![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, on the 17th, I linked to Judge Land's excellent legal takedown of the whole Birther nonsense vis a vis Orly Taitz and Captain Rhodes.
In it, I said that Captain Rhodes had asked for a reconsideration, and Taitz was on the talkshows, slinging the word "treason" around.
Well! Make your popcorn and settle in comfortably, boys and girls, because the second act has started.
First of all, Captain Rhodes sent a letter to Judge Land saying that Taitz had filed the reconsideration motion without her knowledge or permission. I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
Ms. Taitz, however, not only proceeded, but her motion (here in pdf format) brings the batshit in new and interesting ways. Did you know that your father being an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the British Crown invalidates the US citizenship of the child of a US mother regardless of that baby's place of birth? [p4] Yeah, me neither. She mentions that not agreeing with her position smacks of treason, and she whines he obviously hasn't read her "careful" research and also that she hasn't been given enough time to respond.
Well, Judge Land didn't need much time to point out that he told her he'd sanction her if she filed another frivolous petition with his court on this issue. It was deja vu all over again he starts, before getting into the meat of the matter, which is that the motion for reconsideration is denied and she has 14 days to show why he shouldn't land her with a $10,000 fine. [p2]
Page 6 is quite nice. Although the First Amendment may allow the Plaintiff's council to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric.
In the meantime, other conspiracy theorists are coming up with reasons why the Rhodes letter was forged or false.
In it, I said that Captain Rhodes had asked for a reconsideration, and Taitz was on the talkshows, slinging the word "treason" around.
Well! Make your popcorn and settle in comfortably, boys and girls, because the second act has started.
First of all, Captain Rhodes sent a letter to Judge Land saying that Taitz had filed the reconsideration motion without her knowledge or permission. I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
Ms. Taitz, however, not only proceeded, but her motion (here in pdf format) brings the batshit in new and interesting ways. Did you know that your father being an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the British Crown invalidates the US citizenship of the child of a US mother regardless of that baby's place of birth? [p4] Yeah, me neither. She mentions that not agreeing with her position smacks of treason, and she whines he obviously hasn't read her "careful" research and also that she hasn't been given enough time to respond.
Well, Judge Land didn't need much time to point out that he told her he'd sanction her if she filed another frivolous petition with his court on this issue. It was deja vu all over again he starts, before getting into the meat of the matter, which is that the motion for reconsideration is denied and she has 14 days to show why he shouldn't land her with a $10,000 fine. [p2]
Page 6 is quite nice. Although the First Amendment may allow the Plaintiff's council to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric.
In the meantime, other conspiracy theorists are coming up with reasons why the Rhodes letter was forged or false.
