Apparently, getting ordered to show cause why she shouldn't be sanctioned to pay $10,000 in sanctions isn't going to stop Orly Taitz. No, she's going to keep on fighting on all of the many and bizarre fronts, and her brief filed yesterday opposing the government's motion to dismiss one of her actions (apparently, the one brought on behalf of fellow nutcase Alan Keyes) for lack of standing, demonstrates she won't scrimp on the crazy. Some select quotes on the flip.
Taitz attempts to frame the issue as being one where if the court doesn't recognize her claim, everyone loses:
Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single bifurcated question question: (1A) does the constitution mean what it says when it lays down absolute parameters, such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and enforcement of this constitutional provision: to the Congress, the People, or can the President get by merely asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence which would be competent as Summary Judgment (admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Actually, that's not bad, but on page 3, Orly transforms herself into SuperBirther, when she begins her discussion of the obscure legal doctrine of quo warranto.
Or at least, this is the theory behind the law of quo warranto, which is and was (as a practical matter) the point at which the undersigned counsel, on behalf of her clients, the Plaintiffs, began her quest for the preservation of truth, justice, and the American Way: by what credentials, qualifications, right or title does any person who holds office claim his right to that office. The common law writ of quo warranto has been all but completely suppressed at the federal level in the United States (in that it is limited in exercise to the Attorney General), and deprecated at the state level.
Yes, Orly Taitz (and no one else) stands for "truth, justice, and the American Way!" As for the lack of precedent she cites? Precedent? We don't need no stinkin' precedent!
The question is not one of precedent, the question is whether politics dictate the outcome in many or most Obama‐related cases, where avoiding discovery and fact‐finding is the primary (and outcome‐determinative) goal. Plaintiff submits that if discovery is ever allowed in this case, it will be rapidly settled by the resignation or impeachment of the President. If the stone wall of secrecy and suppression is ever removed, if California sunshine is ever allowed to shine for one day on the real evidence, the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama will be rapidly brought to a rather embarrassing close, and the Defendants’ counsel know it, just as Judges Land and Lazzara know it in Georgia and Florida. Secrecy and refusal to divulge information can have only one possible purpose: to hide an inconvenient truth. Everywhere the Plaintiffs or their counsel have gone, they have been met with resistance, which can only be described as irrational if there were nothing to hide.
Actually, it's not all insanity. Orly starts off a section with:
If the State of California were, for example, by its famous system of "Propositions" whereby the people amend the state constitution regularly, to violate the plain letter of the Federal constitution by reinstituting chattel slavery, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, there is little doubt that the reaction would be swift: the United States Department of Justice would file suit (with hundreds of amici curiae) to have the newly (but democratically) enacted proposition declared unconstitutional. The reason for this is simple: the constitution places outer boundaries on that which is politically permissible.
Indeed, the challenge to Prop 8 runs along these lines. But, then, we return to the crazy. Only Orly gets it:
The Plaintiffs in this case demand that the Court delineate the boundaries of the political and the constitutional, and declare and adjudge that the people of the United States have the right to delineate that which is the constitutional right of a politically powerless minority of the people to secure for themselves, and to protect the majority, even, from the follies of their own majoritarian blindness.
And not all the crazy is political--the brief closes by noting
This response is timely filed on the Equinox, Monday, September 21
Not quite sure what that has to do with anything, and, as an added bonus, it's factually wrong, as today is the equinox.
Essential if you're following this mess (or if you're a law-talkin'-guy or gal who just wants a good laugh)--the fine folks at Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored, who've been collecting the many increasingly bizarre court filings.