Now another judge has trashed her. The Barnett vs Obama decision is here.
Taitz filed the Barnett suit on the day Obama took office. The suit alleged that Obama did not meet the qualifications required to be President, because he had failed to prove he was a natural born citizen.
The suit named 44 plaintiffs. These included members of the military, state representatives, and members of the American Independent Party. In true "scattergun" style the suit named Obama, his wife*, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Robert Gates as defendants.
The Plaintiffs did not propose for Joe Biden to take over as President if they were successful. Instead they proposed a complete shutdown of the government until new elections could be held.
US District Court Judge David Carter threw the case out on procedural grounds, accepting the Defendant's arguments that the court did not hold jurisdiction to hear the case. The reasoning is not particularly interesting, unless you're a follower of US constitutional law or jurisprudence. It is the remarks made by Judge Carter along the way that make this case worth reporting:
On the claim that Obama had no authority to order military deployments and that the court should limit the execution of certain military orders:
This "cut and run" call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.And:
The 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 for the military to resolve.On the allegations that the presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the American Independent Party suffered harm because they had to compete in the 2008 election against a candidate who did not qualify, Judge Carter noted that the total number of votes cast for their party was:
...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.Judge Carter is damning of Taitz (the emphasis is mine):
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. 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. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.And finally:
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. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules... Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel...
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. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
Additionally, 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.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
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 commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.Taitz's reaction
Is Taitz going to accept the decision?
Here's a post from her blog, about Judge Carter:
He ended up shamelessly lying to me, to 50 people present in court, to all the military plaintiffs, to the whole country, as he ended up dismissing it 3 and a half months later specifically on the lack of jurisdiction and attacked me. You really expect some integrity from a judge, particularly a district court judge. I have no words to describe my anger, my disgust, my outrage. What is the point of going to court? Keep in mind, appeals can last years. Circuit court of appeals has no requirement to provide a resolution within any specific period of time. If this regime wants to kill the case, they can simply sit on it indefinitely in the court of appeals, Obama can finish 2 terms before they move and do anything. So, what do you do, when your government, your congress and your judiciary defraud you and, to add insult to injury, they assassinate your good character and threaten you as Land did? What do you do when the country does not have free press, when the country does not have a system of Justice? What do you do? Where do you go from there?So I guess that's a no.
Even more disturbing is this entry on her blog by one of her supporters:
Good job, David. Such wickedness needs to be exposed when patriots like my son have died to preserve the very liberties people like Obama and Carter are selling off wholesale. The penalty for treason and traitors used to be the death penalty and, in England, the punishment meant being hanged, drawn and quartered Click Here. This is clearly appropriate here.Here's another supporter's view on the same page:
Dear Judge Carter:
Pulling no punches. You have sold your soul to the Devil and our country to the Communist-Marxist regime of Barrack Hussein Obama, II. Because of your cowardice in the face of the enemy, millions more babies will die because of Obama’s support of increased availability of abortions for any reason at any stage of development. Because of your cowardice, countless numbers of senior American citizens will die due to the health care bill that will deny them medical care and refer them to death panels. Because of your cowardice, Obama will now be emboldened to continue toward his goal of becoming the first dictator of America , No Longer the Beautiful.Orly Taitz is barking mad and so are her supporters. Moreover, her performances as counsel in the Rhodes case, and now in Barnett, have been inept. It appears she got her law degree from the Taft Law School, an online-based school of law. It is not accredited to the American Bar Association. That figures.
* On the naming of Michelle Obama as a defendant, Judge Carter said: "The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling."