Judge Land Fines Orly Taitz $20K, File Copy of Order with State Bar of CA

United States District Court (Georgia) ^ | 10/13/2009 | Judge Clay Land

[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.)

[nufsed]

How do you know you were born 35 years ago if no one confirmed it or witnessed it?

I posit the there were at least two sides to the moon as humans had observed forever there are two sides or more to physical objects. How many millenium of observation would it take for you to accept that as fact. Being in the dark does not always deny a facts. The fact that it was referred to as the dark side is an acknowlegement of the side. In fact when we see OB's records, you may still choose to believe there is no other side to the moon.

This is the same logic problem you have when you look to the constitution for a specific rule to require a BC, when it is obviuous to the rest of us that the best evidence of age and location qualifications is the BC. And please answer my previous question Where are the rules in the constitution about what the president can do with the military?

You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted. You should be concerned more about having an unexperienced socialist in the Oval Office and as CIC than whether or not a candidate might have to show his BC.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Where did you come up with that analysis? I don’t see anything close to that in his order. In fact, he was more than kind to Orly Taitz. More kind than I would have been.

[r9etb]

Judge Land says the judiciary can remove the sitting President under this exception!

No, actually. He says that the Judiciary "can participate," but that would be only in the sense of (theoretically) finding that Obama fraudulently posed as a natural-born citizen.

However, and this is a big however, such a ruling can ONLY be made in the context of a non-frivolous claim that Obama's actions actually violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. The apparently unbalanced and certainly egregious Orly Taitz certainly failed on that score. (As an aside, I believe that Judge Land thoroughly enjoyed writing the judicial bludgeoning he administered to her on this matter....)

But even then, Judge Land makes clear that impeachment is the Constitutionally-defined method of removing a sitting president.

[El Gato]

You mistake internal regulations and rules for the law. They aren't. The law, the highest law, says what the eligibility criteria are. The law, in some states, tells the SecState to verify those criteria are met before granting ballot access. Exactly how they do that is currently left up to them. But they are supposed to do it. Is there any evidence that any, save perhaps Hawaii, did so? (Hawaii got an affidavit from the Democratic Convention, signed by Pelosi, saying that BHO met the Constitutional criteria. No other state did. So how did those other states, where the Sec State is commanded by the law to verify or vet eligibility, do it? Or did they do it at all? I think not. And for that matter, did the Democratic Convention and/or Pelosi do it? If they did, how? And are they liable for saying he met the criteria, if in the future, it turns out that he did not?

Just Curious.

[mlo]

"How do you know you were born 35 years ago if no one confirmed it or witnessed it?"

It doesn't matter if I know it. It still happened. It is a fact in itself, because it did happen when it did. What people know about it is another question. A fact is true or not true, apart from whether anyone knows its truth.

"You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted."

No, you are attempting to jump ahead. If you can't even accept the notion that a thing is true whether anyone knows it is true or not, then there's nothing to build on. BTW, if you can't accept that notion you don't get to talk about supposed flaws in MY logic. :-)

[r9etb]

Which is exactly what Orly wants.

If that's the case, then Orly Taitz is not just a fool, she's a damned fool.

And if insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," then I would have to say that Orly Taitz is insane. And not just every-day, drooling on her shirt front insane, either.

[PAR35]

I am not a lawyer, but

You all might want to consider that the lawyers here are the ones questioning her tactics, and that her supporters tend to be the ones who can preface their remarks that way.

[Red Steel]

My conclusion: Judge Land is a “birther”!

Oh, dang now you've done it. You outted Land! He had such good cover. ;-)

[nufsed]

I cannot accept as a fact that which you have not shown to be true. I agree that it a fact that you were born. However, you have not shown that it is a fact that you are 35. I would agree that is a fact that you are between the ages of 13 and 130 based upon your vocabulary and the ages of men for the last century or so.

You can not establish a fact by stating it adamantly and saying that is it a fact. Your saying so does not make it factual. In fact, I believe you are making it up.

Your logic on the presidential qualifications is the same as you are demonstrating here, illogic.

[American Constitutionalist]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

[RegulatorCountry]

If you're born on the soil of the United States of parents who are naturalized citizens at a minimum, you meet every understanding of the term as I understand it, that I've encountered with any plausibly authoritative source.

