California attorney Orly Taitz’ run of bad luck with military clients continues today with this decision from Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Ms. Taitz, on behalf of the forty-four named plaintiffs (including numerous persons claiming military rank ranging from full colonel to sergeant), sought to challenge the qualifications of the President  and to prevent him from deploying troops without explicit Congressional authorization; entering into or modifying treaties; or appointing federal judges.  Her suit also sought to curtail the authority of the President (and other federal officials) to conduct foreign policy “by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force.”  Rather than proposing a succession to the Presidency by Vice President Joe Biden, the suit called for “a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.”

Judge Carter, a former active-duty Marine officer who fought at Khe Sahn and won the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, concluded that none of the military plaintiffs had standing to maintain their suit.  As to former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others who ran for president or vice president on minor party tickets in the 2008 election, Judge Carter found potential standing; but concluded the federal courts lack the power to provide the redress they sought.  Because the President has taken the oath of office, the judge reasoned, the sole mechanisms for his removal under the Constitution are impeachment or invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

In addition to dismissing all claims against the President, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the other named defendants: Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, and First Lady Michelle Obama.   The court opined in a footnote that “The inclusion of the First Lady in the lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.” 

In the final few paragraphs of his ruling, Judge Carter observed dryly that the hearings “have been interesting to say the least.”  Among the many irregularities cited by the Court were Ms. Taitz’ continual refusal to comply with court rules and procedure, her request to recuse the magistrate judge because he required her to follow the Court’s Local Rules, and her attempt “to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel.”  In addition, the Court noted its receipt of “several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves.”

Ms. Taitz has not yet commented on the order.

26 Responses to “U.S. District Court dismisses Barnett v. Obama”

  1. MJW1 says:

    Enough already, please tell me that the State of California is in the process of disbarment.

  2. Paul says:

    Judge land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed), poor little Birthers.

    Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Wait, did she not file the ENLISTED OATH, not the oath for officers? p.6. I thought all her military clients are commissioned officers?
    Don’t officers have to take the oath in 5 U.S. Code 3331?

    I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

  4. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I found it interesting how the judge called out the LT and basically encouraged the Army to prosecute.

  5. Late Bloomer says:

    Separated at birth? Orly Taitz and Richard Heene

  6. Bridget says:

    Southern D-whatever my thoughts about Ms. Taitz’s litigation, the judge hinting that the Army should discipline the LT seems inappropriate. Service members can file stupid lawsuits as can any other citizen. I wonder how much the LT and some of the other plaintiffs in these cases understood about Taitz and her “methodology”.

    My sense is that Ms. Taitz may want to seek a good bar defense counsel.The Rhodes case gives her problems already, what with Rule 11 sanctions and the former client saying she will be complaining to the bar. But the declarations that she encouraged perjury from witnesses… But, then again, she probably thinks it is all part of the conspiracy.

  7. Christopher Mathews says:

    Not sure I read that part of the opinion as an invitation to prosecute, though it’s clear that the judge stopped just barely short of calling the lieutenant a coward.

    I agree with Bridget that Ms. Taitz’ future as a member of the California Bar looks to be problematic.

  8. Anonymous says:

    There was a video game a few years back called Psychonauts. Your cartoon character went inside the messed up minds of other cartoon characters and fought the twisted denizens therein.

    I am now convinced that entire game was created by someone with an intimate and long relationship with Ms. Taitz.

  9. Anon says:

    Well, if she gets disbarred, she can always fall back on her dental practice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz

    This should give all those anti-dentites out there plenty of ammunition.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Well, if she gets disbarred, she can always fall back on her dental practice.

    Would you let this woman put power tools inside your face?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Well, I’d probably ask her first whether she thinks cavities are a reality or a conspiracy.

  12. Nancy Truax says:

    Kavity Kreeps. Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

  13. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I think there is a lot of hand wringing going on with respect to whether these officers should be tried for their statements through counsel about the CIC. I agree that one might not know exactly what their attorney is going to do at first, but there are plenty of stops along with way for someone to say, “Wait, I didn’t realize this was the crazy train. Let me off.”

