When the first paragraph threatens sanctions if you bother the Court again, it’s pretty bad:
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is
hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court,
which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
As a friend described her, Sacha Baron Cohen character Orly Taitz, has annoyed the court to the point of this line:
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. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily
against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would
authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim.
Fun at the Taintz expense:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has
become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President
Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is
not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly 1
Taitz, Esquire, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15,
2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the
country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s
legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is
the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues
her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers
as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to
follow deployment orders because President Obama is not
constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has
managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press
conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.2
In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court
summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no
substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Rhodes v. Gates,
5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28,
2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.
I believe the shorter District Court Judge Clay D. Land is this:
Stop wasting my time you fucking nutbag Birther.
More fun. AOL polls are now evidence.
Using the Mindes factors as an analytical framework, the Court
finds that it is not authorized to interfere with Plaintiff’s
deployment orders. First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment
order is frivolous. 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.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)
She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is
“an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted
illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United
States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a
wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that
the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social
security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶
110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document
that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that
the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed
fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of
her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of
the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped
through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover,
as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not
enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL
poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be
vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.)
I do think the Judge is overestimating the ability of middle school civics students to understand irony, but the point is spot on:
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. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) 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 upon 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.
As they say, read the whole thing.
ArchPundit
