Friday, December 10, 2010

Tit For Tat, Taitz Has Another One Bites the Dust

Lets see if we can make like Dorothy and “Follow the yellow brick road” on the latest dismissal of Orly Taitz’s QW. This case was prompted by Judge Land “imposing sanctions”  on Taitz in October of 09 for her incompetent and disrespectful conduct. (Excerpts below)

In January 2010 she filed a “Quo Warranto Petition”

“Wherefore THE PLAINTIFF and Petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz is praying for following relief:
1. Petitoner is praying this Honorable Court to grant her the ex-relator status in the name of the United States of America and requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto to the ex-relator against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama to ascertain if he was eligible to take the position and franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of US military and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
2. Grant petitioner the Writ of Mandamus for the Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue to release explanation, as to how Barack Hussein Obama is able to use the social security number 042-68-4425, issued originally in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890, while Obama clearly is not 120 years old, was not born in 1890 and never resided in the state of CT.
3. Grant a petition for a writ of Mandamus for the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to release the birth certificate that was used by Barack Hussein Obama to obtain his US passport.
4. Plaintiff is asking for financial relief associated with time spent and costs of her pursuing the issue of illegitimacy of Obama for US presidency and fraud perpetrated by Obama in using multiple social security numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
5. Plaintiff is asking for financial relief for severe emotional distress that she was subjected to when she was subjected to an orchestrated effort by this administration to stop her, to silence her, when she was subjected to sanctions for bringing forward legitimate issues of Obama legitimacy, when a group of convicted criminals, convicted, indicted and admitted forgers was used to derail her cases, undermine her and her license, while law enforcement stood idle, unwilling to prosecute and incarcerate those criminals and stop continued harassment.”

So Taitz is effectively suing Obama for “financial compensation” because she was fined 20,000 smackaroos for her own incompetent behavior and is claiming that it’s Obama’s fault. Her “logic” is that if Obama hadn’t committed all these crimes she accuses him of (but can’t prove); she wouldn’t have had to go to court in the first place and would never have been sanctioned. And she wants the court to make Obama prove he is a legitimate POTUS because she’s been unable to even come close to proving that he isn’t.

Judge Lamberth "denied"  this on April 14th 2010, and said:

“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. This court is not willing to go tilting windmills with her.”

On April 26th 2010 Taitz filed “First Motion for Reconsideration”.   On June 18 2010 that was also “denied” . So she appealed again on August 27th 2010 and filed “60 B Motion for Reconsideration”   which was also “denied”   yesterday on December 9th 2010.

So the latest tit for tat goes like this:

Taitz:

"New Facts, new Evidence $20, 000 damages suffered by Taitz due to fraud committed by Obama, give her standing to proceed with discovery on the merits.”
"Newly discovered evidence -additional last name for Barack Obama, Barack Soebarkah, as noted in his mother's recently released passport. After two years of continuous FOIA requests sent to different governmental agencies, submitted by hundreds of US citizens, the State Department finally released a certified copy of the 1967 passport for Stanley Ann Dunham, mother of Barack Obama. That passport showed yet another name, that has not been seen before: Soebarkah, which apparently comes from the full name of Obama's stepfather Lolo Soetoro Soebarkah. This is additional new evidence, which tends to show that Obama indeed committed fraud, that he was sworn in as the US president under a name, which is not legally his”
“Chain of Causation, Obama intended to defraud the public and induce them to believe that he is a constitutionally eligible president. When Taitz presented her cases in front of Judge Land, he indeed relied on representation by Obama, that he is a legitimate President and therefore found a legal action questioning Obama's legitimacy to be frivolous and sanctioned Taitz $20,000. The chain of causation was not broken.”

Lamberth:

“Plaintiff contests the dismissal of her complaint for lack of standing, asserting that new evidence now gives her standing. First, plaintiff presents a letter from the Department of Justice regarding her $20,000 sanction for frivolous filings in a separate suit challenging the President’s eligibility for office. Plaintiff contends that this sanction is evidence of injury resulting from “fraud committed by Obama, which caused Judge Land to believe that Taitz’s action of doubting Obama was frivolous.”
Second, plaintiff claims to have evidence of an “additional last name” allegedly used by the President, which “tends to show that Obama indeed committed fraud . . . [and] that she has suffered due to fraud committed by him.”
“Plaintiff’s sanction does not constitute new evidence under Rule 60(b)(2).”
“There is no causal connection between plaintiff’s sanction for frivolous filings and the President’s alleged conduct, nor can this Court redress the alleged injury by vacating another court’s sanction. See id. at 560–61. Moreover, absent causation and redressability, plaintiff’s alleged evidence of fraudulent conduct does nothing to establish standing. Plaintiff thus offers no evidence meriting reconsideration under Rule 60(b).”

Taitz:

"Good Samaritan, rescuer theory warrants a finding of foreseeability of injury and granting Motion for Reconsideration. Yet another theory shows that damages suffered by Taitz are proximately related to fraud committed by Obama,- and that is the theory of damages suffered by a rescuer, a good Samaritan, are foreseeable and proximately related."

