Maybe we will get another date with Orly Taitz in Santa Ana's Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse after all. Less than two weeks after Judge David O. Carter dismissed the Laguna Niguel's Barnett v. Obama lawsuit seeking to throw the President out of office, Taitz has filed a motion for reconsideration of that case.
And boy is it… interesting. Some might call the motion racially and politically offensive, but, whatever. Like any battle for freedom, Orly's war has its casualties, and common decency is among them.
The entire thing, which is pretty long, is posted on her blog (which may or may not infect you with a virus; we can't tell right now. Instead, read the motion on Scribd.). Basically, Taitz is saying that every single thing that Carter's ruling said is wrong and factually inaccurate
—which is explainable because, Taitz says, the entire opinion was written by a law clerk who is actually an Obama double agent.
]
We talked about this before: Taitz's minions have seized on the fact that one of Carter's clerks worked for a multinational law firm that has lawyers who have represented Obama. Ergo, they say, there's a conspiracy afoot. Does Taitz have any evidence of bias? No. But that doesn't stop her from putting it in her lawsuit:
A newly discovered fact, material to this action, that was the reason
for most errors in the order, is the fact that on October 1, 2009 Your
Honor hired as your law clerk an attorney Siddharth Velamoor, who
previously worked for Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the
defendant in the above case, Mr. Obama. As a matter of fact Perkins
Coie was one of the firms representing the defendants in a prior legal
action filed by the plaintiffs in this very case, Ambassador Alan Keyes et al against Secretary of State Deborah Bowen and Democratic party electors specifically for not vetting Mr. Obama
as a presidential candidate, as Ms. Bowen didn't request any vital
records and never checked any vital records of Mr. Obama, as she and
all the other secretaries of states took his Declaration of a Candidate
on it's face value. As it is a common knowledge that law clerks do most of the research and write most of the opinions for the judges, the
order to dismiss this case was de facto written or largely influenced
by an attorney who until recently worked for a firm representing the
defendant in this case, and who currently is working as a clerk for
the presiding judge, as such most of the order is tainted by bias. This
is a clear prejudice against the plaintiffs.
Emphasis Taitz's.
More charming, though, is Taitz's ability to tap into current events. She decided to spent a few hundred words talking about how, essentially, Judge Carter was in favor of the Ft. Hood shooting that killed 12 people last week… or that Judge Carter would have done nothing to stop it… or… really, we're not sure the relevance:
Recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood has given this question
paramount importance. This order has advocated blind obedience by the
members of the military. If someone were to have common sense, brains
and strength of character to challenge allegiance of Nidal Malik Hasan
in court, after he made numerous anti-American and antimilitary
statements, maybe 12 young boys wouldn't be 6 feet under today, maybe
12 mothers and 12 fathers wouldn't had their hearts ripped out of their
chests and torn apart.
Her heart's in the right place (well, let's say it is, at least), but she's gotten her facts wrong: those killed on Thursday weren't all “young boys.” Ask the family of Sgt. Amy Krueger.
One more gem:
this order is particularly used as a tool in what seems to be a
concerted effort by this Court and judge Clay D Land in GA to use the
power of federal judiciary to publicly lynch the undersigned counsel…
Yes, Orly, they're trying to lynch you. Wonder who else has faced that threat?
