You PROVE your csse before a duly convened court with all parties to the case under oath and subject to cross examination. She needs access to certain evidence to prove her case. She produced more that enough evidence to warrant the convening of such a trial. This judge’s comments indicate a prejudice and condecension that I have seldom seen before.
His insulting comment only show his unsuitability for the bench.. I don’t give a damn WHO recommended him.
Yes, I inadvertently used the word “prove” rather than “make.” Every case filed has to establish long before trial that there is a cause of action and a remedy that falls within the jurisdiction of the court. It is a fairly constrictive process understood but to God, judges and lawyers. The point remains, Dr. Taitz was given the opportunity to make her case to go forward and did not get the job done. Maybe no one could, that’s not the point of the sanction.
That failure did not warranted this sanction. It is about Dr. Taitz filing a motion she was told not to file (apparently by both the judge and her client). She was warned in the Order to Show Cause that afforded her the opportunity to either get out of the sanction or to have it reduced. Instead of backing off even after the client, Capt Rhodes, had fired her, she went on an irrational tirade including attacks against the judge himself. In filing her “Show of Cause” she could have gotten herself out of the $10K sanction if she’d done it properly, but instead earned herself a $20K sanction.
Has anyone defending Dr. Taitz’s actions in this court asked him/herself why Capt Rhodes who, as active duty, put her military career on the line to be a litigant in this action, accepted the court’s decision and objected to Dr. Taitz’s filing her reconsideration motion, and then fired her and threatened to go to the CA bar? It was Capt Rhodes who put her butt on the line. I would think her actions would speak volumes and be given more weight than an attorney who ‘lost it.’