I apologize if this has been diaried earlier; I just returned home and was pleased to see that Judge Carter had joined every other judge so far in throwing out Orly Taitz's lawsuit.
It seems her little tantrums at the other judges who disagreed with her did not go unnoticed.
The case was dismissed due to lack of standing, but the Judge made enough complaints about Taitz's comportment during the hearings (and outside the hearings), that I expect the California Bar will have more to consider when it weighs the case for disbarment.
Something very ironic about all this: Every judge who rules against Taitz, every media outlet that critizes her, and every blogger that mocks her is, to Taitz, evidence that we are living in a dictatorial Stalinesque regime. In other words, if everyone in the United States does not universally share ONE VIEW--her view--to her, that is evidence of a dictatorship. That is actually the best evidence of DEMOCRACY. Only in a Stalin-esque dictatorship would you have a media, a judiciary, and a populace putting forth a singular viewpoint. She does not recognize that she is a dissenter, and she has been allowed to dissent. The failure of others to agree with her dissent is not the equivalent of suppressing dissent.
Here are some choice bits (you can read the full ruling here).
First, he summarizes her argument:
Plaintiffs ask this Court to delcare that the current President of the United States is illegitimate and fails to meet the constitutional requirements to hold office.
Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but instead seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.
Judge Carter points out something very interesting--that Taitz is asking him to leave the country defenseless by having a period when no one would be able to order the military to do anything. Hmm, is this a secret plot so that Taitz can then stage the revolution she has suggested is necessary?
He addresses Taitz's desire to have President Obama (and Biden should he have to assume office) from issuing any orders to the military thusly:
This 'cut and run' call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military. Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs.
Like Judge Land, Judge Carter recognizes that these active duty personnel are less concerned about Obama's legitimacy than they are with the possibility of having to fulfill their military obligations and ship out to Iraq or Afghanistan. He has harsh words for those soldiers:
Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the President takes as commander-in-chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the Court to suspect that the Constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to countries where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan." (Here, he refers to Rhodes.)
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Apparently Taitz made the bizarre claim that one of the plaintiffs, named Kurt Fuqua, could trace his genealogy to Obama's family tree and that he therefore had standing because of "family relationship" and "concerns of the family medical history." Justice Carter did not buy it.
He also talks about the standing (or lack thereof) of Keyes and Lightfoot, who ran for the Presidency/Vice Presidency and points out that they were not injured because they never would have won, having received only "four-hundredth of one percent of the vote":
The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter." He says they could potentially have had standing, if the Court had any remedy to redress the grievance, but since it does not, they do not have standing.
He adds this footnote:
The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.
Judge Carter concludes that for the courts to judge the president illegitimate violates the separation of powers clause. In conclusion on standing:
The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing on injury-in-fact and redressability grounds. Plaintiffs' declaratory relief, injunction, and Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED.
On Taitz's Quo Warranto claims: Quo warranto DISMISSED for improper venue.
On her Discovery and FIOA claims, Carter basically makes Taitz's ongoing search for all the "Kenyan" birth certificates a worthless endeavor for this and every future case--he doesn't care whether they are authentic or not; he simply does not believe in accepting a Kenyan document as more valid than a US one:
Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved...Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
Judge Carter tells Taitz her failure in 6 months to set forth the RICO claim she said she planned to pursue due to its "complexity" is "inexcusable."
Now the best part, regarding the "Conduct of Plaintiff's Counsel," something you don't see in every ruling:
Plaintiffs' arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs' counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.
This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service.
It took her more than half a year, and she still couldn't get it right.
Disbarment in order?
Taitz...continually refused to comply with court rules and procedures.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision.
The Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this court...the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel in her efforts to influence this court.
Taitz is beyond an idiot if she did not think Judge Carter would take into consideration what she was saying about Judge Land:
Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by "We the People"--over sixty-nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers the commitment to that Constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
I wonder if the Birthers will continue with the march Taitz has called for against Fox News and the combined boycott until Bill O'Reilly "announces the court dates on his show."
She has been lambasting thousands of media members all week in e-mails that chastize them for not posting the "court date" she has been insisting she has. She will perceive Judge Carter's ruling as further evidence that someone "got to Judge Carter"; to her, he was on her side when he gave her the court date and now he has "changed his mind." She cannot comprehend that the court dates were set as a procedural matter and not as a sign of siding with her on the case.
UPDATE: Here is part of Orly's response. She claims to have been interviewed by several major networks and is busy thinking about what the Judge's order means and how to respond. She (most unfortunately) assures everyone that it is not the end and she will take it further. Her response makes it clear that she is worried about disbarment, and she frantically tries to counter these remarks before going off again about the "Social Security numbers" that are more of an obsession to her than the birth issue. Someone really needs to explain to her that whatever she is accessing to view Social Security numbers is not a sacred, infallible database. Here is a portion of Orly's response (spelling errors are hers), with a few comments and my favorite parts in bold:
I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing [She has misread Carter's order as saying Keyes and Lightfoot had standing, which is not the case.] I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.
First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. [NO Orly, it won't matter in the appeal because you have to get past the issue of standing, and you failed. The comments on your conduct are independent of the rationale for the decision.] I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong. [And I guess Judge Carter was right in noting how she attacks the characters of the judges when she loses, which is unethical in and of itself and shows a lack of respect for the law and should invite disbarment.]
Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him. This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases? [Yep, there she goes, attacking the poor law clerk because he worked at a giant firm where some lawyers were Obama supporters.]
There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.
Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. [Enough with the Social Security numbers already.]
Clearly Orly has a screw LOOSE:
How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice [Does she mean laryngitis?], when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt
Maybe her disbarred legal assistant can console her tonight?
Courtesy of a link to Texasbroadcasting.net, posted by Native Born Citizen (on top of all things Orly), the Birther loons respond, including threats against Judge Carter's life:
BobAnthony: JUDGE DAVID CARTER, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN YOUR LIFE TRAITOR!
State CT
Will: is this more DIS information? untill i hear from orly i refuse to believe anything someone posts on any site. and if its true like someone said a while back, GET A ROPE
will
Claudia: CARTER IS A TRAITOR TO THE OFFICE, TO HIS COUNTRY AND TO THE OATH HE TOOK AS A MARINE.... It is time for a full out revolution and we have to get rid of all of them, not just Obama, but EVERY ONE OF THOSE THAT ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY. OH,... AND I FORGOT TO SAY THAT CARTER IS A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION and our (very sane) hope that this could all be solved in a decent manner as the Constitution has willed us to do, he simply threw out all of our protections that are built into said Constitution for protection from exactly this type of thing happening, out the window with the baby and the bathwater. I hope that he sleeps well at night when he sees what will start happening soon. And that the price he was paid for this abomination ws really high, for he will never be that rich that he can shut his eyes ever again with comfort, because someone will get him!!!!
BobAnthony (again): And Claudia, if it means an armed revolution...SO BE IT! IT'S TIME TO TAKE THIS TO THE STREETS!
CrazyGeek (aptly named): If it is indeed true, Carter can go to sleep peacefully knowing that he has just done more than any one man, other than BOZO, to light the fires to a possible civil war bond fire like this country hasn't witnessed since 1861!
Rosemary1 (the rare voice of reason among Birthers):The sad truth is that Carter was not "bought off" or anything of the kind. NO court in the country, including the Supreme Court, is going to overturn a Presidential election for all the reasons Carter gave. Orly is wasting her time and we had better face facts.