Main Menu

Tag Archives | sanctions

General agreement

Federal filings flutter

There are four new filings in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, defendant’s ECF documents 98-101, in response to the Taitz’ 11th-hour hail Mary notice of new information.

In Document 98, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee representing the Democratic Party, filed a detailed argument as to why Taitz’ “Notice of new information” is neither admissible, nor relevant to the pending rulings in the case. Document 99 is a joinder with the Democrat’s argument from the Mississippi Secretary of State.

New yesterday was a response from the Hawaii Defendants, Document 100. In addition to arguing that Taitz’ “Notice” has no bearing on the pending motions, the Hawaii defendants call the Court’s attention to the Taitz claim (which was based on a punking email sent to her) of a conversation allegedly involving Judge Wingate, pointing out that this is not the first time Taitz has irresponsibly and falsely raised the claims of improper ex parte conversations, citing Rhodes v. MacDonald in Georgia, the case in which Taitz was sanctioned $20,000. From the sanctions decision in that case (Exhibit 4 in the Hawaii response):

In response to the court’s order to show cause why she should not be sanctioned with a financial penalty, counsel continued her attacks on the court, as well as her political grandstanding. …

Counsel sought recusal for the following reasons: baseless speculation that the judge might have engaged in ex parte communication with the Attorney General of the United States …

The Court found that a monetary penalty of $20,000 was imposed upon counsel as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the court.

The Mississippi Democratic Party promptly filed a joinder with the Hawaii defendants’ brief (ECF 101). I am sure that the Mississippi Democratic Party appreciated the not-too-subtle injection of the topic of sanctions into the proceeding.

Update:

Completing the agreement, defendants Obama, Obama for America and Pelosi have joined in the opposition of the Hawaii Defendants and the Mississippi Democratic Party (ECF 102), and the Mississippi Secretary of State has joined in the opposition of the Hawaii Defendants (ECF 103).

Read more:

Quiet confidence

While the future sometimes holds surprises, most things are fairly predictable, particularly when they are governed by rules (the legal system is a good example). It doesn’t take much prescience to look at a birther lawsuit and predict that it will be dismissed.

I think birthers and anti-birthers both approach a birther lawsuit with the presumption that the judge is competent and fair, particularly on the federal bench. The anti-birthers watch the cases proceed as we expect them to proceed and the decisions are what we expect them to be based on the facts and the law. Birthers, however, tend to interpret any fair application of the rules that goes in their favor as a sign that the judge is sympathetic to their case, and their ultimate loss (and they always lose) comes as a shock and evidence to them of a corrupt judiciary.

We get a taste of this in a comment yesterday from Orly Taitz about her FOIA case, Taitz v. Colvin:

The judge can see through all the lying. The question is, whether she will withstand the pressure or whether she will fold.

I look forward to Wednesday’s decision in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi with quiet confidence. Taitz’ motion for remand back to state court will be denied. Certainly the claims against the Hawaii defendants will be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over those defendants. Taitz’ motion for sanctions against the various opposition attorneys are silly, and will be denied.  I expect the defense motions for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. This is all law and facts. About the only thing I don’t know is whether Leah Lax will be let go from the lawsuit—my guess is that she will.

What I do not know is what defendants will do in an attempt to extract their well-deserved pound of flesh from Taitz. That is up to them, and they may do what they choose.

Orly weighs options

Orly Taitz writes on her blog that she is contacting the various plaintiffs in her cases to see if they want to proceed, or withdraw. She concludes:

I will see in the near future, if there will be support from the GOP or major donors. Without the support I might need to withdraw my cases and seek dismissal without prejudice. I’ve done more than most people to seek justice and uphold the  system of justice in this country. I will decide in the near future if I will proceed with the remaining challenges. I appreciate the support and encouragement from all of you. My supporters gave me the strength to go on while I was viciously attacked, however without support from the GOP and major donors and without one single honest judge willing to hear the case on the merits, I do not know if I can continue much longer.

It cost Taitz $4,000 just for one frivolous motion to compel a non-party in California, paid in sanctions to Occidental College for one opposition  legal brief and one appearance in court. Multiply that by 6 cases, over 30 defendants, multiple court appearances and thousands of pages in legal briefs. The result is staggering.

Orly can play Lady Liberty, but in the end for her it’s all about the money.

Tabulating the cost of defending a birther lawsuit

You should have known better

imageAttorneys for the Democratic Party are getting in line for a piece of the birthers. This time it’s in Tennessee in the case of Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. (sic). The US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee dismissed the suit and granted reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded to the defendants.

In a document filed late last week, the Defense details what those fees are. According the filing, the total cost of defending the lawsuit amounted to $69,932.50. Only the portion allocated to the Motion to dismiss and the Sanctions motion is to be awarded, and that comes to $22,800.

The sanctions order is being appealed.

Can you imagine what the fees would be for Orly Taitz in her case styled Judd v. Obama with no less than 31 defendants? Half a million?

Taitz sanctioned

Orly Taitz$250 is not a lot of money, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

Sources close to the Lisa Liberi/Orly Taitz lawsuit report that Taitz (pictured right) was sanctioned $250 yesterday by federal district judge Andrew J. Guilford for filing five motions in violation of the Court’s pre-filing order (motions must be approved before filing). The Court also sanctioned Tatz’s counsel Schumann, Rallo & Rosenberg, LLP in the same amount.

Taitz , Neil Sankey and an impressive list of co-defendants, are being sued by Lisa Liberi and Phil Berg, over the alleged defamation of Liberi by Taitz. Taitz stands by her claim that Liberi is a convicted felon, and has moved to have the case dismissed under the California AntiSLAPP law, a law that provides for dismissal of frivolous lawsuits filed to inhibit freedom of speech through the legal process.

I think that if anything, this is a cautionary tale about getting tangled up in a lawsuit. It looks like a total of six lawsuits/appeals and at least a dozen litigants including Oracle Corporation and Lexis/Nexis. There were 308 filings/orders one suit alone at the district level, and an appeal in Lisa Liberi et al v Orly Taitz et al is currently before the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

Learn More:

333333 44444
5555555
6666666