BadFiction - a look at bad movies and worse politics

Stupid Birther Tricks

A while back, Stephen Pidgeon continued his descent into madness with his idea of a "National Grand Jury" to file a supposed indictment on President Obama.

Basically this was the birther's attempt to get some sort of "legal" action going since all their cases have gone nowhere. Rooted firmly in the Pseudolaw that the birthers and their teabagging tax cheat allies are so fond of, the belief was that a "citizens" court could force some sort of official reaction.

Realistically speaking, it was more like getting the National Baseball Association to change their season based on the demands of a couple fantasy baseball leagues. Because the main problems with this entire idea is:

SBSI, or "Stealth Bat Shit Insane" - Birther Update

Birtherworld has been a bit of a buzz, with parts looking much like a thriller that ended up on MST3K. All it needs is Joel and the bots to add their three cents.

21 March - World Net Daily posts about Dr. Orly's "demand" to investigate so-called 'tampering' at the Supreme Court, claiming that "305 million Americans need to know if foreign national is usurping presidency". Once again, the birthers grossly over-inflate their numbers.

"Orly Taitz, who is pursuing nearly half a dozen causes through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, says the issue of Obama's eligibility to meet the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" president has been before the Supreme Court at least four times.

But she wonders whether the justices actually were given the pleadings to review.

"I believe … that there was tampering with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the justices never saw those briefs," she alleges in a letter to the FBI's Robert Mueller, the Secret Service's Mark Sullivan and Attorney General Eric Holder."

That's easy - they got them, and rejected them. I know you don't like hearing that your cut-and-paste tissue of insanity was rejected because it had no merits and you had no standing, but there you go.

Congratulations! It's a Bouncing Baby Rule 11 sanction!

(Thanks to Tes!)

Judge Robertson responds to John Hemenway's reply in regards to Hollister v "Soetoro".

Congratulations, it's a bouncing baby Rule 11 sanction.

"We live in a free country. Our liberties are manifold and are the envy of the world. In the very top tier of those liberties, enshrined in the First Amendment, is “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many of those petitions are presented to judges. Every judge knows that a disturbingly high percentage of them involve petty slights, or imagined injuries, or matters that lie well beyond the reach of the judicial writ, but most judges will agree that it is important at least to listen to them -- especially to the grievances of poor petitioners, or disadvantaged petitioners, or petitioners who do not have lawyers -- even if the courts are powerless to grant relief.

Lawyers who come to court to present grievances, however, are held to a higher standard than disadvantaged or unrepresented persons. For lawyers, there are rules. A lawyer knows that no judge has any business addressing or ruling upon a dispute, no matter how fervently he or his clients may feel about it, unless the judge has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, unless the client has standing to be heard, unless the cause is ripe and justiciable, and unless the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. A lawyer who comes to federal court also knows, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly say so, that his signature on a complaint “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the complaint “is not being presented for any improper purpose,” Rule 11(b)(1), and that “the claims . . . and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” Rule 11(b)(2)."

That's the first two paragraphs. And already one can feel the storm about to come.

A few fries short of a happy meal - Birther update

Time marches on and the nutcases in Birtherworld are spouting their usual nonsense. Dr. Orly's Cavity Creeps are extra-treasony, but they're all pretty pointless and deranged.

16 March - The OC Weekly comments on Comrade Orly's Glorious People's Victory in Moscow (Idaho)

"Thanks to commenter "Doubtful" for bringing extraordinary news to our attention: Dr. Orly Taitz, our Mission Viejo/Rancho Santa Margarita dentist turned political activist, has embarked on a crusade to harass members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last Friday, Taitz got up at 3 in the morning to journey to the University of Idaho, where Chief Justice John Roberts gave a speech followed by a Q&A session. With tenacity and, presumably, the will of God, Taitz managed to be the first person to throw a question Robert's way: "I wanted to know if you are aware of some illegal activity that is going on in the Supreme Court of the United States."

See, the Court's clerks have been maliciously obscuring briefs filed by Taitz and friends in cases arguing that Barack Obama isn't actually a U.S. citizen and therefor cannot be president. You can listen to the exchange here. Roberts interrupted her and thanked her for traveling so far before saying he couldn't comment on pending cases but "would be happy" to look at any documents she had brought. Lucky him: According to Taitz's blog, she was carrying a suitcase full of material and handed it over to the security agents who escorted her out of the room.

And this comes a few days after Taitz similarly confronted Antonin Scalia in L.A. and, supposedly, was told by Scalia that he would totally be up for hearing her case if the other justices weren't so lame.

This has all made Taitz the toast of the "birther" blogosphere, with the term "hero" being thrown around quite a bit. As World Net Daily reports, the "room was stunned silent" by Taitz's question to Roberts. As the audio recording reports, World Net Daily is full of shit."

As usual, there's Orlyworld, and then there's reality.

Their Own Private Idaho - Birther Update

I'd like to start off by introducing this item.

