Federal judge fines ‘birther’ attorney $20k for frivolous suit
This just posted by the Associated Press, via the Fulton County Daily Report:
A federal judge [in Columbus] issued a $20,000 sanction against a leader of the “birther” movement challenging President Barack Obama’s citizenship and warned her against using the courts to press “wild accusations.”
U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land’s scathing 43-page order Tuesday found that California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz filed “frivolous” litigation and is attempting to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Land said in the ruling he issued the $20,000 penalty “as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct and to protect the integrity of the court.” Land was appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush.
Taitz told The Fulton County Daily Report the order was “an absolute outrage.”
She said it was issued “with a goal to intimidate me, harass me and retaliate against me for bringing a legitimate action on behalf of my client.”
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
115 comments Add your comment
Sanity
October 14th, 2009
10:39 am
It couldn’t of happened to a better loon.
Taitz and her loony followers are seriously unhinged.
Rich
October 14th, 2009
10:54 am
It’s “couldn’t have happened,” Sanity.
And right you are.
James
October 14th, 2009
10:59 am
Judge Land says Orly has STANDING!!!! Obama Show Your Birth Certificate!
From the Order:
“Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as citizens, to seek from their president proof of where he was born”
He uses the word “Have” to indicate a post-election and current inquiry. Certainly, Land has indicated that certainly there is means by which citizens can question the eligibility of Obama (Proof of where he was born.)
Daedalus
October 14th, 2009
11:08 am
Please keep hammering away at this you wing-nuts.
The more you bring it up the more it discredits the GOP and conservatives. There are plenty of serious issues that need a conservative point of view as part of the discussion, but no, the GOP wants to focus on the lunatic fringe.
No wonder the GOP has become the party of choice for angry white people.
Loggie
October 14th, 2009
11:18 am
yes, James. There is a means by which you can question a president’s eligibility. Through Congress. Congress has the sole authority to determine a president’s eligibility, not the courts.
Road Scholar
October 14th, 2009
11:21 am
Why doesn’t he double the fine for contempt of the court!
James
October 14th, 2009
11:31 am
According to some courts, the time for Congress to act has passed. However, Land has indicated the Orly CURRENTLY has standing to demand proof of Obama’s eligiblity. Orly, therefore is entitled to discovery. Obama! Show Your Birth Certificate. Judge Land is also wholly incorrect on his premise that only Congress can weigh Obama’s eligibility. Obama eligibility is directly tied to Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. According to Constitution: The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
Ellid
October 14th, 2009
11:34 am
With all due respect to James, I believe a federal judge is more acquainted with the law than a wingnut blogger with too much time on his hands.
James
October 14th, 2009
11:37 am
Further, no where in the Consitution does it state that Congress is responsible for the eligibility of the POTUS. According to the 9th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
James
October 14th, 2009
11:49 am
The Constitution does state who is eligible to be POTUS and it does state the process of how the POTUS is elected. However, the Constitution doesn’t state the specific mechanism to insure the eligibility of the POTUS. This task is given to the people under the 9th admendent. All citizens should have standing to insure that their POTUS is eligible. Since the eligibility of the POTUS is directly tied a provision in the Constitution, any contraversy about it must and shall be heard by the courts. (The Judicial Branch)
James
October 14th, 2009
11:49 am
The Constitution does state who is eligible to be POTUS and it does state the process of how the POTUS is elected. However, the Constitution doesn’t state the specific mechanism to insure the eligibility of the POTUS. This task is given to the people under the 9th admendent. All citizens should have standing to insure that their POTUS is eligible. Since the eligibility of the POTUS is directly tied a provision in the Constitution, any contraversy about it must and shall be heard by the courts. (The Judicial Branch)—
Coastal Cavalier
October 14th, 2009
11:52 am
All this does is fan the flames of the birther nuts…just dismiss the suit and move on. They now have another conspiracy to scream about.
cmsfk
October 14th, 2009
12:00 pm
“She said it was issued “with a goal to intimidate me, harass me and retaliate against me for bringing a legitimate action on behalf of my client.”
OR
The lawsuit was filed “with a goal to intimidate Obama, harass Obama and retaliate against Obama for winning a legitimate election on behalf of the American people.”
