For more background please see profmatt's excellent diary posted Friday and NoVa Boy's from Thursday.

And we're off! (I go to Orly's site so you don't have to).

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ Notice. Important

September 20th, 2009 I am submitting tomorrow to judge Carter a response to defendant’s motion. I will be busy today and tomorrow and will not have much time for blogging. Thank you for understanding. I will respond to Judge Land’s outrageous attack and threat of sanctions. This is very similar to what I have seen in the communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union. When judges refuse to hear the cases on the merits, when they summarily dismiss the case within a couple of days while they are supposed to give the counsel 20 days to respond by their own rules, when they take away from the plaintiffs their right to trial by jury, when they stifle free speech and take away right to counsel by threatening $10,000 sanctions if the attorney ever brings Obama illegitimacy case again, that is tyranny. That is judiciary as well as the top brass in the Department of Justice and Department of Defense colluding in perpetrating massive fraud and treason on the citizens of this country and taking away their constitutional rights. What is next? They will throw me in FEMA GULAG? I hope each and every citizen of this country rises against this tyranny. I will be seeking all means of redress available to me by law. I will be seeking Rule 11 discovery to prove that Obama is indeed illegitimate, my case was not frivolous and not only I don’t owe $10,000 in sanctions, but the defendants owe costs and my reasonable attorneys fees. These fees just went up significantly.

It must be illegal to threaten to extort higher fees in response to a Judge's Order, right?

Her client has already asked that Orly be removed from the case and stated that she did not authorize Orly's latest court filing in response to the Judge's dismissal of her case (in which she accused the judge of treason, among other things). Further, she announced she would file a complaint against Orly with the California bar.

karmacop outlnes Orly's possible ethical violations:

Filing a document without your client's consent, or even consulting your client at all. Filing a patently frivolous document without any legal support whatsoever. Soliciting funds from non-clients to pay for representation of your client. The third might be the worst. There are very strict rules preventing non-client third parties from funding another person's representation. It can happen in some limited circumstances (for example, parents paying for their child's legal defense, etc.), but waivers have to be obtained and rules have to be followed. Soliciting money on the internet to fund litigation is nowhere close to ethical (if, in fact, she is using that money to support her litigation).

I can't wait to see Orly's next filing, as promised, in response to the Judge's Order, which states:

She has provided no legal or factual basis for the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army. She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action. She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a "prevaricator," allege that the President’s father was "disloyal and possibly treacherous" to the "British Crown," accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are "subservient" to the "illegitimate" "de facto President." Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action. *** The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.

This is delicious. What will be the ultimate outcome for the Birther Queen?