Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,633
home
#1
Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed



Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, Orly Taitz’s most successful lawsuit — that is, the one that got the furthest through the legal system — demanding proof of the president’s citizenship. The entire decision is here, and it’s devastating to Taitz. Here’s an excerpt of the disposition, with emphasis in the original:



Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. 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‚ 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. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.



That’s the end of the story. But the ruling is limned with criticism of Taitz for the screwball, media-grabbing tactics she used to promote her doomed, frivolous lawsuit. Here, Carter confirms that he got complaints from Taitz witnesses like Larry Sinclair, claiming that Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand.



[T]he 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.


The full opinion can be found at the link.



.
 
Sep 2009
20,209
1,559
#2
[quote name='Vortex' date='29 October 2009 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1256846084' post='47631']

The full opinion can be found at the link.



.

[/quote]





Good. A voice of reason. This birther stuff is a waste of time.
 

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,633
home
#3
[quote name='Gypsy' date='29 October 2009 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1256851217' post='47680']

Good. A voice of reason. This birther stuff is a waste of time.

[/quote]



I think that there are more suits pending. This isn't the first one that has been dismissed.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,706
Vertiform City
#4
[quote name='Vortex' date='29 October 2009 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1256851444' post='47681']

I think that there are more suits pending. This isn't the first one that has been dismissed.

[/quote]



Very interesting. Very interesting sequence of events here.



Here's kinda the timeline I get out of this:



- Other birther lawsuits filed and dismissed

- Taitz looks for a place to file Keyes/Barnett, tries to find a "friendly judge"

- Judge Carter initially accepts the case at the behest of a few Marines who were personal friends of his

- At first it LOOKS like Carter is a "friendly judge", he doesn't so easily dismiss on prejudice, like the previous judges seemed to

- Carter then hires a law clerk from Perkins Coie (the people who are defending Obama)

- A week later, Carter dismisses the case - on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds, which isn't even in his jurisdiction! Hm...



He's right, in a way, 'cause it's the Senate's job and not the Justices' (although, they COULD rule, if they had a mind to, which they probably don't) -



But, this is a very odd turn of events - after glossing over all the details that caused the other judges to dismiss cases, Carter suddenly

does a 180 on grounds that are SO broad that his very jurisdiction could be challenged! Hm...



Yes, Taitz tainted the case. Couldn't they find a REAL lawyer, instead of a nutball like her? Hm... we got affidavits alleging that she

offered sex for perjury, all KINDS of nutty stuff.... so yes, she definitely tainted the case. No credibility there. She may even get

disbarred or suspended over all this (probably should, if she's suborning witnesses - in fact she should probably go to JAIL like Bernie

Kerik).



But that still doesn't explain Carter's behavior. Something's very fishy there. NO judge in his right mind would hire a clerk from

the very same company handling the defendant, the conflict of interest is SO blatant there, that it couldn't possibly escape any

judge's notice. So, why'd he do it? Inquiring minds want to know!!!
 

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,633
home
#5
[quote name='nonsqtr' date='30 October 2009 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1256881849' post='47882']

Very interesting. Very interesting sequence of events here.



Here's kinda the timeline I get out of this:



- Other birther lawsuits filed and dismissed

- Taitz looks for a place to file Keyes/Barnett, tries to find a "friendly judge"

- Judge Carter initially accepts the case at the behest of a few Marines who were personal friends of his

- At first it LOOKS like Carter is a "friendly judge", he doesn't so easily dismiss on prejudice, like the previous judges seemed to

- Carter then hires a law clerk from Perkins Coie (the people who are defending Obama)

- A week later, Carter dismisses the case - on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds, which isn't even in his jurisdiction! Hm...



He's right, in a way, 'cause it's the Senate's job and not the Justices' (although, they COULD rule, if they had a mind to, which they probably don't) -



But, this is a very odd turn of events - after glossing over all the details that caused the other judges to dismiss cases, Carter suddenly

does a 180 on grounds that are SO broad that his very jurisdiction could be challenged! Hm...