    That these OFFICERS did not do so I think shows at the very best a lack of judgment and/or backbone. These hearings became a farce the moment she opened her mouth in court, and this one was filed in January (service not effected until August).

    Captain Rhodes did eventually say “Let me out,” but even that was too late.

    As for Cossio’s comments, many liberals joined the military under Bush’s regime and followed orders instead of making spurious arguments about the legality of their orders. That Watada made such arguments was the reason for his Court Martial.

    No officer could go out and say at a political rally that President Obama is an imposter, fraud, and illegimate. Why allow them to do so through a nutjob attorney? Yes, I’m all for allowing them to file suit, but Taitz went so far beyond the pale that the officers had a DUTY to say, “This crazy does not speak for us.” That they didn’t shows that they are either criminal or cowardly, in my book, and they should face the same sanctions that Watada faced.

  14. Phil Cave says:

    I’m sure you are all aware that one of these officers — Major Cook — is now a civilian employee at Gitmo, and that 1Lt Easterling has been recommended for promotion in his most recent OER. Easterling did apparently receive a “reprimand.”

    http://courtmartial.typepad.com/mljucmj/2009/10/nothing-or-anything-of-consequence.html

  15. Christopher Mathews says:

    Cossio —

    Gerald Ford did not, despite his use of an assumed name through college, his dodgy family background, his rise to prominence in a border state, and the circumstance by which he came to power without the vetting of a national campaign, inspire a birther movement of his own. That was the point: no President has previously been subject to the same legal attacks on his eligibility.

    As I mentioned before, the question of where this President was born has long since been answered to my satisfaction. I would point out as well that it was for years an article of faith among the right that the Clintons were ruthlessly committed to acquiring power, and the notion that they somehow just plumb forgot to look into Obama’s eligibility seems unlikely. It seems equally unlikely that the McCain campaign, the RNC, and the various GOP-leaning PACs and “independent” issue groups that sprung up during the campaign would have all missed the issue … if it had any merit. The fact that none of them raised it suggests that there is no issue, except in the minds of those who do not want to accept the results of the election. Like Orly Taitz.

    Put bluntly: when the person leading your crusade is wearing the legal equivalent of a big red rubber nose, a frizzy wig, and floppy shoes, odds are that you’re in a circus. Don’t expect to be taken seriously.

  16. Anonymous says:

    It is usually fruitless to do this but:

    “This was a real issue but brought upon an incompetent lawyer who couldn’t argue her way out of a paper bag.”

    If this is a “real issue” then one would think in this entire country, 40 percent conservative by the way, you’d be able to find a single “competent” attorney to bring this up, yes? The fact that there is not one, might suggest the lack of “realness” in this issue don’t you think?

    “Further I believe that under those parameters it is a legitimate issue. Judge Carter thinks so too as he found merit if this suit was filed before the oath of office was taken.”

    Selective and imaginative reading. He did not say he “found merit.” He said that the fact that the suit was brought after inauguration made it completely a political issue and made impeachment the only possible way under the Constitution to remove a sitting President. In other words, you went from a snowball’s chance down under, to zero chance once inauguration happened.

    Which of course, is also why it is not a “real” issue. 435 members of the House, including some of the most conservative “real” Americans out there, and not one of them filed or even attempted to file an Article of Impeachment or even spoke out asking for one based on lack of standing to be elected. Again, evidence it might not be real.

    Finally, where was this question before the election? It isn’t a “real” question.

  17. Christopher Mathews says:

    SDC, when I was stationed at Vandenberg AFB during the Reagan era, we would typically have one or two new officers in the missile launch officer school who would declare that they could not turn key, even if ordered to do so. We simply washed them out, administratively discharged them, and sought to recoup whatever we paid for their education. I’d have no problem doing the same with the birthers. You don’t think you can obey orders that come to you from a chain of command headed by the President? Happy trails, pal — now pay up.

