Posted on 12/08/2010 12:35:14 PM PST by Elderberry
In your ridicule, you join a judge who ridiculed from the bench and fined a lawyer appearing before him. He called her case "frivolous" and unsubstantiated but cited no single point that he found unworthy.
Orly has not been politically correct (to put it mildly). English is not her first language (I think). She gets angry and flustered when interviewed by hostile media persons. She passionately holds her principles and the principles of our country to be important. In my opinion, it is the passion and not the many other details (documents with misspelled words, awkward phrases, etc) that has been the fuel that got her to this point.
From my perspective (and having limited understanding of all the facts) I can even forgive some of the problematic conflicts of interest between her and other lawyers and plaintiffs, the filings to the court without the permission of all of the plaintiffs in a case, etc.
It is to the benefit of the O-bots to portray her as crazy. Perhaps the photo that you posted indicates your true disposition in this matter?
But Judge Land betrays (in writing) both his personal grudge and opposing political opinions as reasons for dismissing a case and fining the attorney for the prosecution. He called her "Alice in Wonderland" on the record, and inaccurately portrayed her case as unresearched. That judicial review and sanction of the attorney rather than the case is in violation of federal law and the constitutional principle of due process.
I recognize that she is far from perfect, but who needs to be perfect as they approach getting their case before the SCOTUS. Words just don't matter all that much outside the courtroom. And even in the courtroom, it is procedure, points of law, precedent, and facts that are held to be more valuable than hearsay. Anyone dispute that?
So far that standard has been ignored by not only Judge Land but almost every Judge who comes near Obama-eligibility cases. (My favorite is the statement by one judge that his eligibility was "vetted by the mainstream media" and "twittered" as a means of verification. This is telling in that these two standards of verification are held to be equally valid, LOL).
Now the writ is surely enough --by God and Damn the Torpedoes-- before the SCOTUS. Not many have accomplished that. The writ brings forth evidence of Obama's use of a fraudulent SSN. It brings forth quite a few valid points of law. Reading the writ is encouraging. Do I think the Supremes will do anything other than disregard it? No. But its on the Effin record.
In summary, she may not be the best spokesperson for birthers. Okay, she isn't. But how effective is she in getting cases before judges? And which is more important?
So here is something to consider. This time its her and her client that gets no hearing, no forum for redress of grievance, no way to even address the case by the hearing of oral arguments! She was fined, dismissed summarily and ridiculed by a judge. (I know, I know, thats how most of our judiciary behave anyway.) But next time it could be you.
You post a photo of a bird in a wig.
*shakes head*
Infinitesimal I'd guess since she no longer has a client in that Capt. Rhodes fired her. This filing is nothing more than an attempt to get her $20,000 back which she had to pay. This has already been denied by a court of appeals so I'd not expect a review on this matter from the SCOTUS, jmo.
In order to point out the focus of the writ, I say this: The writ of certiori, while addressing the unfair sanctioning, does cover many other points of law that were not addressed by Judge Land in the original case. It may be true that Orly is using her sanctioning as a way to try to get the other issues heard. However, the majority of the writ of certiori does address Obama's (lack of) eligibility and possible fraud. You can reply that her (only?) intentions were to fight the sanction. But that is speculation on your part and her persistence proves that the eligibility issue is her passion.
Also, if i recall correctly, another judge threatened sanctioning an attorney for a similar case. The attorney made it known that such a sanction would then bring about good cause for discovery in the case. The threat of sanctions was then removed.
Orly was sanctioned for very specific behavior
And that was what?
This, like all the others, will be DENIED without comment.
Like many others in America and here on Free Republic, I wish that were not true. Alas, you may be correct.
If nothing else, let my comments encourage people to read the writ.
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.