LOL! Did Carter say mean things about Orly as well?
Who knows... I didn’t read it, just slid down to the bottom to read the conclusion because no one yet said what it was on the thread.
What do you find so funny about this? I think it’s a damn shame personally.
[Ping to Lucy and NaV]
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.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Well, he did use the phrase "improper and unethical" (to describe her conduct in asking her supporters to call the Judge).
There may be more, I haven't read the whole opinion yet.
Yes. There's a whole section on "Conduct of Plaintiffs' Counsel". See pages 28 and 29.
AFTER-birther troll alert aka Obama supporter.
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 cocounsel 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. 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.
No sanctions, though. (Yet.)