The first is "Pseudolaw". See if this sounds familar:

"Pseudolaw encompasses any legal theory developed or action taken that relies heavily on frivolous arguments trumped up in legal language. Pseudolaw shares many homologous and analogous traits with pseudoscience such as the use of argument from authority, equivocation, and quote mining. Like pseudoscience most of the proponents of pseudolaw are laymen with little to no legal experience (outside their own trials and incarcerations). While an overwhelming majority of those in the legal profession reject the arguments, there are a few cranks with law degrees and licenses that push pseudolaw as well."

And some signs are:

* Quoting Supreme Court cases out of context, usually one or two sentences, or sometimes even a phrase. Tax protesters are found of quoting Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) to argue that the income tax is illegal. However, the ruling is not saying that the 16th amendment did not provide power to tax income, but rather that Congress already had that power. This is classic quote mining.

* Reference to other arguments that have been rejected as frivolous by courts. Pseudolaw concepts flock together and cross-pollinate.

* Arguments that try and say that the court, police, public officials, etc. have no authority over an individual unless that individual has consented to that authority. This is often phrased as along the lines of "once you accept an attorney, you're bound by contract to the court, but if you refuse an attorney they have no authority."

* References to the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the so-called "missing 13th Amendment" to the United States Constitution). Similarly, some pseudolawyers even argue that persons who use the title of "Esquire" (generally practicing attorneys) are not citizens and cannot hold public office.

* Pseudolawyers are fond of making up jargon from Latin, that they claim derive from common law and give people special rights that others do not such as juris spurious when used in filing claims.

* On a similar note, pseudolawyers often misuse legal terminology, often because they do not have a full understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss.

By now readers are thinking strongly about Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Pidgeon, etc.

"Pseudolaw often goes hand and hand with other conspiracy theories. Most pseudolaw practitioners believe there is a vast conspiracy to cover up a group of elitists that control all the judges, courts, juries and the government as a whole. This is why their ideas never work in court--not because they are wrong, but because there is a conspiracy to suppress them (just like the vast materialist conspiracy propping up the Darwinian orthodoxy). This dark group holds all the classic labels such as Masons, Illuminati, and Zionists. There is also a tendency to believe that violent revolution is coming and to stockpile supplies, weapons and ammunition. Many of the militia and extremist groups that have dominated press coverage of domestic terrorism over the last decade have relied heavily on pseudolaw concepts and conspiracies."

A lot of people practicing "Pseudolaw" are also involved in the whole tax revolt movement - which has a heavy population in the birther groups as well.

Madness takes it's toll.....please have exact change" - Birther Update

By now it's becoming obvious that many of the birthers are unhinged at best, with Dr. Orly courting a 5150 with the best of them. Any by now it's obvious that Dr. Orly Taitz is, not to put too fine a point on it, insane.

Her hatred of Barack Obama has become pathological. With each post, you can imagine the spittle flying from her lips.

Why??

Well, she's a bigot. Maybe not in terms of racial issues, but she's got more than a slight problem with Muslims. As evidenced by posts where she claims Hammas is going to move into people's neighborhoods, her constant statement about the Indonesian school record putting down Muslim as Obama's religion, comments on his Muslim father and Kenyan family. Not to mention her past comments in papers calling for the "extermination" of some Muslim groups and their members.

Religious bigotry is still bigotry. She might well be colour-blind in terms of race, but what of religion?? And since Obama got 77% of the Jewish vote, (more than John Kerry got). In fact, American Jews favoured Obama over McCain by 3:1. (Just like the Military favoured Obama 6:1 in donations). So it's obvious she's not speaking for other members of her faith.

Instead, she's speaking out of hatred. And something more mayhaps.

Dr. Orly is an immigrant to the United States, a Naturalized US Citizen. Which means that unlike those of us born in the US, she had to choose to be a US citizen. And there are certain limitations on being a Naturalized US Citizen, chief of which is the bar to the presidency.

So along comes this man. He's not a Muslim himself, but he's got a Muslim background and the middle name of Hussein. He sends out a message that the American votes respond to in droves. Despite every obstacle in his path, he works hard, wins the Democratic primary, and then wins the general election, becoming President of the United States.

To Dr. Orly, blinded by hatred and rage, this is unthinkable, that the country she has chosen to be a part of picked someone she believes is a Muslim, (or tainted by a Muslim background), as their leader. She can't handle or tolerate this.

And so she tries to "de-Americanize" him.

1) "He can't be a REAL American because he was really born in Kenya."
2) "Even if he wasn't born in Kenya, he became an Indonesian, so he's still not a REAL American".
3) "Even if he wasn't born in Kenya AND isn't an Indonesian citizen, his FATHER wasn't a Citizen, so he's not the right KIND of citizen and therefore not a REAL American.

Because Barack Obama is something Dr. Orly is not, and cannot ever be.