  18. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Cossio,

    You assume that when they showed up in Court was the first time that Taitz went off the deep end, which is false. She had(has) a blog, she went on Fox News, and she wrote a book. Her outlandish behavior, crazy conspiracies, and questionable tactics have been laid bare for the American populace to see for quite some time.

    Also, one would think that if one were a military officer, knowing of the proscriptions on attacking ones chain of command under the UCMJ, that an intelligent officer would be extra careful on who they chose to articulate their point of view both in court and in the press. As I said, there were multiple stops along the way where any of them could have said “Ok, I’ve seen enough, I do not want to be associated with this freak show.” And they didn’t. That is the problem.

    Her insanity didn’t just jump out of the bushes and surprise them and now they’re saying “Whoa, what happened here? She seemed so NORMAL until she went to Court.” Anyone who has followed the birther movement knows that she is a spotlight seeking nut who says some really dumb, and potentially treasonous stuff. I just don’t buy that they didn’t know what she’d say.

    As to the issue of Admin Sep, that’s a perfectly reasonable way to go after people who won’t touch the button. However, if they had been saying “I cannot turn the key because Reagan is (a) incompetent, (b) not allowed to be president because he’s an actor and we all know that actors are secret communists, or (c) really a space alien, then I’d say a CM might be more appropriate, especially if they went public with their claims.

    If today’s military wants to simply admin sep the birthers that is legal, and a fine course of action to take. But I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to Court martial these folks either. They knew what they were doing, and they violated their oaths of office.*

  19. John O'Connor says:

    I see two potential levels of reprehensibility with respect to the officers who have been birther plaintiffs.

    On the one hand, you have officers who file a suit because they want a judge to determine whether they need to follow the directions of the President, but they will do what they are told until a judge says they don’t have to. That seems to be the plaintiff in the case before Judge Land. I think officers filing these suits do a disservice to the military because their actions foment dissension and injure morale. So, even recognizing every man’s right to have a day in court, these people are not, in my view, acting honorably, though they probably deserve scorn and not discipline in my book.

    Far worse are the officers who say they won’t do anything until a judge says they have, sort of the right wing version of Ehren Watada. Those people deserve the full weight of every ounce of discipline and scorn the military can manage to place upon them in my book.

  20. Phil Cave says:

    http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html

  21. Christopher Mathews says:

    Cossio, if the Clintons let go an issue that — had it merit — could have put Hillary in the White House, doesn’t that suggest to you that it does not, in fact, have merit?

    Or do you think they just decided the Presidency wasn’t worth the effort?

  22. Dwight Sullivan says:

    As reluctant as I am to enter this dialogue, please note that according to the Washington Times, Philip J. Berg “filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001.” I found this in a piece that appears to have been written by Philip J. Berg himself: “Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!” So, no, the fact that Mr. Berg brought a claim similar to Ms. Taitz’s does nothing to provide any more credibility to that claim — a claim that is guano crazy in light of all the contrary evidence, including but not limited to two birth announcements in Honolulu newspapers in 1961, verification by Republican officials in Hawaii that state records confirm President Obama’s birth in Hawaii, etc.

    I don’t intend to write any more on this subject, so if someone posts a retort to this and I don’t answer, please know in advance that it’s not because I’ve been won over to the guano crazy side.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I find this hilarious. You are only 80 percent sure he is a citizen even with a birth certificate, but you are “certain” he listed himself as a foreign citizen on some financial aid document because “supposely” he did so.

    Hilarious.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Hey Cossio, just for you:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

  25. Anonymous says:

    “Would you be suprised?” Yes. Because I am not a conspiracy theorist.

  26. Christopher Mathews says:

    Ms Taitz’ website now contains a number of responses to the ruling, including calls for armed rebellion and musings about how, if an extremist were to assassinate the President, it would be Judge Carter’s fault.

    And with that appalling coda, I declare this thread closed.