While I think Taitz is an idiot, in the extreme, and a poor excuse for an attorney - and I believe that the courts are the wrong place to seek "justice" (however you describe that) on this issue, I do believe that the fine and the label of "frivolous" was a bit premature on Land's part.
While Land was correct on the law and in his decision, he was incorrect in his temperament. There's a school of thought, and one I happen to subscribe to, that teaches judicial opinions should be delivered absent emotion. Land has almost as much emotion in his opinion as Taitz has in her pleadings - both are wrong. Now, I understand Land's pissed at getting called a "traitor", not just on a blog but in papers filed in his court, but a well-tempered jurist would rise about it. Also, the $20K sanction borders on ridiculous. Perhaps a sanction was in order, perhaps not, but $20K is excessive and is likely to be reduced on appeal.
Carter, on the other hand, has demonstrated not only an ability to delivery a calm and well-reasoned opinion, he doesn't crawl into the gutter with Taitz. He gave Taitz a tremendous amount of latitude, probably much more than would a less experienced jurist (as witnessed by Land) and all the opportunity in the world to succeed or fail. She failed.
Having said that, I think it's still likely that Carter will forward his ruling, and any supporting documentation he has in his possession, to the CalBar, which won't be a pleasant development for Taitz.
I like your summation. However, do you not agree that Taitz should be heard on the case? If not, who will hear her case? If no one, then it means our Constitution is a living document and will be used at the discretion of the presiding judge.