(Thanks to Guy Riemenschneider for sending this Columbus, Georgia article in to me! Sanctions of this order are nothing to be proud of—they are oppressive and incompatible with the right of the People to Petition for Redress of Grieavances. Georgia Middle District U.S. District Judge Clay Land, like Florida Middle District Judge Richard A. Lazzara, is something of an anti-constitutional traitor, as Orly wrote he was. And yes, this use of the word “traitor” is justified by reference to Cohens v. Virginia, 1820:
As the United States Supreme Court has held, refusal to consider constitutional questions is tantamount to treason to the constitution:
“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S.C. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 291, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).
Still, in general Orly exercised at every stage of this and ever other case the most appalling bad judgment and lack of strategic good sense—at least from my perspective she always insisted on doing almost exactly the diametric opposite of whatever I advised or suggested or whispered to her by way of an idea. And yet still again, I am sad for Orly. She has made herself into very much the Clown Princess of attorneys and patriots everywhere, and the cruel caricatures of her hurt me, even though I see their point. Things just did not have to be this way, not, that is, unless Orly REALLY wanted them to be that way, and although it shames me more than I can say to even admit I might have been an actor in such a farce, part of me believes that Phil J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, and Lisa Ostella MUST be right in their private suspicions that Orly and her “husband” Yosef are really just a pair of possibly Mainland-Chinese paid and sponsored communist sleeper agents who were activated to destroy the anti-Obama, pro-constitutional eligibility movement. I never saw any direct evidence while I was working with Orly, except to notice that her accent in English is much more like a Chinese accent than a real Russian accent, but, accents are so variable. And then, there was the issue that except for opposing Obama, Orly was no kind of real conservative, had no ideology to speak of at all except for liking Israel and disliking Muslims. Judge Clay Land is no hero to the American Judiciary or the First Amendment, although he was in his own way 20 times fairer to Orly than Judge Richard A. Lazzara. Only Judge David O. Carter gave Orly’s case a fair chance—and she managed to shoot herself and her clients directly in the foot even there—because if there was and is one judge who is NOT a traitor to the Constitution or fairness, it is Judge David O. Carter, who remains, in my esteem, one of the best judges on the bench today).
Tuesday, Mar. 16, 2010
Appeals court upholds $20,000 in sanctions against birther movement attorney Orly Taitz
Birther movement attorney has insisted she won’t pay sanctions levied by Judge Land
California attorney and “birther” proponent Orly Taitz must pay $20,000 in sanctions, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
In the two-page decision, the appeals court states that after considering Taitz’ arguments, “we find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the district court’s sanctions judgment.”
Taitz’ appeal stems from a suit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who argued in September that Barack Obama’s presidency wasn’t legitimate and that she shouldn’t be deployed. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land dismissed that suit Sept. 16, telling Taitz that she could face sanctions if she ever again filed a “frivolous” suit in his court. Taitz then filed a motion for emergency stay, and Land gave her two weeks to explain why he shouldn’t sanction her $10,000.
On the deadline, Taitz, who no longer represented the captain, responded with a motion to recuse Land from the case and a request to extend her deadline. Land denied the motions and sanctioned her $20,000. He later ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to collect.
Taitz appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She has said that she has no intention of paying.
Rhodes’ complaint was the second filed in federal court in Columbus by Taitz. The first was that of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, who in July also argued that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t serve as commander in chief. Land dismissed the suit on July 16, saying the Judicial Branch of government shouldn’t “inject itself into purely ‘political disputes’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, who represented the government in the case, claimed Cook’s suit was “moot” because the Army had already told Cook he didn’t have to deploy, so the relief he sought was granted.
Cook appealed in September to the appeals court based in Atlanta.
The appeals court dismissed the appeal on Nov. 17, citing Cook’s failure to file a brief and record excerpts.
hiwaves wrote on 03/16/2010 10:11:36 PM:
Regardless of the premise for her lawsuit, the sanctions are outrageous. No judge in his right mind would sanction an attorney $10,000 for bringing a lawsuit, or $10,000 for filing a Motion to Stay. Sanctions of this kind create a “chilling effect” which may cause another lawyer to not file a perfectly legitimate lawsuit for fear of being sanctioned, or cause an attorney to not fully represent his client for fear of being sanctioned. Hence, excessive sanctions are discouraged. A reasonable sanction might be $500 or $1500 in a case like this and that is why Taitz moved to have the judge recuse himself. The judge displays a personal bias when he orders sanctions like this. The judge would have been smart to recuse himself or at least reassign the case to another judge to avoid the appearance of bias. Seems the judge ruled out of vanity, “I can sanction you and therefore I will”.
rmasser04 wrote on 03/16/2010 10:37:44 PM:
Thanks, hiwaves, for a logical and well thought out explanation and insight into the judicial system’s thought process. Good points.
I concur with georgiapeaches in wondering how much more the president will spend defending the legitimacy of his birthplace. He is president and will remain so whether it is right or not, but remember ‘where there is smoke there is fire