No, I am suggesting that Taitz actions in court warrant the sanctions directed at her. Wouldn’t matter if the object of the lawsuit was about, say, a local zoning law as opposed to this subject, she still was out of order from what I have read.
It does not explain why other attorneys have been fined by the courts for presenting cases regarding Obama’s Birth issue. Taitz may not be a top flight lawyer...but more experienced lawyers dealing with the Birther issues have suffered the same fate as Taitz
You either a Birther or an Obama supporter
And birthers wonder why they have a hard time appealing to a larger segment of the populace.
I'm sympathetic to the core birther issues.
But when you try to equate me to an Obama supporter, you can go suck eggs.
Sometimes things are just as they are. Incompentent in the case of Taitz....
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/16/scotus.birther.lawsuit.fine/#fbid=Qh2uQO1MYGv&wom=false
snip
Taitz had represented Capt. Connie Rhodes, an Army physician from Columbus, Georgia, who protested her pending deployment to Iraq. Taitz had argued in court the deployment was illegal because Obama had no authority to act as commander in chief since he was unconstitutionally serving as president.
A motion for a restraining order was ultimately rejected by Judge Clay Land of the Middle District of Georgia. According to court records, Taitz then filed for a rehearing, and publicly labeled the ruling an “act of treason.”
Rhodes later said that second motion, which also was rejected, was filed without her consent. Land then ruled the lawyer had filed “frivolous” litigation, had abused the civil judicial process, and fined her.
“Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law,” wrote Land. “She knowingly violated Rule 11 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]. Her response to the court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.”
end snip