She’s not very happy about it either and has filled a Motion for Reconsideration in Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto. Her quest with this one? To prove its all Obama’s fault and make him pay her back for the sanctions.
“In the 06.18.10 order this court stated that Taitz has no standing to raise generalized grievances. Per Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992) to establish standing the plaintiffs must satisfy 3 prong test:1. plaintiffs must have suffered an injury in fact, economic or otherwise; 2. there must be a causal connection between plaintiffs injuries and the challenged action; 3. a favorable decision in the case must be likely to redress plaintiffs injuries.”
“So far, over a 100 legal actions have been filed around this nation in federal and state courts by numerous attorneys and pro se litigants.”
(And every one of them has been thrown out)
“None of these cases were heard on the merits”
(Because they didn’t have any merits)
“According to Black Law Dictionary evidence is something... that tends to prove or disprove the existence of the alleged fact.”
(OMG she finally looked that word up! It’s about friggin time! However, reading the rest of her Motion proves that the definition of that word flew right over her peroxide damaged brain.)
“Alleged fact in this case is STANDING. The defendant claims that Taitz does not have standing to proceed in her causes of action for Common Law fraud and Elections fraud because she did not sustain a particularized injury and does not have standing. Taitz is bringing evidence of injury to prove standing. Taitz is statng that she has perfect standing, since a. the defendant committed fraud in order to get into the White House b. he intended to defraud the whole nation, including Federal judges c. Judge Clay D. Land in GA was one of the targets of such fraud, he believed Obama to be legitimate for the position of the US presidency and therefore he believed that the fact that Taitz represented active duty officers of the US military, challenging such legitimacy was frivolous and sanctioned Taitz $20,000 for allegedly bringing a frivolous law suit. Never in her life was Taitz sanctioned: never before and never after. This sua sponte Rule 11 sanction was not for anything wrong done by Taitz. She didn't cheat, she didn't steal, she didn't abandon her client, she never did anything immoral or unethical, that would justify any sanction.”
Really? Well, lets look at the “facts”. From Judge Lands order:
“For justice to be administered efficiently and justly, lawyers must understand the conditions that govern their privilege to practice law. Lawyers who do not understand those conditions are at best woefully unprepared to practice the profession and at worst a menace to it.”
Specifically, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly sets forth the outer boundaries of acceptable attorney conduct. That rule prohibits a lawyer from asserting claims or legal positions that are not well-founded under existing law or through the modification, extension, or expansion of existing law. Rule 11 also prohibits an attorney from using the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a legitimate legal cause of action.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.”
“As a national leader in the so-called “birther movement,” Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the “legal foundation” for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts to force the President to produce a “birth certificate” that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.”
“Instead of arguing pertinent legal authority supporting her position, counsel reverted to “press conference mode,” repeating political “talking points” that did not answer the Court’s questions or address the Court’s concerns.”
“During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel threatened that if she did not get the opportunity to obtain the relief she sought (discovery of a birth certificate), then a wave of subsequent similar actions would be filed in this Court until she obtained what she wanted.”
“Counsel here has an affidavit from someone who allegedly paid off a government official to rummage through the files at a Kenyan hospital to obtain what counsel contends is the President’s “authentic” birth certificate. Counsel here makes no coherent argument connecting the Constitution’s presidential citizenship requirement to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. Counsel here points to no legal authority—in the Constitution or elsewhere—that could be extended or expanded to create an exception to the well-established doctrine of abstention, which disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the military.”
“The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined with the political diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that Ms. Taitz’s purpose is to advance a political agenda and not to pursue a legitimate legal cause of action. Rather than citing to binding legal precedent, she calls the President names, accuses the undersigned of treason, and gratuitously slanders the President’s father. As the Court noted in an earlier order, counsel’s wild accusations may be protected by the First 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. Simply put, no reasonable basis existed for counsel to believe that her legal cause of action was legitimate under existing law or under a reasonable extension or modification of existing law.”
Yet, Taitz claims:
“The only wrong here was fraud committed by Obama, which caused Judge Land to believe that Taitz’s action of doubting Obama was frivolous.”
What a fucking idiot! She is hell bent on trying to prove that Obama is 100% responsible for her being sanctioned, and even expects the courts to order Obama to be financially responsible for that fine and to compensate her for her “emotional distress”. The fact that ALL the actual facts completely contradict her seems irrelevant.
