Posted on 10/13/2009 7:45:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
-snip-
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
(Full Order at the link.)
Where does this insane idea that any threads to do with these lawsuits is somehow privileged territory reserved for those who support Orly Taitz come from?
Last I looked, Free Republic is a conservative discussion site, not an echo chamber.
Like Rush, I really can't think of anything that I agree with this administration about, but having some lunatic going into federal court and making a mockery of both the right and the judicial system is just about the worst possible way I can think of to labor against Obama.
Then change the law. It isn't going to happen at the federal level, not with the Democrats running the show. So the emphasis has to be at the state level passing legislation requiring all candidates for office produce proof of their qualifications. That's where the fight needs to be, not with Orly Taitz and her traveling side show.
So a birther would say. But not everyone agrees that birthers are patriotic.
Anyway, I was talking about conduct, not the quality of the belief system.
I’m not sure how you can say those records have nothing to do with her defense. The judge specifically alleges that she brought this with knowledge it had no merit. That is a fact-rich posit and cannot reasonably be undone without reference to the underlying documentary evidence. There might be a toe-hold here. Might. Just sayin ...
BTW, full disclosure. I am a lawyer (not CA) and I am a birther agnostic. That is, I do see problems with Obama’s strenuous effort to inhibit discovery that McCain complied within less than 24 hours when posed with a similar challenge. But unlike birther “Kenyanists,” I make no claim to know. I can only see the public surface of this problem. I do not have access to the undisclosed facts (um, by definition). So I remain suspicious but agnostic.
However, the antibirthers should give birthers a tad more respect. The fact that a Hawaiian custodian of birth documents has made assertions of their own belief is meaningless. By contrast, the fact that under some interpretive scenarios Obama’s foreign parentage or other factors may cause him to fall short of in meeting the constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship is not to be taken lightly, especially when one cannot either access the facts that could restrict the possible scenarios or access the authority of the SC in determining how to apply the body of precedent law to the current situation.
Judge Land is certainly free to interpret his own version of how things should go under the law, but frankly so is Ms. Taitz. To launch from that to meritlessness however requires enormous confidence in one’s own opinion in an area with almost no guidance in precedent. While there may be courtroom behaviors Ms. Taitz could improve, the judge is obligated to separate his personal reaction to her from the legal issues she presents.
My own reaction to her? I have seen her in interviews. She does not handle stress well. That does not make her a bad attorney. You should see some of the basket cases who were my classmates at law school. They do fine once they find a niche that suits their personality. Ms. Taitz’s problem is not her intense belief that Obama is an illegitimate office holder and that a constitutional means MUST be found to address the novel situation. No, her problem is controlling the powerful, even overwhelming emotion that reasonably accompanies such belief in one who has only recently escaped a totalitarian regime. A good trial attorney may become emotionally invested in a case, but he or she must manage that emotion to precise effect, and Ms. Taitz may ultimately come to that place of greater self-control. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose to attack her personally. You try taking on the President in court sometime and see if you do any better.
I’ve already contacted dozens of politicians to do just that. Not “change the law” as you say, but ENFORCE it. The law is already stated in the US Constitution.
In the meantime, I’m also willing to work to get rid of the marxist chump before the 2012 election.
Why?
Do you want a federal law governing state elections? What do you think the legal terms should be if indeed a federal law should govern STATE elections.
Of course not everyone believes birthers are patriotic. The CPUSA has condemned us. As has Media Matters. And the DNC.
His publicly released Certification of Live Birth alone is more documentation of his natural born citizen status than was ever publicly provided by Joe Biden, or John McCain, or Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Bill Clinton, or Bob Dole, or...
What makes Obama different from all those other Presidential contenders whose citizenship wasn't questioned in the same fashion?
Do to a SCOTUS decision about 10 years ago (Cunnignham v. Hamilton County), immediate appeals of sanctions are now foreclosed, with the exception of one circumstance - this case doesn't meet that circumstance. Orly will have to pay the sanction by the prescribed time-limit, or she'll face contempt and possible jail.
With this BAR complaint referral (from a sitting and presiding federal judge, no less) along with some of the other complaint(s) - including a possible complaint from her own client - it will be a challenge for Taitz to keep her license moving forward; Federal Judges everywhere breath a sigh of relief.
The fine was for a frivolous motion, not for the entire case. The motion was her Motion to Reconsider, in which she made a lot of absurd accusations about the judge. Her defense might be to somehow prove her statements true (yeah right), but they have nothing to do with Obama.
And that notorious commie, Ann Coulter. Don't forget her.
By all considered theories of NBC I am aware of, you are a an NBC. But you grandfather would not have been under the most authoritative interpretation as I understand it. Other considered theories would have your grandfather as a NBC, assuming you meant he was born in the US of A.
NBC: “natural born citizen”.
Escalating it got her in the pickle she's in.
The judge picked the fight.
And he's holding all the cards, too.
For a long time I have been reading her comments about cases, judges, outcomes of rulings, whatever; all I could think then was that she was on very thin ice ethically in regards to decorum. I darned near got a lawyer sanctioned for his behavior - got him to stop representing his client (my ex) because of his shenanigans and the likelihood that he would get sanctioned if he continued representing her in such fashion. My lawyer congratulated me on my efforts because he stated it was a direct result of my tenacity with the board of ethics that got him to back down. They (the board) was telling this idiot that he was on thin ice - I knew it from the beginning. The rules for decorum are very strict indeed - almost impossible not to run afoul of when you let emotions rule you, which I think Orly tends to do.
I know very little about the law other than family law in MN, most of that I have blissfully forgotten now, but the ethics boards lay things out pretty straight (just about any reasonable person should be able to understand them).
I don’t really need to read the order for myself to get the gist of it. Orly screwed up by using hyperbole and got herself in this mess. The best thing she could’ve done is be quiet about her feelings publicly, but she had to “feed the masses” some red meat.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are issues with Obama’s eligibility, but I remain realistic about it. I expect there is somewhere between diddly and squat that anyone can do about it short of impeachment hearings.
Is that why you're also demanding Joe Biden to produce his vital records? Because I, for one, haven't seen any proof that he's his father's real son. To the contrary; I've seen a lot more evidence that Barack Obama II is the son of Barack Obama I than I have evidence showing that Joe Biden Jr. is the son of Joe Biden Sr.
No, states should continue to govern who is on their ballots even for federal elections. Which is why the solution has to come at the state level. All it would take is one state to require proof of qualifications and Obama would have to comply.
She just called us cranks. As has Glenn Beck (eventhough Beck had one of his producers covering the trial and sounding quite sympathetic to the cause). It’s fine to believe it is a dead end, not worth the time, a fool’s errand, etc. But to pretend it is somehow unpatriotic to demand Obama prove himself is beyond retarded.
We’ll see who is holding all the cards in the end.
And that notorious commie, Ann Coulter. Don't forget her.
And that pinko pundit, Bill O'Reilly. Plus the oh-so-Democrat-loving Neal Boortz.
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.