A Natural-born citizen of the United States, born in the United States of a US Citizen parent. And it tears at her this man she hates so much, spews so much venom at, this stealth Muslim (to her at any rate), is by birth the one thing she can never ever be.

And that's why she claims these theories. That's why she calls for military coups. This is why she touts the breakup of the United States. This is why she calls for militias to overthrow the US government. This is why she seduces active duty personnel into mutiny and sedition. Because she can't handle the idea that someone she's bigoted against this strongly is the leader of her country.

This is why she's anything but the patriot and American she so claims to be. Because a REAL American wouldn't actively try to destroy the country they claim to love. A REAL American wouldn't spit on the Constitution they claim to respect. A REAL American wouldn't call for open rebellion and the destruction of this nation. A REAL American wouldn't support attempts to break this country up.

Dr. Orly Taitz has turned her back on the country she chose to be a citizen of, because her hatred and bigotry can't handle the concept that the American people elected Barack Obama as our leader. And this same hatred and bigotry - and her need to try and convince herself she's not REALLY going against everything this country stands for, not REALLY calling for treason and sedition, oh no, she's REALLY a patriot - is what's driving her more and more insane. Because deep down inside, she knows very well what she's doing - and why it's wrong. And someday she might drop the hatred and realize it for herself. Maybe someday the G-d she believes in will remove the blinders from her sight, and give her the wisdom to start repairing the harm she has caused.

Maybe. But I suspect she's too addicted to hatred for it to happen. In a way, it's ironic that this article ends with Dr. Orly in Idaho. Because she's very much in her own, private, Idaho.

Orly Taitz Flirts with Professional Ethics Standards

Guest poster Publius here: I don’t like to talk about the “Birthers.” They don’t deserve serious treatment, except the occasional concise or snarky explanation of why they’re wrong, both of which are done better by Patrick here. Besides, debating them extensively just makes me feel like I’m lowering myself to their level. So please forgive this momentary diversion, a last glance at one particularly reprehensible villain.

"Dr.” Orly Taitz, a woman holding herself out as a lawyer, has managed to leverage the far-right’s distaste for President Obama into a number of conspiracy theories, a few scurrilous lawsuits, and fifteen minutes of fame, billing herself as the defender of obscure constitutional phraseology and - apparently - the republic itself. But “Dr.” Taitz may be the only “ineligible” player in her little farce.

(read the full post at Submitted to a Candid World...)

"Oh Noes! Teh Ebil Obambi is victimizing us!" - Birther update

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” - Stuart Chase

First off, a special musical salute to Dr. Orly and her Cavity Creeps. (NSFW)

5 March - From poodle-brained Therese Daniels's blog, a cry to "Git R Done" "Get It Right". "Right" in this case translating into "please get rid of that big black scary man that I think is a muslim"

"He's a Chicken, a Giant Chicken!" - Birther Update....

"...you wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man, you're a chicken, Boo!"

It's been a busy week in birther land. Dr. Orly seems to be headed straight into madness, Berg gets his rear handed to him in court, and Linda Starr seems to have had a mental breakdown AND falling out.

2 March - Dr. Orly writes a letter to Attorney General Holder making various demands from the DoJ.

"This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii’s privacy laws. Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Election Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art II - 1 and Amend. XX – 3."

So in order to confirm her wildass claims about Obama, (and it's not like any evidence would make her happy anyway), she wants the DoJ to violate the State of Hawaii's privacy laws.

"As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX – 3."

Actually, he DID. Again, the problem is that Dr. Orly and the rest of the birthers refuse to or don't want to believe it.

"4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect."

Ah, the birther mantra "Patrick Fitzgerald will save us from the big black nasty muslim-sounding man!"

Comments are:

"3/2/2009 9:40 AM kuassa wrote:
The truth will come out sooner or later. BO is an usurper, he will be treated accordingly and history will put him to his well deserved place. It is very sad and alarming that many Americans are so naive, drugged or numbed down. They do not seem to have time to deal with important issues like this because they are so busy pursuing the less important. Little do they know that soon they may not be able to pursue what they are pursuing now."

"Put him down", eh??

Court to Berg - No, you can't have Interpleader, NOT YOURS!

Judge James Robertson, United States District Judge, in Civil Action No. 08-2254 (Hollister v "Soetoro"), has dismissed the case.

The order can be found here

"For the reasons set forth in an accompanying memorandum, the defendants' motion to dismiss [#9] is granted, and John D. Hemenway is ordered to show cause within eleven days of the date of this order why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The Memorandum, which can be found here, is a work of art, starting with:

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in- Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!"

Don't hold back Judge Robertson, tell us what you REALLY think of Berg!

Other than VERY unhappy with their antics that is

And John Hemenway may bear the punishment that should be Berg's (And Joyce's for that matter).

"Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants."

Rule 11 sanctions are usually pretty financially painful for the attorneys that get them. Basically the judge just told Hemenway "How the hell could you have been so STUPID as to listen to these idiots and sign off on their case??"