Every pleading I have seen by Taitz has been unusual to say the least, sloppy and scattershot might be a better term for it.
It's often said that someone can be fortunate for having a particular set of enemies, because those enemies discredit themselves and the substantive allegations they make disappear with their personal credibility.
You have to be agnostic on the subject of Obama's natural citizenship - because none of the facts are in evidence (the supposed birth certificate has been sealed and not released to the public, or to any credible neutral who might verify it). Doing a sloppy job of pursuing these cases only jaundices the public eye on the topic of the substantive validity of the citizenship claims, even though no evidence (pro or con) has been adduced. Taitz should step out of this effort and others should only move ahead in court when they can surmount the very difficult issues of jurisdiction and standing (which I would say, and have said here, are just about impossible). What most people, mainly non-lawyers, have a hard time understanding is that the Constitution could prescribe a thin set of minimal qualifications for serving as President, yet fail to provide for a method of verifying or verifying those qualifications have been met.