Phil Berg calls Lucas Smith to testify against Orly Taitz in Rivernider vs US Bank.

“Do you really think Lincoln is out of the woods yet? This was not a final adjudication of the case.”

This was a final adjudication of an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Lincoln had committed a fraud on the Court, which he was accused of doing by Taitz in her letter to Judge Snow that triggered the hearing. Lincoln is out of the woods on that accusation.

Lincoln was exonerated and Taitz was not believed by Judge Snow which is consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith that Lincoln could be trusted and Taitz could not be trusted.

My impression is that Taitz, by accusing Lincoln of fraud, was trying to get herself out of any liability to the Riverniders that she might have from being the attorney of record on the case when she failed to withdraw before the response to the motion to show cause was due that Lincoln signed on her behalf (his version).

“Lincoln was exonerated and Taitz was not believed by Judge Snow which is consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith that Lincoln could be trusted and Taitz could not be trusted.”

Please tell me where does it say that Lincoln was exonerated and Titz was not believed by Judge Snow?

Tell me where it shows that Lucas testimony can be trusted?

...”Plaintiff Lincoln also called as witnesses Lucas Smith and Robert Rivernider. However, the testimony of these witnesses was NOT MATERIAL to the issues to be resolved at the hearing and willnot be discussed in this Order. Similarly, the voluminous filings by Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln attacking one another’s credibility will not be discussed or considered because any connection they may have to the issues are too tenuous and remote to be considered.”

III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on a review of the pleadings and the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the undersigned finds that Dr. Taitz had agreed in principle to represent plaintiff Lincoln in various legal proceedings involving real estate. Dr. Taitz filed the initial Motion to Substitute Counsel on behalf of all three plaintiffs in the instant case. No later than November 4, 2009, Dr. Taitz informed plaintiff Lincoln that their professional and personal relationships were at an end, and that she would not be representing him in the instant case.

The undersigned further finds that plaintiff Lincoln prepared, signed and filed the First Amended Motion to Substitute Counsel. Instead of signing his own name “for” Dr. Taitz, Lincoln utilized an approximation of Dr. Taitz’ signature. The pleading was filed in haste in order to meet the Court’s deadline, and at a time when the professional and personal relationship between Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln was in turmoil. The undersigned finds that at the time the First Amended Motion to Substitute Counsel was filed, plaintiff Lincoln correctly or incorrectly believed he was authorized to prepare, sign and file the pleading on behalf of Dr. Taitz. Additionally, the undersigned finds that plaintiff Lincoln did not prepare, sign and file this pleading in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on this Court. Finally, the undersigned finds that the Riverniders played no part in the events which resulted in the instant controversy.

This Circuit has held:
Courts have the inherent authority to control the proceedings before them, which includes the authority to impose “reasonable and appropriate” sanctions. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545 (11th Cir. 1993). A court also has the power to conduct an independent investigation to determine whether it has been the victim of a fraud. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed. 2d 27 (1991); see also In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company-Benlate Litigation, 99 F.3d 363, 367 (11th Cir. 1996)(concluding that district court had jurisdiction to conduct an independent civil action for sanctions based upon allegations of fraud in another case). . . . To exercise its inherent power a court must find that the party acted in bad faith. See In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995). Martin v. Automobili Lmmoborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002). See, also Johnson v. Cherry, 422 F.3d 540 548-49 (7 Cir. 2005)(trial court had the inherent power to sanction attorney who falsely claimed that her signature had been forged on a court document). However, “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. at 44.

With the Supreme Court’s caution in mind, the undersigned concludes that the imposition of sanctions against any of the plaintiffs is not warranted. However, the undersigned is NOT CONVINCED THAT DR. TAITZ ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN HER COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT, and there is not a sufficient basis to impose sanctions against her. The undersigned notes that if plaintiff Lincoln had signed his own name “for” Dr. Taitz, the issue of fraud would not have arisen.

Therefore, being duly advised, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that NO SANCTIONS will be imposed by the Court on the plaintiffs or Dr. Taitz, and the parties and witnesses shall pay their own attorney’s fees.

NOW TELL ME THAT THE COURT TOOK SIDES ON THIS MATTER!

"NOW TELL ME THAT THE COURT TOOK SIDES ON THIS MATTER!"

For truthseekers only, see #238. I explained it explicitly.

Taitz alleged that Lincoln committed fraud on the court. The Court found against Taitz by exonerating Lincoln of fraud. Lincoln won against Taitz's allegation.

The Court did not believe Taitz. The Court Believed Lincoln. Lucas Smith testified that the Court should believe Lincoln and not Taitz. The Court said Smith's testimony was "not material to the issues to be resolved" before the Court, yet the Court ruling was totally consistent with Smith's testimony. I can draw my own conclusions and I invite anyone reading this to draw theirs.

