of Taitz and her phony online degree.


105 posted on 10/14/2009 6:25:45 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

How many cases have you argued at the United States Supreme Court?


106 posted on 10/14/2009 6:26:14 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Conspiracy theories are not facts. They are speculation and innuendo attached to a grain of truth. As one who engaged them in years gone by I now despise them on both sides of the isle. They are distractions from reality.

I had seen Orly in the past and she seemed scattered and not in possession of any more than conjecture. That said, I saw her with Behar last night and felt she was much more in control than in the past. I hope that continues.
107 posted on 10/14/2009 7:02:46 AM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210

I must say, that if they are only “conspiracy theories” Judge carter would not be hearing the case.
Time will tell.


108 posted on 10/14/2009 8:02:44 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

“She has legitimate claims, questions, and evidence.”

Claims and questions are not evidence. As I understand it, she has no “evidence” which is why she is in court. She wants a judge to allow her access to “evidence”. Yes?


109 posted on 10/14/2009 8:04:41 AM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End
"Actually, Judge Land is a Republican who served in the State Senate for 5 years and in the assembly before that. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush."

So what? What is your point? Lindsey Graham is a "Republican" from South Carolina, Olympia Snowe is a "Republican" from Maine. Need I name more?

My point is that people are labeling him as "liberal" or "traitor" based only on this decision. Did anyone look at his voting record in the State Assembly and State Senate? Any of his other decisions on the bench?

From everything I've read, the facts of the decision are that Orly Taitz' behavior was deliberately and flamboyantly against court rules. Do you think it's conservative to approve that sort of behavior just because you approve her cause? Do you think it does Conservativism any good to have this sort of firing squad mentality just because you don't like the judge's ruling?

If someone was breaking into the Dept of Health records in Hawaii, would you bad mouth the police officer who arrested him?

110 posted on 10/14/2009 8:13:17 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
I have appeared in three that I can recall, none of which were scheduled for oral argument. How about yourself?
111 posted on 10/14/2009 9:26:03 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
I know the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. Making an appearance only means you either filed a petition to the court, filed an objection, or filed a notice of appearance - just like at least 4,000 did in petitions that were considered at the end of last month.

Being a member of the US Supreme court bar is no major accomplishment. For the most part, but not in every case, it is just a piece of paper that may impress potential clients who have no idea how easy it is to become a member.

112 posted on 10/14/2009 9:51:23 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“Think she’ll go for double or nothing?”

Why not? Unlike most people, she has dentistry to “fall back” on, if her law career fizzles.


113 posted on 10/14/2009 10:06:10 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“Think she’ll go for double or nothing?”

Why not? Unlike most people, she has dentistry to “fall back” on, if her law career fizzles.


114 posted on 10/14/2009 10:06:36 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210

She has a lot of circumstantial evidence, which is what brought this to court in the first place. Achieving approval for discovery, allows that circumstantial evidence to be proven, or disproven. Getting over the hump to have the court allow discovery, any court, is the problem, none thus far have allowed discovery, and use “standing” as a reason to deny discovery. Hearing the case on its merits is the first step to allowing discovery.
In this case, the judge, in his 44 page summary judgement, has not heard the merits of this case, and summarily rejects it, based on newspaper articles, web page blogs, and heresay. It is quite telling when Taitz says the judge is biased, and he summarily rejects her contention, then goes on to site these examples.
One can clearly understand her exasperation with this judge. Also, she was approached by an individual who states in an affidavit that Eric Holder was in the area, prior to the summation of her case with this judge. The judge did not talk to this person, and held Taitz responsible for even filing the question to the judge, and punishes her for the submission.
It is clear that Taitz borders on Hysterics, but that in itself does not make her case invalid, what does is the judge dismissing it, and fining her without even hearing it, which in my opinion is designed to quash the proceedings, her reputation, and perhaps to set her up to be disbarred.
All of this dances arount the fact that he would not hear the case on its merits, but dismisses them out of hand. Which makes on wonder, why he is working so hard NOT to hear the case and be done with it. It appears that he wants no connection to it.

There is more going on here IMO than meets the eye.


115 posted on 10/14/2009 10:13:45 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

“It is clear that Taitz borders on Hysterics, but that in itself does not make her case invalid, what does is the judge dismissing it, and fining her without even hearing it, which in my opinion is designed to quash the proceedings, her reputation, and perhaps to set her up to be disbarred.”

If Orly, or any lawyer, catches a hint from the judge that he has some personal animus against them, the only logical move is to step aside and allow someone else to present. In my opinion the fact that she hasn’t makes her case suspect.

If I’m the defendant and my lawyer is pissing off the judge, I’m switching counsel at the 10 minute break. I’m guessing you’d do the same.


116 posted on 10/14/2009 10:25:59 AM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Oh, Good Lord.

Alright, Ms. Taitz having graduated from a correspondence school (and not being admitted before the Supreme Court) is none-the-less smarter than all of the attorneys in America, outside of California, who were required to attend real law schools, to pass real bar exams, who have earned livings from the actual practice of law and who have never been santioned under Rule 11.


117 posted on 10/14/2009 10:45:18 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
I was not defending Taitz’ legal knowledge or tactics. While she is clearly not very competent, that does not necessarily mean the level of proposed sanctions is appropriate. If she is a true believer in her cause, it is certainly a factor against imposing significant sanctions.

Land should have simply dismissed the case based on a absence of subject matter/improper venue and told her to go to the DC District to file a mandamus action.

He could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

I think Judge Carter is either going to dismiss that case based on improper venue grounds, but it would be very interesting if he did so only after allowing discovery and ordering production of Obama’s birth certificate.

If Obama is not a NBC, tat would pretty much force a judge in DC to grant a petition for a writ of mandamus even if that particular judge would have otherwise denied discovery. Once the horse is out of the barn, it would be too late to close the door.

118 posted on 10/14/2009 11:10:58 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
The sanction order is unrelated to the merits of the case, but Ms. Taitz certainly has gotta know that getting a judge p*issed off at her personally isn't going to make things go any smoother for her client.
119 posted on 10/14/2009 11:37:25 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Sure. Whatever you say ...


120 posted on 10/14/2009 11:43:59 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-163 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson