Posted on 10/13/2009 10:39:05 AM PDT by GoldStandard
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land, in Columbus, has come down hard on birther attorney Orly Taitz, fining her $20,000 for willfully abusing her right to practice law. I suspect Taitz won’t have that right much longer.
“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
I guess that non-response means you failed.
I am, by the way, admitted to practice before in one state supreme court, the United States Tax Court, the United States Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board, several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Thank you.
Then you, of all people, should know better.
You and hundreds of Thousands of other attorneys. All it takes is $200, admission to practice in a states supreme court, and two letters of recommendation from other members. Pretty much anyone 2-4 years out of law school can become a member.
California is the only state in the entire U.S. that allows people who didn’t attend an ABA approved college to take the bar exam.
Any other state would laugh of Taitz and her phony online degree.
How many cases have you argued at the United States Supreme Court?
I must say, that if they are only “conspiracy theories” Judge carter would not be hearing the case.
Time will tell.
“She has legitimate claims, questions, and evidence.”
Claims and questions are not evidence. As I understand it, she has no “evidence” which is why she is in court. She wants a judge to allow her access to “evidence”. Yes?
So what? What is your point? Lindsey Graham is a "Republican" from South Carolina, Olympia Snowe is a "Republican" from Maine. Need I name more?
My point is that people are labeling him as "liberal" or "traitor" based only on this decision. Did anyone look at his voting record in the State Assembly and State Senate? Any of his other decisions on the bench?
From everything I've read, the facts of the decision are that Orly Taitz' behavior was deliberately and flamboyantly against court rules. Do you think it's conservative to approve that sort of behavior just because you approve her cause? Do you think it does Conservativism any good to have this sort of firing squad mentality just because you don't like the judge's ruling?
If someone was breaking into the Dept of Health records in Hawaii, would you bad mouth the police officer who arrested him?
Being a member of the US Supreme court bar is no major accomplishment. For the most part, but not in every case, it is just a piece of paper that may impress potential clients who have no idea how easy it is to become a member.
“Think she’ll go for double or nothing?”
Why not? Unlike most people, she has dentistry to “fall back” on, if her law career fizzles.
“Think she’ll go for double or nothing?”
Why not? Unlike most people, she has dentistry to “fall back” on, if her law career fizzles.
She has a lot of circumstantial evidence, which is what brought this to court in the first place. Achieving approval for discovery, allows that circumstantial evidence to be proven, or disproven. Getting over the hump to have the court allow discovery, any court, is the problem, none thus far have allowed discovery, and use “standing” as a reason to deny discovery. Hearing the case on its merits is the first step to allowing discovery.
In this case, the judge, in his 44 page summary judgement, has not heard the merits of this case, and summarily rejects it, based on newspaper articles, web page blogs, and heresay. It is quite telling when Taitz says the judge is biased, and he summarily rejects her contention, then goes on to site these examples.
One can clearly understand her exasperation with this judge. Also, she was approached by an individual who states in an affidavit that Eric Holder was in the area, prior to the summation of her case with this judge. The judge did not talk to this person, and held Taitz responsible for even filing the question to the judge, and punishes her for the submission.
It is clear that Taitz borders on Hysterics, but that in itself does not make her case invalid, what does is the judge dismissing it, and fining her without even hearing it, which in my opinion is designed to quash the proceedings, her reputation, and perhaps to set her up to be disbarred.
All of this dances arount the fact that he would not hear the case on its merits, but dismisses them out of hand. Which makes on wonder, why he is working so hard NOT to hear the case and be done with it. It appears that he wants no connection to it.
There is more going on here IMO than meets the eye.
“It is clear that Taitz borders on Hysterics, but that in itself does not make her case invalid, what does is the judge dismissing it, and fining her without even hearing it, which in my opinion is designed to quash the proceedings, her reputation, and perhaps to set her up to be disbarred.”
If Orly, or any lawyer, catches a hint from the judge that he has some personal animus against them, the only logical move is to step aside and allow someone else to present. In my opinion the fact that she hasn’t makes her case suspect.
If I’m the defendant and my lawyer is pissing off the judge, I’m switching counsel at the 10 minute break. I’m guessing you’d do the same.
Oh, Good Lord.
Alright, Ms. Taitz having graduated from a correspondence school (and not being admitted before the Supreme Court) is none-the-less smarter than all of the attorneys in America, outside of California, who were required to attend real law schools, to pass real bar exams, who have earned livings from the actual practice of law and who have never been santioned under Rule 11.
Land should have simply dismissed the case based on a absence of subject matter/improper venue and told her to go to the DC District to file a mandamus action.
He could have saved himself a lot of trouble.
I think Judge Carter is either going to dismiss that case based on improper venue grounds, but it would be very interesting if he did so only after allowing discovery and ordering production of Obama’s birth certificate.
If Obama is not a NBC, tat would pretty much force a judge in DC to grant a petition for a writ of mandamus even if that particular judge would have otherwise denied discovery. Once the horse is out of the barn, it would be too late to close the door.
Sure. Whatever you say ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.