Yes, Taitz tainted the case. Couldn't they find a REAL lawyer, instead of a nutball like her? Hm... we got affidavits alleging that she

offered sex for perjury, all KINDS of nutty stuff.... so yes, she definitely tainted the case. No credibility there. She may even get

disbarred or suspended over all this (probably should, if she's suborning witnesses - in fact she should probably go to JAIL like Bernie

Kerik).



But that still doesn't explain Carter's behavior. Something's very fishy there. NO judge in his right mind would hire a clerk from

the very same company handling the defendant, the conflict of interest is SO blatant there, that it couldn't possibly escape any

judge's notice. So, why'd he do it? Inquiring minds want to know!!!


[/quote]



You must be totally uninformed as to how the courts work.



The new clerk would not be assigned that case.



According to your time line, the case was filed and the motion to dismiss of record and argued before the new clerk was employed. Therefore, another law clerk was assigned to that case. I would bet that a Chinese wall was established and the new clerk was not even involved in anything related to the case.



Additionally, clerks do not have that much influence over the US District Court judge.



If you compare the dockets of the cases, this case and the other dismissed cases, you will see that they are similar. The courts heard the motions to dismiss and considered the briefs filed and rendered opinions.



As I pointed out to you in your thread on this case, the scheduling order tentatively setting the case for trial is SOP, in accordance with the Civil Rules and the local rules of each court.



Also, if you take the time to read the decision you will see that the judge ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing, just like in the other cases. The judge was more detailed as there were varied plaintiffs who tried to establish standing in unique ways.



Your conspiracy theory is quaint, but off the mark.



I also think it rather humorous that you would suggest the plaintiffs judge shopped (tried to find a 'friendly judge') and thought they had one in Carter who "accepts the case at the behest of a few Marines who were personal friends of his" while you allude to the fact that the law clerks former employment tainted the judge's decision.



Fishy describes the judge shopping and not the hire of some law clerk.



.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,706
Vertiform City
#6
[quote name='Vortex' date='30 October 2009 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1256893160' post='47901']

You must be totally uninformed as to how the courts work.



The new clerk would not be assigned that case.



According to your time line, the case was filed and the motion to dismiss of record and argued before the new clerk was employed. Therefore, another law clerk was assigned to that case. I would bet that a Chinese wall was established and the new clerk was not even involved in anything related to the case.



Additionally, clerks do not have that much influence over the US District Court judge.



If you compare the dockets of the cases, this case and the other dismissed cases, you will see that they are similar. The courts heard the motions to dismiss and considered the briefs filed and rendered opinions.



As I pointed out to you in your thread on this case, the scheduling order tentatively setting the case for trial is SOP, in accordance with the Civil Rules and the local rules of each court.



Also, if you take the time to read the decision you will see that the judge ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing, just like in the other cases. The judge was more detailed as there were varied plaintiffs who tried to establish standing in unique ways.



Your conspiracy theory is quaint, but off the mark.



I also think it rather humorous that you would suggest the plaintiffs judge shopped (tried to find a 'friendly judge') and thought they had one in Carter who "accepts the case at the behest of a few Marines who were personal friends of his" while you allude to the fact that the law clerks former employment tainted the judge's decision.



Fishy describes the judge shopping and not the hire of some law clerk.



.

[/quote]



You're missing the point. Judge Carter never had a law clerk, till last week.



Well, think what you want, this still smells fishy to me.
 
Dec 2006
85,850
63,087
In the Witness Protection Program
#7
I don't understand all these lawsuits. I thought the right was against

spending taxpayer money on "frivolous lawsuits." These attorneys should be fined.
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
48,210
34,025
Pennsylvania, USA
#8
[quote name='TennesseeRain' date='30 October 2009 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1256905894' post='47946']

I don't understand all these lawsuits. I thought the right was against

spending taxpayer money on "frivolous lawsuits." These attorneys should be fined.

[/quote]

If courts get into the habit of levying fines against birthers who waste their time, that could actually generate a revenue stream.
 
Feb 2007
11,339
9,622
In my mind
#9
[quote name='Vortex' date='29 October 2009 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1256846084' post='47631']

The full opinion can be found at the link.



.

[/quote]

Ah, couldn't have happened to a nicer lady.



To call Mrs. Orly insane is an insult to insane people everywhere. Clearly this woman has far too much time between fighting the war on gum disease.
 

Similar Discussions