Is Orly Taitz's House of Cards Coming Down?

In a move that was both somewhat expected, and yet reassuring (and darkly delicious), Judge Clay Land today threw out the case of Connie Rhodes vs. Thomas D. Macdonald, which hinged upon President Obama not being eligible to be her Commander in Chief, and, therefore, unable to order her to go to the corner to get a hotdog, much less be sent to a combat zone.

Judge Land's opinion was:

After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions

In other words, "This is bullshit, and don't ever waste my time like this again."

If you have the time, do read through the opinion, hotlinked above. It makes for an amusing read, and shows exactly how poorly Orly argues her cases, as well as how badly she's mangling the law to achieve her desired result. The following passages are particularly illuminating:

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles ....

Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Speaking of Alice in Wonderland, Orly Taitz's reaction was quite queenly: she called Judge Land "corrupt" and a "puppet of the regime," and opined "somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama."

This latest defeat leaves Orly sitting on one more lawsuit, which is sitting in the court of David Carter in California, and scheduled to have the Government argue for dismissal on October 5th. It also hinges on the question of whether Obama is qualified to be the Commander in Chief, and uses a "really real" Kenyan Birth Certificate that a certain Lucas Smith apparently stole from a hospital after paying a Kenyan official to took the other way.

But Orly might be losing Lucas Smith as an ally. On the 15th, on his Youtube Channel, he posted this cryptic note:

Im sorry everyone but, I cannot work with Orly Taitz any longer. She wants me to lie under oath.

Lie under oath? Perhaps much like Larry Sinclair, who, after trying to remain silent on the matter, has now decided to tell people what she wanted him to do.

Later today I will be faxing to the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California as well as to the U.S. Attorney's Office an Affidavit informing Judge Carter that on September 7, 2009 Orly Taitz did knowingly and intentionally ask me to appear before his Court on September 8, 2009 and give knowingly false testimony for the purpose of obtaining "expedited discovery," and to gain publicity for my book.

From the Affidavit he's made public on his site:

"Orly Taitz said "Larry I want you to testify that three (3) members of Obama's church were murder." I interrupted Orly Taitz at this time and informed her "Dr. Taitz, I told you when you contacted me in December 2008 you were spreading false claims, there was not three (3) members of Obama's Church murdered."

Is Larry Sinclair being honest? Who can say. But given how much Orly is stretching the law to try and cover her true goals - up to and including going to bat for "birth certificates" that are obvious or near-obvious forgeries - it wouldn't be all that surprising if it turned out she was getting others to lie, or not minding if they do so long as her needs are met.

Even if all the above isn't enough to collapse Orly Taitz's house of cards once and for all, we can still take hope: the Chief Trial Counsel of the California Bar has submitted a complaint against Orly Taitz and, with any luck, she will soon be disbarred. So perhaps her time as a constant source of dark amusement will come to an end - we hope.