Hmmm…
Parc
October 14th, 2009
12:14 pm
You are either painfully stupid or woefully misguided (both?). I’m not a Republican, but I have friends who are, and I speak for them when I say that you are an embarrassment.
Parc
October 14th, 2009
12:16 pm
That last comment was @James, obviously.
PerryMason
October 14th, 2009
12:28 pm
James-I know I’m wasting my breath asking you to actually read the judge’s decision, something you are obviously incapable of doing. The hudge asys that Orly has the right to her political opinion on this this or any other matter, jusy like me and even you (as uninformed as yours and Orly’s are). She can have her website and petition Congress to her hert’s content, as can you. What she most certainly does not have the right to do is attempt to use the courts to establish her political goals and waste the time of judges, US attorneys and others who have better things to do than listen to her never-ending whine.
Obama is the President. He followed exactly the same process as his 43 predecessors. Before you ask him to follow a different process from all the others, I suggest you read up on “equal protection” and what the courts have held that to mean.
Loggie
October 14th, 2009
1:05 pm
James, his eligibility has been decided. He is now the president of the United States. The constitution is very clear that the method for removing a president is Impeachment proceedings. Only congress has the authority to question his eligibility now. Only congress has the power to remove him from office. Yourself, and Orly Taitz, need to petition your elected representatives. But it’s a high bar.. You need to convince 2/3d’s of congress (both the house and Senate) that he’s ineligible to be president. Best of luck.
Emery
October 14th, 2009
1:11 pm
So an attorney has no right to bring a file a case in our courts? You see the Orwellian fasicst liberal state growing like a cancer. Judge Land is just another example of a judge that does not have the integrity to serve in his office. The court system has been corrupted to serve those in power. The judiciary should be independent of and not dominated by the elite who back Obama.
“The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“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.”
Majority Will
October 14th, 2009
1:24 pm
“The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.”
BZZZT Wrong, pseudo legal expert.
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
- Judge Clay D. Land, United States District Court
“So an attorney has no right to bring a file a case in our courts?”
Wow. Way to miss the point entirely. Where did you pass the bar?
Did you read the Order Denying Motion for Recusal? It nicely sums up why you’re wrong. Your specious and fallacious nonsense doesn’t even approach coherent or relevant.
Majority Will
October 14th, 2009
1:26 pm
James blathered, “Since the eligibility of the POTUS is directly tied a provision in the Constitution, any contraversy about it must and shall be heard by the courts.”
So, once again:
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
- Judge Clay D. Land, United States District Court
Majority Will
October 14th, 2009
1:31 pm
“With all due respect to James, I believe a federal judge is more acquainted with the law than a wingnut blogger with too much time on his hands.”
Amen, but I think you’re being too kind with the part about due respect. I’d go with derision to these armchair, pseudo legal sputterers many of whom copy and paste from fright wing, lie filled blogs like Whirled Nut Daily as if it was gospel.
PerryMason
October 14th, 2009
1:38 pm
Emery-Attorneys have the rights to file a case where an actual case exists. What they do not have the right to do is:
1. Jurisdiction shop-Filing the same case in multiple courts in the hope that some judge somewhere will see things their way. Everyone gets their day in court, not their month, year, decade or lifetime in court. What about the rights of someone with a real case in Judge Land’s court whose access to justice may be impeded by one plaintiff tying up the court with her stupid nonsense? They have rights too.
2. Impugning the honor of a judge based on no evidence other than someone who thinks they saw the Attorney General in a coffee shop in Columbus, GA (when he was actually in Los Angeles).
The jurisdiction of the courts is not absolute. They are supposed to be one of 3 co-equal branches, not above the Executive or the Legislature. There are a number of realms that are not subject to court review. One example is impeachment. The Constitution does not define “high crimes and misdemeanors”; rather it leaves that up to Congress in individual cases. And the judgements of Congress are NOT subject to judicial review; an impeached and convicted official is removed from office and cannot appeal to the courts.
