Rhodes vs MacDonald: Orly Taitz Is Humiliated

Anyone who follows US politics will know who Orly Taitz is.

She is a lawyer, dentist and real estate agent. But if that sounds like a wacky combination, it's not as wacky as some of the things she has been saying about President Obama.  Because Orly Taitz is the High Priestess of the "Birther" Movement.

In Orly-world Obama is a Fascist-Stalinist-Kenyan-Muslim. She has accused Obama of everything from hiding his true identity, to murder and fraud.

Orly Taitz

Rhodes vs MacDonald: Round One

Taitz was behind a recent lawsuit by Connie Rhodes, a US Army captain. Rhodes sought a court order preventing her deployment to Iraq. Rhodes had trained as a medical doctor. In exchange for the taxpayer funding the bulk of her training, she agreed to serve for two years in active service in the army. She began active service in 2008, but it was not until she received news of her deployment to Iraq that she decided to question the orders given to her.

Rhodes' case was based on an argument that her orders were unconstitutional and unenforceable, because President Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be Commander in Chief of the army. 

Unluckily for Rhodes, Orly Taitz represented her in the proceedings.

Judge Clay D. Land tossed the lawsuit out on the grounds that it was frivolous, and warned Taitz that the further filing of frivolous lawsuits would lead to sanctions against her.

That alone was humiliation for the woman called by many the "Queen Bee" of the Birthers.

But Judge Land wasn't finished with Taitz. His judgment is both entertaining and scathing of Taitz:

She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is "an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter."

Judge Land savaged Rhodes' claims that Obama's birth certificate could not be relied on and should be presumed as a fraud:

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his "natural born" status. Thus, Plaintiff's counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to "prove his innocence" to "charges" that are based on conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.

Judge Land gave no weight at all to the "facts" alleged by Rhodes:

To the extent that it alleges any "facts," the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff's individual constitutional rights. Unlike in "Alice in Wonderland," simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Post lawsuit reaction

Orly Taitz was unable to contain her outrage over the result of the case. Of Judge Land she said:

somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama.

And:

This is so outrageous what this judge did -- it goes in the face of law and order... Not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land. Some judges believe in the Constitution. And some judges believe in the rule of law.

And:

Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime -- just like in the Soviet Union.

Her comments have so outraged some that she is now the subject of a California bar complaint.

Rhodes vs MacDonald: Round Two

Taitz then filed an emergency request for stay of deployment late last week. This too was dismissed by Judge Land, in another colourful and scathing judgment, that begins "it was deja vu all over again".

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.

Judge Land was not amused, and ordered Taitz to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for her misconduct.

He went on to blast Taitz:

Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not address the legal basis for the Court's previous order is frivolous.

And:

Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff's counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political "birther agenda". 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", alleges 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.

The conduct described above warrants that sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff's counsel, Orly Taitz.

A Final Twist

How much trouble is Orly Taitz in? A lot.  She has a bar complaint to handle, and almost certainly a $10,000 fine to pay.

It now also appears Rhodes never authorised Taitz to file the appeal. Rhodes has written a letter to Judge Land, stating “I did not authorize this motion to be filed." The letter goes on to say:

Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

Taitz is probably the worst kind of lawyer to have: unstable, driven by her own agenda, and blind to reason or contrary evidence. Her supporters will probably claim this is yet more evidence of a vast conspiracy. But for Orly, her courtroom days may be numbered. At least there's still dentistry and real estate.