Lamberth:

"Plaintiff also raises new legal theories in an effort to establish standing. First, she alleges injury based on a Good Samaritan theory. The Court will not consider this argument, as plaintiff cannot use her Rule 60(b) motion to raise legal arguments that were available to her at the time of filing. Second, she argues that her $20,000 sanction now gives her “interested person” status under the quo warranto statute. The Court again refers plaintiff to its dismissal of her complaint, which explains that only the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official."

Taitz:

"Damages suffered by Taitz represent a direct result of violation of Honest Services act under USC 18 §1346. Taitz was deprived of Honest Service through a scheme to defraud, whereby Obama's appointment of the Attorney General and the US attorney for the District of Columbia and a salary received by the Attorney General and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia became a de-facto bribe to keep the public silent about fraud perpetrated by Obama to obtain the franchise of the President. Taitz was directly harmed and denied an inalienable intangible right of Honest Services. The $20,000 sanctions assessment represents a further instrument, a tool within such scheme to defraud and deprive Taitz of Honest Services."

Lamberth:

"Plaintiff raises a new claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, asserting that her $20,000 sanction represents a scheme to deprive her of honest services. Here, she does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of her complaint. Rather, she is asking the Court to consider a new claim, apparently on the basis of “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2). As noted above, however, plaintiff’s sanction does not constitute new evidence. Therefore, the Court will not consider a legal argument that plaintiff could have raised in her complaint."

Bottom line?

Lamberth:

“In her second motion for reconsideration, plaintiff adds nothing but further allegations of the President’s ineligibility for office. She offers no new factual or legal argument meriting reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). Nor has she identified any “previously undisclosed fact so central to the litigation” justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc., 636 F.2d at 577. Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion with regard to her quo warranto claims.”
“CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [34] for reconsideration of this Court’s Order [22] dismissing her claims is DENIED.”

I guess Lamberth is still not interested in “tilting windmills” with her. It’s obvious that Taitz has quite a problem with comprehension of the laws and how they actually work. She also has a problem accepting the consequences of her own actions, such as the sanctions and fine she continually blames on Obama.

Once again, lets look at what the sanctions were really for, as documented in the link above:

“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.”
“Ms. Taitz’s performance confirmed to the Court that her focus was not to pursue a legitimate legal cause of action to obtain relief for her client but was to use the Court to force the President to produce a “birth certificate” satisfactory to her and her followers.”
“Instead of responding to the Court’s specific concerns or addressing the contemplated amount of the monetary sanction, Ms. Taitz continued her attacks on the Court, as well as her political grandstanding. She now moves to recuse the undersigned, alleging that the undersigned had ex parte communication with the Attorney General of the United States”
“Comparing herself to former Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, counsel likens her plight to Justice Marshall’s epic legal battle to desegregate American schools and public places. Quite frankly, the Court is reluctant to even dignify this argument by responding to it, but it captures the essence of counsel’s misunderstanding of the purpose of the courts and her misunderstanding of her own claims.”
“In summary, counsel, dissatisfied with the Court’s rulings and “seeing the writing on the wall,” now seeks to escape accountability for her misconduct during this litigation. She shall not be allowed to do so. Her motion to recuse and motion for enlargement of time have no merit and are accordingly denied as frivolous.”
“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. Thus, counsel’s Complaint on behalf of Captain Rhodes was frivolous.”
“In addition, an attorney, as an officer of the Court, has an obligation to use legal proceedings for the legitimate purpose of pursuing a lawful cause of action. It is not appropriate to use briefs or motions to make personal attacks on opposing parties or the Court.”
“Calling the President a usurper and mocking his father as treacherous and disloyal to the British Crown added nothing to the advancement of Plaintiff’s legal cause of action. It provides good rhetoric to fuel the “birther agenda,” but it is unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of the Court. Likewise, accusing a judge of treason and suggesting that the federal courts are under the thumb of the Executive Branch for no reason other than the judge ruled against you may be protected by the First Amendment when made outside of court proceedings, but it has no place in a legal motion for reconsideration.”
For all of these reasons, the Court reaffirms its findings in its previous order that counsel’s motion for reconsideration was frivolous and that her conduct demonstrates that she has attempted to use the legal process for an improper purpose. Thus, sanctions are warranted.”
“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court. Defiantly defending the “position of the patriots,” she scoffs at the notion that a federal court would consider sanctioning her when she is on the side of such freedom fighters as the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a comparison that, if accepted, would disgrace Justice Marshall’s singular achievements. Counsel’s bad faith warrants a substantial sanction.”
“While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.”

So, how is any of "her" flippant, obnoxious behavior Obama's fault?

Now I know that Taitz got her legal degree from an unaccredited online law school, but I’d like to know how the hell she passed the bar!

3 comments:

  1. Be prepared for the next bit of crazy from Taitz. She doesn't understand the word 'no'. Perhaps the judges should write 'nyet'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You could fill a library with things Taitz doesn’t understand. One of her biggest problems is “believing” that allegations constitute proof.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.”

    Lamberth writes like a statesman and poet.
    Taitz writes like Dr. Seuss on acid.

    ReplyDelete