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.)
Got an explicit ruling on what Natural Born Citizen means? Do you think it is likely you have 5 votes on the SC to cause a constitutional crisis? Do you think it is more likely that they will give a ruling that allows the current status quo to continue and tell people if they don’t like the current president, vote him out during the next election or ask your congressman to start impeachment proceedings?
Canedawg, you are innocently, I’m sure, being drawn into using an afterbirther troll tactic: “I’m against Obama too, but...” and then make Orly Taitz the issue. She is not the issue. If you’re against Obama (or whatever his name is) and you think his records need to made public, then please help.
All that I or anyone else who get's labeled 'troll' around here wants is for the rule of law to be upheld. We don't want the Constitution trampled or the law ignored or legal precedent ignored for the sole purpose of gettng one man. There is no law requiring Obama to produce more documentation than he has, or any documentation at all for that matter. We wish there was but we're not willing to make up laws just to get Obama. There is a strict legal definition for meeting the requirements for filing a suit in civil court. If Taitz and her plaintiffs don't meet them then we don't go around calling the judge treasonous or making up fairy tales about midnight trips by Eric Holder to threaten him. We may not like the way things are going, but we understand why things are the way they are. And we realize that the antics of legal boneheads like Orly Taitz isn't going to accomplish anything.
You can argue about tactics all you want, but if you think Obama needs to come clean with the American people, then at least don’t hinder if you can’t help.
Oh, ouch.
That’s all I got today...
It goes as follows:
“I want or support ( name the conservative issue) but... our time is better spent fighting what he is doing than wasted by tilting at windmills.”
Yeah right! ( Color me skeptical)
And you base that on what?
I’m not a lawyer either but I think the Rules regarding a sanction and any requirement of discovery would not obtain here. She had a hearing, she had the opportunity to appear in the judge’s court, and to file documents explaining her position. She would only be afforded the discovery she seeks, as far as I understand it, if the judge sanctioned her without affording her the opportunies that he did to make her case, and she failed. Before going further she should pay up the $20K and be done with it in this court. This is not going to help one iota in CA, either, nor does it advance the goal of obtaining the information so many would like produced. I’d put any hope for that document production in one of the other, quieter, cases that are making their way thru the courts.
No. Obama's records have nothing to do with defending herself against the fine. That's based on her own conduct, not her legal argument about Obama.
Probably none. Orly was damned by her own stupid behavior.
I defy the Taitz supporters to actually read the order and continue their support.
She is a complete whack job, and richly deserves the sanction.
Obama hasn’t produced any documentation at all to anyone of legal consequence that we know of. Unless you consider the marxists FactCheck and Kos the arbiters of NBC status now.
I understand exactly what you are saying.
But as a conscientious particiant on Free Republic, and as someone who has a JD, I sometimes undertake to analyze and explain legal documents here so that other FReepers understand the legalese that is contained in these documents.
Last year I cautioned FReepers that the Berg case was in all likelihood not going to be satisfactorily resolved prior to the election, which of course turned out to be correct, although it may have disappointed some here.
My interpretation of developments in this litigation should not be confused with supporting those who may be DU trolls.
He dismisses all armed service personnel concerns with a simple "shut up and serve, even if your orders come from an usurper --- it's up to the Democrats in Congress to do anything, and you cannot come to our courts for relief."
The “he” that is being referred to is Judge Land.
I think 1rudeboy was messin' with you, son. On the day of the supposed meeting, AG Holden was in Georgia. For them to have met as alleged, Mr. Holden and/or the judge would have had to have traveled at Mach 3+ to get back to where they were spotted later in the day (3000 miles apart).
Those darn secretary of states DO play a role in vetting candidates.. And pissant pointed out numerous examples of state requirements on previous threads. SOS-not doing their jobs.
Counsel, at least superficially, appears to understand that she
must structure her claim to overcome the standing hurdle. She
attempted to clear that hurdle on her way to the prize (verification
of the President’s place of birth) by having her client challenge her
deployment orders. This leap from a concern about a President’s
Constitutional eligibility to hold the office to a private legal cause
of action by an Army Captain to avoid deployment pursuant to an
otherwise valid order is where counsel entered the thicket of legal
frivolity. Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.
Counsel does not have the right, however, to file an action in federal
court on behalf of an Army officer to avoid deployment when the only
basis for seeking the Court’s aid to prevent deployment is speculation
and conjecture that the President is not eligible to serve.
Plaintiff’s counsel ignored the well-established precedent that
disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the armed
forces. She pointed to no legal authority supporting her contention
that an alleged “cloud” on the President’s eligibility to hold office
violated one of her client’s individual constitutional rights. And
she provided no legal authority to support the proposition that even
if the President were found not to be eligible for the office, that
this would mean all soldiers in the military would be authorized to
disregard their duty as American soldiers and disobey orders from
their chain of command.
Adoption of counsel’s legal theory would make the judiciary the
arbiter of any dispute regarding the President’s constitutional
qualifications. Our founders provided opportunities for a President’s
qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct
involvement by the judiciary. In addition to the obvious opportunity
that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s
qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism
for removing a President who “slips through the cracks,” which is how
counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the President
can be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4; see
also id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the
office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his
constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing
him from office. Except for the Chief Justice’s role in presiding
over the trial in the Senate, that mechanism does not involve the
judiciary. Id. art. I, § 3, cl. 6.
One can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected
representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether
a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the
issue in our courts. Although counsel’s present concern is the
location of the President’s birth, it does not take much imagination
to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks “too young”
to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he
reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older
than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz
be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his
birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps
an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an
alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce
the Constitution.7 Or, more to the point, perhaps the Court should
issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending
any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz
is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office. The federal
courts were not established to resolve such purely political disputes
or to assist in the pursuit of a political fishing expedition,
particularly when that intrusion would interfere with the ability of
the U.S. Army to do its job.
Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, the courts do not refrain from
entering political debates because of bias or personal disinterest.
They do so because the Constitution, within which counsel attempts to
wrap herself, prevents their encroachment into the political sphere.
That does not mean that judicial decisions do not often have political
consequences, nor does it mean that the judiciary cannot rule upon
issues that may overturn actions by the political branches when they
are contrary to the Constitution. But it is clear that the
Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate
in the selection or removal of the President, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are
somehow violated by the process. A generalized claim that the
President is unqualified does not fall within this narrow exception
and is best addressed to the First branch of government, not the
Third.
The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined
with the political diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that Ms.
Taitz’s purpose is to advance a political agenda and not to pursue a
legitimate legal cause of action. Rather than citing to binding legal
precedent, she calls the President names, accuses the undersigned of
treason, and gratuitously slanders the President’s father. As the
Court noted in an earlier order, counsel’s wild accusations may be
protected by the First Amendment when she makes them on her blog or
in her press conferences, but the federal courts are reserved for
hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a platform for political
rhetoric and personal insults. Simply put, no reasonable basis
existed for counsel to believe that her legal cause of action was
legitimate under existing law or under a reasonable extension or
modification of existing law. Thus, counsel’s Complaint on behalf of
Captain Rhodes was frivolous.
Oooh! Can I play?
“Are you in the entertainment field?”
— Bennett Cerf
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.