U.S. District Judge Clay Land, who issued a deliciously blistering opinion dismissing Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.'s case in Georgia a week or so ago, has responded to her motion for recusal by upping her sanctions from $10,000 to $20,000.
Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000
Link to Judge Land’s Order
That’s an unfortunate place for an ambiguous apostrophe.
ORLY?
I will never, ever get tired of that
I can only hope and pray that staunch “conservatives” will defray the costs of her sanctions that she might continue to pursue this legal action. Because it’s damned good entertainment. It’s a pity that it will likely end in disbarment proceedings sooner rather than later (on account of that being the end of the fun, not on account of said proceedings being inappropriate in any way).
According to the TPM link I posted above, she’s saying she’s going to refuse to pay the fine. Judge Land has given her 30 days to pay up or be turned over to the AG for collection. This is like watching one of those police chases on the local news. You know the perp is never going to get away, but it’s fascinating to watch all the weird things they try.
YARLY.
Neither will I
I only know about the US legal system from watching ‘Law and Order’ 
, so please can you answer my questions?
Thank you!
Yes. What she says (and keeps saying) is that because Obama is not an American, troops may not be deployed without violating their constitutional right to have a president who is a natural born citizen.
The Court seems to have ruled that she violated Rule 11 by filing an action for an improper purpose which had no reasonable chance of success under existing law or any extension of it. Rule 11 sanctions are not the same as contempt exactly – the rule impses on attorneys the obligation to certify (amoung other things) that the actions they file are non-frivolous at risk of sanctions to them personally.
Yes. No. Sort of. Anybody can appeal anything, though I don’t know off the top of my head (thank goodness) whether Rule 11 orders can be appealed as of right or whether she has to ask permission of the Court to appeal. However, The Federal Appellate rules have also got a special rule for frivolous appeals which the 11th Circuit may be more than happy to invoke. In law nobody has the right to file a frivolous appeal.
Admission to practice in the federal trial courts is separate from but dependent on a license to practice law some state. Many federal courts, including the one in question, have a rule that local counsel must be associated if the attorney’s license is from some other state than the one where the court sits. This is because state law governs some matters in the federal courts and it is goodf to have someone around who knows what it is when it comes up. However, as in this case, the court is allowed to waive that requirement.
In theory an attorney could be barred from federal practice in a particular district without implicating his (state issued) bar card. However, the usual case is for the court to forward a transcript to the State Bar with a recommendation that they proceed as they see fit. They generally see fit to disbar or suspend the lawyer shortly thereafter.
At least in the State where I left, the state bar association recommends disbarment to the state supreme court, which then makes the disbarment official, I don’t know how they do it elsewhere. However, any judge may bar a lawyer from practicing in his/her court; I think in theory that a judge of the federal trial court could bar a lawyer from practicing in that judicial district. I am not sure abotu that last, it doesn’t come up all that often.
Heh. I started to answer glee, good thing I previewed. 
How does one land a hard-on on someone?
I think it involves trampolines and slings mounted to the ceiling.
I missed this in my first reading of the order
“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 … 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? 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.”
And in the attached footnote:
“The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a ‘round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,’ asserted that the President is not human.”
A marvelous trainwreck, to be sure!
Wow. The crazies are out and about.
Also, I like the eloquence of this footnote.
Why do I know this woman’s name? I mean, she’s a legal mind on a par with those who argue that they don’t have to pay taxes because the courtroom flag has a gold fringe, and I don’t even live in the same country. How can it possibly be that she has attained this level of significance?
America is the Land of Opportunity dontcha know eh?
I will, however, give her credit for permitting me to enjoy this court decision. It’s a minor masterpiece of amply justified judicial crabbiness.
Actually it can, by act of Congress certifying that the inhabitants of a territory under U.S. jurisdiction are and have been since a previous date citizens of the U.S. Persons born after the retroactivity date would then become natural born citizens. This is not hypothetical – it actually occurred as regards Puerto Rico in 1952, with a backdating to January 1941.