The WND article mentions two different cases in which sanctions were threatened against attorneys pursuing this issue -- and which the judges backed off when the attorney threatened to require discovery of "pertinent facts" (apparently there is precedent).
My question is: why hasn't Orly Taitz pursued this particular avenue when she was slapped with sanctions? Yes, I can anticipate the usual responses, but I would think that there is someone close to her that would have suggested it by now.
Or was she sanctioned for outrageous behavior over and above simply pursuing this issue?
As Orly's case demonstrates, the imposition of sanctions does not open the door for discovery. Despite what WND says.
My question is: why hasn't Orly Taitz pursued this particular avenue when she was slapped with sanctions?
In all three cases where sanctions have been threatened, the same procedure is followed. The judge informs counsel that he thinks sanctionable behavior may have occurred, and he gives counsel 14 days to respond and say why sanctions should NOT be imposed.
In one of the cases, the judge decided after receiving the response not to issue any sanctions. In another case, the judge decided not to issue any *monetary* sanctions, but instead issued a formal reprimand from the bench. And in Orly's case, the judge decided to issue sanctions.
Incidentally, in the middle case (Hollister), the judge's order makes it fairly clear that he thought attorney Hemenway was duped by Phil Berg, and didn't impose monetary sanctions against Hemenway for that reason. Berg hadn't gotten himself admitted pro hac vice to the court, so the judge couldn't sanction Berg, although the order again makes it clear the judge really wanted to sanction Berg.