The Court declined to sanction Taitz for making a fraud allegation that the Court could not substantiate, and also declined to sanction Lincoln for signing Taitz's name because the Court ruled that Lincoln believed that he signed the filing in good faith.

“Lucas Smith testified that the Court should believe Lincoln and not Taitz.”...WRONG! Why do you insist that Lucas testimony has anything to do with the court decision?

“the testimony of these witnesses was NOT MATERIAL to”...”the voluminous filings by Dr. Taitz and plaintiff Lincoln attacking one another’s credibility will not be discussed or considered”....

The court did not consider any of Lucas testimonies nor the materials submitted by both parties!

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS...READ THE COURT DOCUMENT INSTEAD OF A POSTER’S OPINION!

“The Court declined to sanction Taitz for making a fraud allegation that the Court could not substantiate”...or MUST be STATED AS...

“THE THE COURT WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT ORLY ACTED IN BAD FAITH!”

“the undersigned is NOT CONVINCED that Dr. Taitz acted in bad faith in her communication with the Court, and there is not a sufficient basis to impose sanctions against her”.

“To exercise its inherent power (SANCTION) a court must find that the party ACTED IN BAD FAITH.”

You seem to want to put Lucas in a high pedestal here...HOWEVER, IT’S IN THE COURT DOCUMENT THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED!

"You seem to want to put Lucas in a high pedestal here...HOWEVER, IT’S IN THE COURT DOCUMENT THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED!"

Do you believe everything that a judge says or that they are impartial? Have you argued a case in front of a judge and personally experienced judicial bias? I have a high regard for judges, but only up to a point as they are human.

The judge gives the appearance of "protesting too much" by going out of her way to name Lucas Smith in a footnote and, then declaring that he (and also the Riverniders) had no material influence on the "issues" and then ruling consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith and in contradiction to Taitz's testimony and claims.

Judge Snow took the word of an allegedly disbarred attorney, Lincoln, over a member of the bar in good standing (so far), Taitz, when Judge Snow had Lincoln dead to rights signing Taitz's name to a filing instead of signing his own name with a notation that he was signing "for" Taitz. Yet Judge Snow chose to believe Lincoln over Taitz.

The attorney who says something to the jury that he knows will be objected to, also knows that the jury will have heard it even when the judge says "disregard what was just said by attorney X."

Judge Carter and Judge Snow can claim that the affidavit or testimony of Lucas Smith did not influence their respective legal rulings, but the judges read or heard what Lucas Smith had to say and couldn't help be influenced by it to form an impression of Orly Taitz especially when that impression is reinforced by her own behavior towards judges in court and in her filings.

Judge Snow didn't necessarily need to use Lucas Smith's testimony to determine that Taitz was still the attorney of record for the case and that Lincoln was, at worst, only filing a response under her name for which she was still responsible to file under the deadline.

“Do you believe everything that a judge says or that they are impartial? Have you argued a case in front of a judge and personally experienced judicial bias?”

Let’s base the argument on what was the written decision. I don’t care about your “judicial bias” argument. Of course, if you lose a case, then you’ll say the judge is treasonous...like what Orly asserted all this time!

“then ruling consistent with the testimony of Lucas Smith and in contradiction to Taitz’s testimony and claims.”

The ruling did not consider Lucas testimony, the ruling was not about how credible a witness Lucas was. The ruling regarding Charles Lincoln was based on his belief that inspite of him having written Orly’s signature for Orly, that he did not intend fraud. The ruling regarding Orly was that the court was not convinced that there was malice in Orly’s assertion of fraud.

“Judge Snow took the word of an allegedly disbarred attorney, Lincoln, over a member of the bar in good standing”...”Yet Judge Snow chose to believe Lincoln over Taitz.”

WRONG! Read the whole transcript. The ruling regarding Charles Lincoln is separate from the ruling regarding Orly.
There is nowhere to be found in the transcript that there is an inference for the judge choosing to believe Lincoln over Taitz!

“The attorney who says something to the jury that he knows will be objected to, also knows that the jury will have heard it even when the judge says “disregard what was just said by attorney X.”

SORRY! It was not a jury trial!

“but the judges read or heard what Lucas Smith had to say and couldn’t help be influenced by it to form an impression of Orly Taitz especially when that impression is reinforced by her own behavior towards judges in court and in her filings.”

SORRY! Purely speculative!...You can’t even prove that!

“Judge Snow didn’t necessarily need to use Lucas Smith’s testimony to determine that Taitz was still the attorney of record for the case and that Lincoln was, at worst, only filing a response under her name for which she was still responsible to file under the deadline.”

Judge Snow did NOT CONSIDER Lucas testimony IN WHATEVER SHAPE OR FORM! Judge Snow did not even consider all documents that dealt with character assasinations submitted by both parties.

“to determine that Taitz was still the attorney of record for the case and that Lincoln was, at worst, only filing a response under her name”

NOW...THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE...IN THAT HEARING.

