| Birtherism wears its crazy on its sleeve. For one thing, the demand that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate did not reach anything close to its crescendo until months after Obama had already posted his birth certificate to the internet. And, of course, there's the crazy incarnate of Orly Taitz. So you can be forgiven for not knowing of the craziness embodied in the actual lawsuit that was thrown of of court in Orange County at the end of October. Fortunately, that craziness is captured in the 30-page decision (pdf) itself, perhaps the calmest document you might ever chance to read that is written in response to batshit insanity.
But you don't have to read the entire 30-page document. Just a few paragraphs from the very end should suffice quite nicely. The sad fact is (sad for comedians, at least), the judge threw the case out on procedural grounds, so there was no full bore circus with phony birth certificates and the like. And in the end the judge addresses the plaintiff's impatience with him for actually following the law and respecting constitutional separation of powers-as opposed tobuying into their free-flowing interpretation of the law as always serving their immediate needs.
But if you do skip to the end (as you can by jumping to the section "The Grand Finale"), then you'll miss half the fun (yeah, I'm a non-lawyer who thinks reading judicial decisions can be fun), such as when the Judge, David O. Carter, explains that the plaintiffs "seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election," that "Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs," that they seek "to emasculate the military." Hmmm. Trying to make the country ungovernable and bring it to the point of total collapse, leaving it utterly defenseless. Sound like any political party you know? |
Shut Down The Government
Plaintiffs seek "injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants [the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President] to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during the pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama's constitutional qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence." Id. 3:13-22. In other words, Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but instead seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.
This is necessary, because the plaintiffs failed to file their suit before Obama was sworn in as President-a delay that automatically made their burden much harder, as the judge noted:
Plaintiffs have requested both an injunction and a declaratory judgment in the Complaint Compl. ¶¶ 11-22. Plaintiffs would have the Court reverse the election of President Obama by the American people through a declaratory judgment or injunction that would result in the removal of the President from office. The power of this Court generally to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President is limited at best. The Supreme Court has stated that enjoining a President is an "extraordinary" action that should "raise[ ] judicial eyebrows." Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) (plurality opinion). It has also stated that "in general 'this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.'" Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866)).
A Foolish FOIA Request
The plaintiff also sought to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, to which the judge replied:
However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs' claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an "agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines "agency" as, "any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants-President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates-are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
Misunderstanding Standing, Part 1: Shutting Down The Military To "Save America"
A good deal more time is spend going through the various groups of plaintiffs, and why they don't have standing to bring the case. One has standing to sue only if one has suffered-or stands to suffer-a particular injury. Of particular interest in crazy department are use of military personal, about which the judge says the following:
The Complaint also requests that this Court enjoin the President's "powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force." Compl. 3:14- 19. This "cut and run" call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.
Did I say crazy, or what? The judge continues:
Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94, 73 S. Ct. 534 (1953) ("[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army."). Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the President takes as Commander-in-Chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the Court to suspect that the constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to countries where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. See Rhodes v Thomas D. MacDonald et al. , No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2007 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (Plaintiff objecting to President Obama's natural born citizen status "had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September 2009"). Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese's claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Misunderstanding Standing, Part 2: Orly Taitz's Theory of Relativity
Another example of Orly Taitz logic is revealed with respect to one plaintiff who claims to be a relative of Obama:
The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Kurt Fuqua ("Fuqua") has "traced his genealogy to be common with Mr. Obama's" and that he thereby has standing because of "family relationship" and "concerns of the family medical history." Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52. The Court finds that Plaintiff Fuqua also fails to satisfy standing requirements based on his alleged familial ties to President Obama. The Complaint alleges that this family relationship, as well as purported concerns Plaintiff has regarding his family medical history, establish standing. Id. ¶ 52. The Court takes this to mean that Fuqua has a greater interest in finding out where President Obama was born than the average citizen. Plaintiff Fuqua's injury from an allegedly unqualified president is not any greater than the common citizen's injury simply because he is allegedly related to President Obama.
The Personal Crazy Of Orly Taitz
Toward the end of the decision, there's a section that you don't usually see in decision. Gee, I wonder why?
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs' Counsel
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. See Order Denying Pls.' Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato's Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.' Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
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.
The Grand Finale
Finally, here's the conclusion, where the judge rejects the bottom line of crazy--the call to ignore the Constution:
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere "technicalities" obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama's birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, "It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution." Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gosh, what's this country coming to when courts insist on following the Constitution rather than just deposing presidents willy-nilly whenever a wingnut gets agitated?
Now, if that last passage didn't have you all ROTFLMAO, I've only got two words to say to you: William James. There's just not enough nitrous oxide in your life.
Coda
But least you think this lawsuit is particularly crazy, consider other lawsuits that have more successfully attacked presidential Democrats over the past two decades.
Consider Whitewater, which was an investigation into a more-than-decade-old land deal (the first time any President had ever been investigated for any pre-election activity) in which the Clintons lost money, justified to one and all by their partnership with a man who owned an S&L... several years after the failed land deal. How was that any less crazy than the Taitz argument about Fuqua's supposed standing to sue?
Consider the Paula Jones lawsuit, in which she sued Clinton for the fact that the Weekly Standard exposed her identity, well, would you believe, her first name? And the Supreme Court decision that said it was okay for that suit to go forward while Clinton was still in office, because it wouldn't interfere with the conduct of his duties?
And what about Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court not only over-ruled the Florida State Supreme Court in interpreting its own state election law (what could they possibly know about that?), but did so by blithely accepting candidate Bush's standing to sue on behalf of the ballots of persons unknown--granting so-called "equal protection" to said ballots by not counting them! With "protection" like that, who needs to be attacked?
No, there's really nothing particularly crazy about the Orly Taitz lawsuit. What's different is only that it was seen as such. |