But, there could be some element of doubt, so those who responded negatively to you could possibly have a point. The reason a citizenship claim upon you could introduce doubt as to your being a natural born citizen under the Constitution would be the potential legal claims upon you, by Italy, when outside the jurisdiction of the United States, posing a difficulty for you and in turn the nation, should you become President.

The same would potentially be true, had you been born to two citizen parents in a foreign nation that itself claimed you as a citizen by birth under jus soli.

Obama does not have two citizen parents, and so U.S. jurisdiction was incomplete at birth, which is why you've seen so much parsing of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreign citizenship claim upon him only increases the level of doubt, as to his status at birth. That such a claim apparently did, and perhaps still does, exist, by the British, makes for a very compelling argument, but the fact that the citizenship is there, or is not, is not really relevant. It's the fact that his father was foreign and not a citizen, that is the problem.

[mlo]

"I cannot accept as a fact that which you have not shown to be true."

The question isn't whether you accept it. It isn't whether anyone believes it. In the hypothetical situation where I was born 35 years ago, the question is whether it is true.

"You can not establish a fact by stating it adamantly and saying that is it a fact."

That's not the point. Again, it's not about establishing belief in the fact, it's that the fact is independently true, whether anyone knows about it or not. Why are you fighting so hard to not acknowledge this simple logical point?

[Candor7]

LOL.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. ROFLMAO!

Even if Orly pulls the Don Quixote in every one of the cases she has, she still wiins. America now is beginning to find out exactly what Obama has been doing to hide his history.

Soon the issue will enter the political arena.Which is just what is needed. Orly knew this all along. She has lived under tyranny and knows exactly what she is doing, while her detractors jump all sorts of legal thinking and strategy, thinking that she is seeking only the legal remedy.

She seeks their aggression and their sanctions. And I can hardly wait until these break into the press and media on Fox news.

Go Orly GO! We LOVE YOU!!!!!!!

The courts and Obama are doing just what is needed, making a martyr out of her. I hope they continue to lay it on thicker.

[Sibre Fan]

When you read Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility, you might want to also read Clearing the smoke, or blowing more smoke?, just for comparison purposes.

[El Gato]

Neither New Jersey nor Calero had the Director of the state Health Department which issued the Birth Certificate vouch for its authenticity, twice

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

Here are the two statements:

October 31, 2008

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

July 27, 2009

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.

As is often the case, what she did not say may be more important than what she did. She did not say that she or the Department "vouched for" the CoLB that was posted on Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, etc., nor any of the information on it, the first time. The second time she said that the origingal vital records, perhaps not that original birth certificate, verified that he was born in Hawaii. Nor did she say, either time, that the state DoH had even issued it. In fact she never even mentioned it.

[American Constitutionalist]

Let's for a minute put aside the issue of " Standing " with those folks who want the Constitutional eligibly qualification upheld.
Let's put aside the problem with standing and what you have said some kind of law that would help the birthers bring a case to court so this issue of Obama's eligibility be addressed.
Would you ( Non - Sequitur ) be willing to be on the " Birthers " side to see if Obama is qualified to be in the office of the President of the USA ?

[El Gato]

Maybe the Indonesian school record listed Honolulu as a place of birth to qualify Obama for a foreign scholarship to the Indonesian school

Riight, much more likely is that it's what step-Dad Lolo was told by Stanley Ann, whether it was true or not.

[STARWISE]

New one .. Ocala, FL

With the rest

[RegulatorCountry]

I've been saying this for ages. I even posited the hypothetical here a couple of weeks back. I got this as a response: "you chose to posit a ridiculous hypothetical. Let’s play....what are the odds that the UK will grant everyone born in the US dual citizenship?"

Well, it's your hypothetical, so flesh it out. How would citizenship claims be legally extended to individuals who do not yet exist? We're talking about citizenship status at birth, here.

How would Tonga, or North Korea, or whatever currently unpopular nation you choose to "posit" for reactionary reasons, plausibly claim jurisdiction under any recognized law?

How would such a claim be received by the United States? I strongly suggest it would not be recognized. There's a rather glaring, historic precedent for just this sort of thing.

Break it down for us, LorenC, since you see it as such a strong argument.

I'm going to posit that you know it's a silly, specious argument with no basis at all, which is why you just threw it out there without elaboration.

[itsahoot]

Did you not notice the Blacked out number, the thing that would lead to real evidence?