October 19th, 2009
|09:20 am - Citing Orly|
The full Land/Taitz ruling is available online.
Gruesomely funny. Some choice extracts:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge's rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.And these gems from p. 18:
The Court must nevertheless remind counsel that she has been fired by her former client, who has made it clear that she no longer wishes to pursue the matter. Therefore, counsel cannot possibly succeed on her main claim...and
Once again, counsel ignores the law.p. 27:
Although counsel's present concern is the location of the President's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks "too young" to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate?... Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.And the footnote:
 The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a "round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square," asserted that the President is not human.I'm not sure this could be more entertaining.
Edit: For reference and context, the judge's original order ruling on the case is here; Orly Taitz's batshit-zany response is here; and the judge's second order (asking her to show a reason why he shouldn't fine her $10,000) is here. (She didn't respond to this one.)
Edit 2: I also feel compelled to link to this handy flowchart of the birther-lawsuit life-cycle.
I shouldn't comment on my own post, but...
Counsel’s contention that the expedited nature of the Court's rulings demonstrates that the Court had prejudged the case is laughable. First, as the Court has noted previously, counsel sought expedited consideration. She sought an injunction enjoining the U.S. Army from deploying her client, which was to occur within days of the filing of her Complaint. Yes, the Court ruled quickly. Had the Court not done so, counsel undoubtedly would have accused the Court of some conspiracy to delay ruling until after the deployment had occurred. Furthermore, although the Court is not personally familiar with the pace of legal decision making in counsel's home state of California, the Court notes that Georgia courts have long recognized that the expedited nature of a decision does not detract from its quality.
I find it curiously telling that her first name is "Orly". I'm just saying.
She was born in the then-USSR. Maybe it means something else in Russian, but...