Neither you nor any judge has given a reason why the subject of Judge Land’s punitive action of $10,000 should not be given the protection of a trial by jury and the same protections as those who are charged with a crime - as is precedent for fines of $10,000 or more according to the decisions cited by Orly.
IOW, Judge Land was saying, “I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents and how dare you bring up the rule of law to me! I don’t honor precedents or the rule of law!”
And he got away with it. That’s all you’re saying. He got away with it, with nobody to stop him. That is true.
It’s also true that Hell is hot, and that’s where lawlessness belongs. If Judge Land wants to practice lawlessness with impunity, I know of the perfect place for him and all who support him in that action - and it’s NOT the United States of America.
Lamberth can’t just wish away the issue by saying he doesn’t want to dignify it, because any person has standing to make a FOIA request. Legally, Lamberth HAD to either say that the request was handled properly, or give relief so that the request IS handled properly. Which did he do, Blade Bryan?
butterdezillion wrote: IOW, Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents and how dare you bring up the rule of law to me! I don’t honor precedents or the rule of law!’
In his order imposing sanctions, Judge land cited the applicable precedent, among them Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1558- 59 (11th Cir. 1987) and Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d, 1251, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2003), which set the due process for sanctions in the 11’th Circuit. In her appeal Taitz tried to use precedents from other circuits that have never applied in the 11’th.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996612/Rhodes-ORDER-Order-Imposing-Sanctions-10-13-2009-28
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24233365/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-et-al-APPEAL-E-Brief-Tendered-Appellant-PCRQHR4P
How, butterdezillion, do you take an order that cites precedent after precedent, then turn around and claim, “Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents’”? That’s not paraphrasing; that’s just plain lying. It is not the first time. You buy into and promote these crank legal theories, then when they fail in court — as they always do — you turn around and lie about what the court said.
butterdezillion wrote: “Lamberth can’t just wish away the issue by saying he doesn’t want to dignify it, because any person has standing to make a FOIA request. Legally, Lamberth HAD to either say that the request was handled properly, or give relief so that the request IS handled properly. Which did he do, Blade Bryan?”
He found for the Social Security Administration, obviously. He was nevertheless reluctant to dignify the irrelevant crank nonsense with which Taitz filler her briefs.