Therefore...LUCAS SMITH’s testimony was never considered in the Judge’s decision! Which were:

1. Lincoln signed Orly’s name but did not intend to commit fraud upon the court...NO SANCTION!
2. The court was not CONVINCED that Taitz FALSELY claimed that her signature had been forged on a court document...NO SANCTION!
3. Lincoln and Taitz have to bear the cost for their respective counsels.

“There is nowhere to be found in the transcript that there is an inference for the judge choosing to believe Lincoln over Taitz!”

Here is Judge Snow recounting Lincoln's testimony:

“Lincoln added that Dr. taitz had authorized him to sign documents on her behalf on other occasions in the past.”

Here is Judge Snow recounting Taitz’s testimony:

“She denied that she had ever authorized plaintiff Lincoln to sign anything for her in any case.”

Here is Judge Snow's finding:

“The undersigned finds that...plaintiff Lincoln correctly or incorrectly believed he was authorized to prepare, sign and file the pleading on behalf of Dr. Taitz.”

How could Lincoln possibly believe he was authorized to sign at any time if Taitz had never given him authorization as she claimed?

If Judge Snow had believed Taitz’s statement denying that she had EVER authorized Lincoln to sign anything, Judge Snow could not have made a finding that Lincoln believed “correctly or incorrectly” that he could sign for Taitz on this occasion or on any occasion.

The clear inference is that Judge Snow believed Lincoln's testimony that at least on some previous occasions Taitz had authorized him to sign for her (contrary to Taitz's blanket denial) leading Lincoln to "correctly or incorrectly" conclude that on this occasion he was authorized to sign.

Note that in the courtroom account as told by Lucas Smith at the top of this thread he describes Phil Berg impeaching Orly Taitz as a witness by backing her into a story that, as Smith says, it is hard to believe that the judge would have found to be credible. This is the very testimony in the transcript that may have given Judge Snow the clear inference that it was Taitz that was lying when she said she never authorized Lincoln to sign for her while he said that she did.

From Smith's account:

“In court today I watched as Orly Taitz told lie after lie while under oath on the witness stand. She claimed that she has never in her life given anyone permission to sign her signature. (This hearing today was about Orly's claim that Charles Edward Lincoln III forged her signature on a filing in Rivernider vs US Bank). Attorney Phil Berg was present as counsel to Charles Lincoln.

“Phil Berg went on to question Orly Taitz as to why then, if she had never given anyone permission to sign her signature, why then had she while in Israel contacted Charles Lincoln and told him to advise one of her dental staff in California to sign her (Orly's) name to payrol checks for the employees. Orly Taitz started to reply with one story that her signature is not used on payrol checks but then Phil Berg asked her who then is it that signs off on employee hours to verify them for the payrol. At this time Orly then started in with a new story that she took payroll checks with her to Isael and signed the payrol checks there in Israel and mailed them to her dental employees from back in the USA. ???????????????? I don't think anyone bought that story.”

“Lincoln added that Dr. taitz had authorized him to sign documents on her behalf on other occasions in the past.”

Does the above statement indicate that the Judge believe Lincoln?

“She denied that she had ever authorized plaintiff Lincoln to sign anything for her in any case.”

Does the above statement indicate that the Judge believe Taitz?

“The undersigned finds that...plaintiff Lincoln CORRECTLY or INCORRECTLY believed he was authorized to prepare, sign and file the pleading on behalf of Dr. Taitz.”

The above statement comes from Lincoln’s own admission that he signed Orly’s name, but did not believe that it was wrong since he used to sign a Judge’s name when he worked for said Judge. Lucky for Lincoln, Judge Snow gave him the benefit of the doubt!

“How could Lincoln possibly believe he was authorized to sign at any time if Taitz had never given him authorization as she claimed?”

If you read the transcript of the hearing. The Judge indicated that if given authorization, Lincoln can sign his name then followed by “for Orly Taitz”. Not an attempt to imitate Orly’s signature which is not acceptable.

“If Judge Snow had believed Taitz’s statement denying that she had EVER authorized Lincoln to sign anything, Judge Snow could not have made a finding that Lincoln believed “correctly or incorrectly” that he could sign for Taitz on this occasion or on any occasion.”

Judge Snow’s finding that Lincoln believed CORRECTLY or INCORRECTLY that he could sign for Taitz is based on LINCOLN’S OWN ADMISSION not Orly’s statement.

“The clear inference is that Judge Snow believed Lincoln’s testimony that at least on some previous occasions Taitz had authorized him to sign for her (contrary to Taitz’s blanket denial) leading Lincoln to “correctly or incorrectly” conclude that on this occasion he was authorized to sign.”

The Judge made no inference! Lincoln admitted to signing Orly’s name and believed that he did it in good faith! Thus, the Judge ruled not to sanction him!

NOW ASK LUCAS TO COME FACE THE MUSIC AND DANCE THE TARANTELLA!

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.