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 .....

Obama Derangement Syndrome is alive and well

It would be funny to see how crazy -- I mean, truly batshit insane -- some brain-dead wingnuts are, if it weren't so damned scary.

Here in America's Taint™, we'll be treated tomorrow to a cavalcade of stupidity, as a local radio station gives supremely undeserved airtime to a couple of lunatics who claim that President Obama isn't qualified for his office.

Dr. Orly Taitz will be a guest from 4 to 5 p.m. Tuesday on radio station WEBY 1330 AM to discuss her lawsuit over whether President Barack Obama is qualified to be president.

The interview will take place during the "Your Turn" news/interview program, station general manager Mike Bates said in a news release.

Taitz has filed five lawsuits on this issue. She represents 60 members of the U.S. military; seven state representatives from four states, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.

Army Lt. Scott Easterling, who is on active duty in Iraq, has sued in an effort to seek confirmation that orders from Obama are lawful. Taitz represents him.

Retired Major Gen. Carroll Childers has joined her lawsuit. Childers served in the military for 38 years including tours in Vietnam and Iraq.

The second hour of "Your Turn" -- 5 to 6 p.m. -- will feature attorney Mario Apuzzo. He has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

During the program, both attorneys will be asked to defend the claims made in their lawsuits, Bates said.

I might just have to listen to this one tomorrow ... maybe even call in, if they accept callers ...*

As for the "merits" of the case, it seems obvious to me that inasmuch as the Right owns and controls nearly every mainstream "news" outlet today, if there were a shred of truth to the allegations, we'd know about it. This bogus and ludicrous argument rests on the fact that the president's father was born in Kenya, thereby (so they argue) negating Obama's "natural-born" status ... or, in the alternative, that Obama was not born in Hawai'i -- maybe he was born in Kenya. As my kids might say, "puh-LEEEZ."

These people literally are stark raving mad. Check out this moron:

100% odds of success
The odds that Barak Obama (BHO) had natural born allegiances to Kenya at the moment of his birth are 100%. BHO states in his autobiography that his natural father was from Kenya. This singular fact alone disqualifies him from ever occupying the office of POTUS. It is simple and undeniable. There is no argument. This is according to 230 years of legal precedent and US State Department rulings.

50%-50%
The odds that BHO was born in Hawaii are contentious and only 50%-50%. The issue is open to argument, fraud and corruption. This can become a bloody argument in a very literal way. No matter what the facts prove, people will argue about this as long as BHO wants to.

Besides, what if he WAS born in Hawaii? Then what? A new campaign to argue the idea of Natural Born allegiances after opening with the teetering birth certificate issue? I personally suspect he was born in Kenya but, I wouldn't stake my case on it nor would I risk loosing the public interest (media attention) on such a risk. Act as if you are hunting a dangerous predator where you must completely disable it with one shot. A wounded predator on whom you've made war will try to stalk and kill you.

ALWAYS LEAD WITH:
His father was a foreigner. He has a natural born allegiance to the land of his father. This condition means by definition that he cannot ever have a Natural Born allegiance exclusively to the USA. It means he can not legally command our US military. He was never a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and never will be. It's simple and easy to understand.

[...]

Jerome Radin
Park Hills, KY

(emphases added)

No, Jerome, the simple truth of the matter is that courts throughout American history have held that "natural-born" means "born within the territory of the United States or its possessions."** The father's citizenship is completely and wholly irrelevant. The idea that we still have to discuss this, or that lunatics like Dr. Taitz can spew their idiocy on the radio, is pathetic.

Oh, by the way, what do you suppose Radin meant by disabling a "dangerous predator" "with one shot?" Doesn't take too much imagination ...

---

* Of course, it's interesting how nearly all wingnut radio shows either don't accept callers, or screen them heavily to make sure the callers are as batshit crazy as the hosts. Kind of like right-wing blogs, which almost never allow comments ... couldn't be that they don't care to have their lunacy challenged, could it?

** There is some question as to whether birth in a foreign country -- say, Panama -- to American parents might convey "natural-born" citizenship, but that's not at issue here.