“On August 9, 2010 An Abstract of Judgment (Exhibit 1) was issued and a demand from the US Justice Department under the rule of Obama appointee Eric Holder, for Taitz to pay $20,000 or a lien will be placed on her properties including her house, where she is residing with her husband and three children. This lien comes from a decision by a Federal Judge Clay D. Land, who decided that the fact that Taitz represented active members of US military questioning Obama's natural born status is frivolous. So, Land issued $20,000 in sanctions against Taitz, stating that those sanctions are for this frivolous action. On 8.19.10. Taitz paid this $20,000 under protest, in order not to uproot her family and not to cause additional emotional distress to her children. (exhibit 2.) As of 08.19.10. Taitz has standing to proceed against Obama in a legal action for fraud to collect $20,000 that were taken from her as a result of fraud committed by Obama, as well as interest, punitive damages and compensation for severe emotional distress inflicted upon her by Obama, who committed fraud and cover up for a year and a half.”
Fraud, Fraud, Fraud, Orly seriously needs to go back and re-read that definition of the word EVIDENCE. She has no concept that the word “evidence” and the word “hearsay” do NOT mean the same thing! And in this country, if you “accuse” someone of something it is up to YOU to already have actual “Evidence to prove your allegation”. You cannot go to court and demand that the person you have accused be required to prove their innocence. It doesn’t fucking work that way! In her diatribe of all the ways she has been “harmed” by Obama, my absolute favorite is her rant on healthcare reform.
"Currently passed Healthcare Act made it mandatory for everyone to pay into the Healthcare program or be penalized. It created a national Healthcare system, that will be used by everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, however this act exempts millions of individuals, who happen to be Muslims from paying a cent into the system, as according to Sharia law, insurance is considered a form of usury and gambling, so those individuals will be using the benefits of the National healthcare, but not paying
anything into it.
Currently Taitz and her husband are paying some $18,000 a year for them and their three children for health insurance. As the healthcare bill will be enforced, they will have to pay for Muslim families who do not pay for the insurance, but will get the benefits. Moreover, such schemes encourage individuals to convert into the Muslim religion, as it provides them with perks and benefits. This is a clear violation of the Establishment clause and 14th amendment equal protection clause. Taitz is seeking to proceed on this cause of action and to obtain a class certification, not only for her, but for millions of other families, who happen to be Christian or Jewish and who will have to participate in this plan against their will and in violation of the Establishment clause and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Taitz is a Doctor of Dental Surgery and currently pays around $6,000 per year for the Healthcare insurance for each of her dental Assistants. Under the new Healthcare plan employers, who are similarly situated and who happen to be Muslims, will have an unfair advantage in not having to pay for such insurance. As such Taitz is seeking a class certification for millions of employers, who are similarly situated, who are Christian or Jewish, and who will have to participate in this plan against their will and in violation of the Establishment Clause and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Taitz is a doctor and a medical provider who took a Hippocratic oath and finds it morally repugnant to participate in a scheme, where a state is promoting a Muslim religion, which is teaching stoning, lashing and beating as part of the religious ritual.”
She’s not just an idiot; she’s a blatant racist bigot as well.
“Taitz is seeking discovery to show that Obama indeed committed fraud in wrongfully claiming his eligibility for office, by obfuscation of his vital records, that as a result of this scheme he pushed for the Healthcare act, which constitutes a veiled attempt to promote his Muslim beliefs (Obama was educated in a Muslim Madrasa and both his father and step father were Muslim). As stated, above five distinct large groups of US citizens were damaged by this act, which was signed into law by an ineligible individual. A favorable decision in this case would redress the plaintiff's injury, as the Healthcare act will be found invalid, as signed by the ineligible individual and violative of the 14th Amendment equal protection rights and of the Establishment clause. As such Taitz has perfect standing to proceed under the Establishment clause and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and moves the court to grant her Motion for Reconsideration.”
There seems to be no limit on how far out into the stratosphere she is willing to go with her ludicrous ranting and ravings. Its just mind boggling that she could seriously believe that any competent authority will ever consider her tripe even the least bit rational, let along grant her absurd demands.
She is as absolutely hopeless as is her insane quest to, A. Prove Obama is illegitimate, and B. To force the courts to make Obama pay her fine!
TAITZ v OBAMA (QUO WARRANTO) - 34 - MOTION for Reconsideration - gov.uscourts.dcd.140567.34.0
The Rise of the NeoPUMA - So we have the supporters of a Democratic presidential candidate. They're stanch, loyal supporters, or so they claim. Their support for their candidate is ...