As typical with Taitz, her brief is full of statements in bold type or in all-caps, including such gems as:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
Oh, but, she doesn't stop there:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of "adhering" to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Yep, that's accusing the judge of "treason!" And of course, because of Obama, she'll have no rights at all:
Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes clarifies that she objects to every order entered under the authority of this illegitimate regime. Plaintiff merely clarifies that she believes herself to be at risk of international prosecution for war crimes absent protection of the Geneva Convention if she follows this particular Commander-in-Chief’s wartime policy abroad. The situation in Iraq may indeed be much the same as it was a year ago under a different President and Commander-in-Chief, but the international status of that President as Commander-in-Chief may be radically different owing to the frauds, which led to his election victory.
Unsurprisingly, Taitz cited no caselaw, didn't address the many alternative reasons set forth in the court's opinion for dismissal, or anything else. Perhaps even less surprisingly, the court was not amused, entering an order today denying the motion, and noting:
This filing contemptuously ignores the Court’s previous admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. The Court finds that the claims and legal contentions asserted in the present motion are not warranted by existing law and that no reasonable basis exists to conclude that Plaintiff’s arguments would be accepted as an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Simply, put the motion is frivolous. Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims. Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order.
The court makes it even clearer in the end:
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.
I can only imagine the insanity we're going to get from her in response to this. (Apparently she's soliciting money on her blog, which raises all sorts of ethical-type issues.) You can expect further coverage then.
Edit: As mentioned in the comments, apparently, the party Taitz purports to represent says she didn't authorize the motion and wants to fire Orly. This isn't the first time this has happened in these cases, though prior cases have involved different groups of Birthers who wanted to pursue different "theories" ("Born in Kenya" v. "surrendered citizenship" v. "father isn't citizen, so he isn't").
Edit 2: RecList? Wow. Though I should note that I am concerned that devoting too much attention to these folks draws attention away from the very real issues that are still out there which are why we elected Obama.
Comments are closed on this story.