Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Orly Taitz

Sometimes, moronic idiots get what's coming to them.

This may never have been true more than it is today, as Leader of the Birthers Orly Taitz ("J.D.," DDS) has gotten her richly deserved smackdown (PDF) in federal court.

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.

It is irrefutable that a lawyer owes her client zealous advocacy, but her zeal must be constrained within the bounds placed upon her as an officer of the Court and under the Court’s rules. See e.g., Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 323 (1981) (though a lawyer “has a duty to advance all colorable claims and defenses . . . [i]t is the obligation of any lawyer . . . not to clog the courts with frivolous motions or appeals”). Specifically, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly sets forth the outer boundaries of acceptable attorney conduct. That rule prohibits a lawyer from asserting claims or legal positions that are not well-founded under existing law or through the modification, extension, or expansion of existing law. Rule 11 also prohibits an attorney from using the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a legitimate legal cause of action. Cf., e.g., Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1558-59 (11th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (noting that members of the bar have a “special administrative responsibility in the judicial process” and that monetary sanctions may be imposed for “an unjustified failure to carry out” this special responsibility (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.

Oh, SNAP!

A little background: Ms. Taitz, who earned her law degree from an unaccredited correspondence school (only California allows graduates of such "institutions" to take the Bar exam), repeatedly brought motions in federal court to "prove" that President Obama is not a "natural-born citizen" of the United States and thus is ineligible to serve as president ... even though he already produced his birth certificate in an effort to appease whackjobs like Taitz. She was threatened with sanctions last month by the federal district court for the Middle District of Georgia, but a week ago she went ahead and stuck her foot in her mouth again by claiming, through a "client," that the judge was improperly influenced by the White House.

And now she's out 20 large. Couldn't happen to a nicer more batshit crazy person.

But, hey, Orly, at least your twenty grand bought you a coveted award, right? Because today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

UPDATE (5:42 pm 10/13/09): Apparently our lawyer-dentist friend has no intention of paying the fine. And she's already talking about appeals.

The problem for her is that discipline of this nature is wholly within the discretion of the district court. And higher courts, be they the federal circuit courts or SCOTUS, generally will not overturn or invalidate such an action by a lower court unless there has been a clear "abuse of discretion." I'd bet my bottom dollar they don't find any abuse of discretion here.

Hope you're ready to fill some cavities, Orly, because I don't think you'll be practicing law a whole lot longer .....