The meaning of “natural born citizen” is a similar case. There are in fact 2 bodies charged with determining its meaning-the Electoral College when they vote and Congress when they count the Electoral College votes. They didn’t agree with the great and all-wise Emery-too bad for you…
Paul
October 14th, 2009
1:49 pm
Was $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect for a reporter job with “Fake News”.
Grumpy
October 14th, 2009
1:52 pm
Hey, James. Time to take your chill pill and call your doctor. Clay Land is one of the most politically conservative Republicans who ever walked into a courtroom or legislative chamber. But even he’s wise enough not to get caught up with a bunch of quasi-legal beagle nutjobs who otherwise couldn’t find their butts with a flashlight and a copy of Grey’s Anatomy.
Sanity
October 14th, 2009
1:57 pm
James wrote: “Further, no where in the Consitution does it state that Congress is responsible for the eligibility of the POTUS. According to the 9th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Well, James, since you want the states to decide, you are in luck. The state of hawaii has decided it for you. He was born in Honolulu and is therefore eligible to be POTUS.
Birtherman
October 14th, 2009
2:06 pm
Still no birth certificate. Just hearsay or is it heresy?
Crazed Right-wingnut
October 14th, 2009
2:09 pm
I guess everyone is crazy for asking if our President is legitimate. They had Congressional hearings to determine if John McCain was eligible. I guess Obama gets a pass because he’s black and a Marxist. The only loons I see are the ones that voted for this treasonous, seditious traitor. These are the same people with the entitlement mentality that believe they’re entitled to get everything for nothing. Pretty soon they’ll be dragging everyone else down to their level of poverty because no one wants to work as a slave to support indolence.
PerryMason
October 14th, 2009
2:17 pm
“Obama gets a pass…”
Where can I find birth certificates for the 43 presidents before him? Surely they all showed theirs, right? What, they didn’t? Then they are all imposters, every one of them…
So what?
October 14th, 2009
2:18 pm
The more you cling to this ludicrous belief about President Obama the more insane you look.
Crazed Right-wingnut
October 14th, 2009
2:18 pm
FederalJudge Land should be removed from the bench for being mentally-impaired and politically compromised. Federal judges get kickbacks from the gvoernment beyond their salaries.
Crazed Right-wingnut
October 14th, 2009
2:19 pm
Perry Mason and So What? are still drinking their Obama kool-aid and eating the mushrooms.
Lilly
October 14th, 2009
2:27 pm
You brain dead liberals are so tiresome. Wing nuts, neo cons, bla bla bla, same worn-out “insults” you’ve been using for years. C’mon you hopeless dopes, let’s get creative here with our name calling already. Then again, you poor lefties need others to tell you what to think, who to hate, etc., so this whole thinking on your own thing will be tricky. You can do it. (The birthers are wrong, btw.)
Decatur Greg
October 14th, 2009
2:28 pm
@James: Please provide proof you have stopped beating your wife. If you are not able or willing to do this please turn yourself into the authorities.
Shananeeeee Fananeeeeeee
October 14th, 2009
2:29 pm
Obammy could end this madness by doing one thing, release his birth certificate. Come on Mr. President, what is the big deal, it is just a birth certificate. Maybe you have something to hide sir? You probably do, you have lied about numerous other things. He will be raising taxes on the middle class to get his health care thing done when he promised he would not. He promised a 5 day grace period before signing bills so we the people could check them out and give our input which he wanted on the White House website. Another lie. He was going to end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. Another lie. How about the $3,000 tax credit to buisnessess for each additional full time employee hired? Another lie. He promised big roundtable debates on CSPAN with him, doctors, drug companies, and insurance companies about healthcare. Another lie. You have plenty to hide Mr. President. You Lie Mr. President!!!
Decatur Greg
October 14th, 2009
2:32 pm
@Crazed: Good comeback! what’s next? “oh yeah!!” or maybe “takes one to know one” how about “my daddy can beat up your daddy” ROFL!!!!
Decatur Greg
October 14th, 2009
2:34 pm
Taitz is “touched” … in the head as we say in the South.
JD
October 14th, 2009
2:34 pm
Judge Carter in California apparently disagrees with Judge Land, at least as far as the right of the people to question the eligibility for office, and has set a trial date. Judge Carter is a Marine so perhaps he has the fortitude to stay the course.
