I agree with you that judges ought to be a lot more proactive with this stuff. But some of them have to run for office, sooo they probably just let it run its course and lose.

Sometimes judges give a warning to attorneys, and don’t sanction them as severely as possible as a form of teaching them to behave and get their sh*t in order.

Van Irion should not go in front of this judge again with this crap, or the full weight of sanctions is likely to fall on him.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

I look for Van Irion and other Birthers to say they lost on a standing technicality. They will probably fail to mention that the 21 day notice technicality saved them from a worse fate.

The judge seems to have been unnecessarily kind to the birther nutters and unreasonable towards the defendants. He’s got picky about the Rule 11 timings, which seems disproportionate compared with tolerating the plaintiffs’ persistent and unrepentant campaign of untruths, harassment and smear.

The judge says the case failed on standing so nothing else matters; that’s fine. But he then says because of lack of standing meant other factors played no part in the rejection of the case, he’s not going to grant sanctions relating to the defendants’ harassment of Ms Schulz and Mr Forrester. Although IANAL and I don’t know if that means that the birthers still have to pay the defendants’ fees and costs for those.

It’s good to see a bit more intolerance of the birthers’ campaign of paper terrorism, but I remain unimpressed at the courts’ and bars’ failure to take responsibility for finding a way to rid the courts of this paper terrorism while still allowing good access to justice for ordinary folk with complaints that have some small shred of sanity about them.