Yes, that might be true in the judge's view of things. But doesn't the First Amendment guarantee of free speech offer Ms. Taitz protection against being penalized by government in retaliation for her public criticism of a government official outside the courtroom?
Separately, it would seem obvious that the lawsuit that Judge Land describes as "frivolous" is anything but. Taitz' failure to cite precedents to justify her claims can be explained simply by the fact that hers is a case of first impression (no case remotely similar to the this was ever presented to any court in the past). There is no case law barring any federal court from hearing a case merely because it presents a novel factual context.
Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution confers federal judicial authority "to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." The question of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president is clearly within this jurisdiction. A military officer, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, has a personal interest in this question, because he or she must know whether orders issued from the top are given by a constitutionally qualified CIC or by a usurper, and can only act appropriately with such knowledge in hand.
She has a First Amendment right to criticize the judge outside of court, but anything she puts in papers filed with the court can subject her to sanctions. She made accusations of bias against the judge, in papers filed in court, which are factually and legally bogus. (He is prejudiced against her because he owns stock in Comcast?) That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and lawyers have been disbarred for that.
justiceseeker,
This wasn’t ‘outside the courtroom.’ Dr. Taitz filed her “Show of Cause” with the court to which she is not admitted but to which she was afforded the extraordinary courtesy of appearing pro hac vice without local counsel.
As an attorney and an officer of the court, subject to the court’s rules, she accused the judge of treason, of colluding with an ally of the defendants, of having a bias in the case because he owned stock in comcast. She further threatened to reveal attorney-client correspondence.
As we all know the First Amendment doesn’t allow one to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. The Rules of the court, which I again emphasize govern behavior in the courts and to which Dr Taitz subjected her self by appearing and filing, don’t allow those accusations to go without penalty. This penalty should not surprise.