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
Wonder why the “Political Insider” does not relay this information? Does the “Insider” have an agenda or does the AJC squash items that do not support the Marxist agenda?
Majority Will
October 14th, 2009
2:41 pm
“The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!”
BZZZT. Wrong. It’s procedural and means nothing. You obviously have no actual legal knowledge no matter what the voices in your head or your sock puppets tell you it “implies”. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! You birfoons are so pathetic.
You are dismissed.
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
- Judge Clay D. Land, United States District Court
atlshirt.com
October 14th, 2009
2:44 pm
Actually, Obama is really Bush Seniors son, from the black hooker over in kenya.. thats why he doesnt want to show his birth certificate.. You guys really think your vote counts :LOL: too funny.. all of you have been duped once again by the big bad government…
Do you think change is really coming ?? If change was coming, why did Obama not fire all of Bush jr’s (his older brother) white house advisors, but instead, he kept every single one as his own advisors :LOL:
Just keep on fighting between one another, that is what government wants all of us to do.. so that they can keep stealing our money while we just fight and fight and fight :LOL: !!!!
Majority Will
October 14th, 2009
2:45 pm
Here’s another clue for “JD”.
Read Judge Land’s Order Denying Motion for Recusal. You might then understand why 55 frivolous, tax wasting cases and counting have been dismissed.
(But I seriously doubt you’re capable.)
F-105 Thunderchief
October 14th, 2009
2:46 pm
The birth certificate has been produced people. Dang.
Doubtful
October 14th, 2009
2:47 pm
JD, you are showing your ignorance. Even Gary Kreep has conceded that the Motion to Dismiss in Barnett v. Obama is likely to be granted based on Judge Carter’s statements at the October 5 hearing.
Of course anything can happen. But your argument that “the implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious” is just blowing smoke. Judge Carter’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss will be out soon. Any bets on which way it’s going to go?
Falcon Josh
October 14th, 2009
2:48 pm
I see everybody is getting along today!!
Karl Rover
October 14th, 2009
2:55 pm
I really miss the good old days of public flogging… It would be perfect for the plaintiff instead of a fine if you want a real deterrent
Chris Broe
October 14th, 2009
2:57 pm
Issue One: When the POTUS was a FETUS, was he on US soil? We say NO! We want to secede, one section of the country at a time, until Obama isn’t president of squat!
Welcome to the Born-again Birther C-sectionist movement that’s destroying what’s left of the Republican Party’s credibility.
Paul
October 14th, 2009
3:02 pm
Was $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect for a reporter job with “Fake News”.
CRYSTAL
October 14th, 2009
3:04 pm
I personally think that the whole purpose of this issue is because he was born in Hawaii. There are some people who question whether someone born in Hawaii is even a US citizen because we are the only state with a nonwhite majority population. I wonder what she would have done if Obama had been born before Hawaii became a state? She would have claimed that he was not a citizen because he would have been born in the Territory of Hawaii.
PerryMason
October 14th, 2009
3:04 pm
It’s so much fun watching “conservatives” demand that unelected, activist judges overturn the clearly expressed will of the voters and their elected representatives.
Susie HomeMaker
October 14th, 2009
3:07 pm
Saw Orly on Joy Behar last night. Joy asked her if she was such a good american then why didn’t she bring suit against Bush when it was found out about that there were no WMD’s. Orly sputtered, then held up some documents that stated (at least she SAID they stated), that she found that the Republican Gov. of Hawaii was coerced into saying that the birth certificate on file for Obama was the real thing. She said the Gov. was scared that Hawaii wouldn’t get any stimulus funds if she didn’t do it.
PS: The part about the Hawaii Gov and the stimulus funds is a lie. I just made it up. I’m wondering though how long it’ll take that lie to fly around the internet? Maybe Orly will see it and put it in her defense!!! I mean if she believed the one about the AG and the Judge seen eating lunch, she should buy my lie too!!
Ande
October 14th, 2009
3:11 pm
I have no idea why this continues to be an issue nearly a year after the man was elected. Don’t you all think that his eligibility to be president was checked out when he submitted his papers to run for office? You fools are crazy time-wasters.