SANTA ANA -- A Rancho Santa Margarita-based attorney leading the so- called "birther movement," which seeks to prove President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, was sanctioned Tuesday by a federal judge who ordered her to pay a $20,000 fine for "frivolous" legal attempts to keep her case alive in his Georgia courtroom.

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land of the Middle District of Georgia in a ruling handed down Tuesday consistently mocked Orly Taitz's legal actions in his courtroom and angrily denied her claims that he is biased.

As she has done in other lawsuits throughout the country, including in Orange County and in Texas, Taitz represented an Army reservist who challenged his deployment to Afghanistan, claiming Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be commander in chief.

Taitz has made the same legal argument in Orange County in a case before U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter. Carter is considering the U.S. Justice Department's motion to dismiss Taitz's case. Taitz's goal is to have Obama unseated and for another presidential election to be held.

In Judge Land's court, Taitz first represented Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, but that case became moot when the Army revoked his deployment orders. Still, Taitz pressed the case despite Land dismissing it in July.

"Her actions confirmed that counsel's focus was not to obtain legal relief on behalf of Major Cook; rather, the objective was to maintain a legal action in federal court in hopes of having a federal judge permit discovery that would require the President of the United States to produce a `birth certificate' that was satisfactory to counsel and her followers," Land wrote in his ruling.

Taitz tried again in August when she represented Capt. Connie Rhodes, a physician who similarly fought her assignment to Iraq. That case was booted out of the Texas court, but since Rhodes had to stop at Fort Benning, Ga., Taitz filed the case in federal Georgia court, again landing in Judge Land's courtroom. Land said he rescheduled a trial to squeeze in an emergency hearing on Taitz's request for an injunction, but he dismissed it because he found her claims speculative and did not think it legally proper for the courts to interfere in military affairs.

Land threatened to sanction Taitz if she refiled her lawsuit. The next day she filed a motion to reconsider and continued to pursue her case even after Rhodes fired her, according to Land.

"Counsel used the motion for reconsideration as a platform to repeat her political diatribe against the President, to accuse (Judge Land) of treason," and to maintain the federal courts are subject to "political pressure," Land wrote.

"This is obviously a biased judge who completely distorted each and every word in the proceedings," Taitz said. "He is clearly working as a puppet for the Obama regime."

Taitz said she did not have time to comment further as she said a producer of a news program was flying her to New York City for an interview tonight. She would not say which show it was, claiming she did not want to "jinx it." She feared if word got out the producers would be politically pressured to cancel her appearance. Taitz said that several TV show producers have been fired for political reasons for booking her.

Taitz also claimed Judge Carter has enough evidence to order a trial, but Carter has only set a tentative trial date and has halted the discovery process until he rules on the motion to dismiss.

Land ridiculed Taitz's claims that the judge met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in a coffee shop as he considered Taitz's case, as well as her argument that he ruled against her because he has stock in Microsoft and Comcast.

Taitz filed an affidavit from Robert D. Douglas saying he saw someone who looked like Holder talking to Judge Land in a coffee shop across from the federal courthouse.

"As to whether the attorney general took time out of his busy schedule to visit an `obscure' `coffee shop' in Columbus, Ga., on July 16, 2009, the court cannot definitively say because the court was not there. What the court can say is that no reasonable attorney would rely upon this affidavit in support of a legal argument in a court of law," the judge wrote, noting that widespread news reports put Holder in Los Angeles that day anyway.

"Counsel's contention that (Judge Land) has a financial interest in this case is perhaps more preposterous than the phantom visit with the attorney general," Land wrote. "Furthermore, counsel's suggestion that if she were to succeed on her frivolous claim, and as a result the president were removed from office, that these two companies would suffer as a result is so speculative and ridiculous that it is not worthy of additional comment."

Land initially sought to fine Taitz $10,000 but, when she continued to defy him, he doubled it as a deterrent.

After Land's rulings against her, Taitz sought to have him removed, but Land also refused that motion saying she did not allege bias until after he ruled against her.

Land's ruling might be considered in the case before Carter. Justice Department attorneys in that case argued it is not proper for the courts to remove a president and that only the Electoral College and Congress have that authority. Land agreed with that argument in this ruling.

"Our founders provided opportunities for a president's qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct involvement by the judiciary," Land wrote.

If a rogue candidate not qualified to be president slipped through then it's more proper for Congress to remove the president through impeachment, Land wrote.

Taitz's "wild accusations may be protected by the 1st Amendment when she makes them on her blog or in her press conferences, but the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a platform for political rhetoric and personal insults," Land wrote.