The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
Slartibartfast,
The last two posts by VT and then your comments distill the entire ‘birther’ issue into one concise, encapsulated reply to all questions regarding Mr. Obama and other eligible presidential candidates.
Vince,
Thanks for the info (and the bonus info on McCain – I wzs curious about that, too). This agrees with the argument I was making. Any ‘birther’ law will either:
(a) Be satisfied with an official copy of the COLB posted on the web
or
(b) Be unconstitutional
I want to show the birthers that when the game is played according to their rules (remember that their rules respect the primacy of the Constitution above all else) that they lose. It’s too bad that birthers don’t believe in free speech (at least not on their blogs) or I would provide them with the facts directly…
Thank you VT.
I took the position, on this Turley blogsite, in 2008, that, in my opinion. McCain was a natural born citizen.
But, what if Hawaii (or some other state) had demanded that Arizona turn over McCain’s birth certificate? Oh. He was not born there. He was born at the submarine base in the Canal Zone.
But that birth certificate has never been posted on the web. A Washington Post reporter saw it, but the McCain campaign did not let him copy or post it.
“…the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the ‘family hospital’ in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)
“The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.”
Link to source:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
So I wish that the McCain voters, at the very least, would drop this birther nonsense about Obama.
Ok, FFLEO,
Slart, I think that, if the bill were interpreted and applied to require a state-certified birth certificate, then it would be constitutional. The State of Arizona would thus give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of its sister state. Hawaii has the same obligation to the public acts and records of Arizona, and would have to accept an Arizona birth certificate.
Obama has already complied with the proposed law. I think that he is the only potential 2012 candidate who has done so.
The problem is that the birthers keep saying that the candidate would have to provide a “long form” or “vault copy” or copy signed by a doctor, and on and on. Hawaii does not issue a long form or vault copy. It used to issue an old form COLB, called a “Certificate” of Live Birth. It no longer issues those forms. It now issues a new form COLB, called a “Certification” of Live Birth.
A candidate born in Hawaii cannot get a “long form” or “vault copy” because the State does do not issue any form by that description. (I think some states do issue short form cards with birth information that are distinct from their long forms, but Hawaii is not one of those states).
The birthers also want a candidate to go the state of birth and to examine and somehow to secure copies of the original birth records (if copying were permitted under state law) and produce them for the Arizona Secretary of State.
If Arizona keeps someone off the ballot for any reason other than to produce a “birth certificate” within the meaning of the federal legal definition, then that candidate could sue. She could argue that the State was not giving full faith and credit to the records of a sister state. She could argue that the Constitution grants Congress, not the individual states, the right and power to determine how those records are to be proven legally.
I think that the bill could be held unconstitutional if applied in that way. I think the candidate would win, but it would be a case of first impression.
Slartibartfast,
I prefer to have VT, Mike A., Mespo or others reply first.
FFLEO,
What provisions of the ‘birther’ law were unconstitutional? I thought that it just required a candidate to provide proof of natural born citizenship to get on the ballot. It seems to me to be perfectly within the rights of any state to verify the article 1, section 2 eligibility of any candidate who wants to be on the ballot in that state (and a certified copy of President Obama’s COLB from Hawaii would satisfy that requirement – or any other requirement which would pass Constitutional muster). I don’t think that the death of this bill is good news.
Hawaii’s legislature just passed a law which allows the State to ignore requests to see the President’s birth certificate. Guess they finally got fed up with the birthers …
VT,
Republicans frequently tout that we must adhere strictly to the U.S. Constitution; however, my Arizona Republican cohorts in the State legislature do not fully understand the U.S. Constitution or they have at least not done a recent read of the relevant provisions that conflict with their proposed legislation—such as this recent ‘birther’ bill.
Quote: “It’s not about Barack Obama,” Harper said. “He has shown his birth certificates and birth announcements, from the time he was born, in Hawaii newspapers.”
What it is about, Harper said, is “states’ rights.” Unquote.
The birth certificate is indeed a matter of states’ rights, but the particular State which has the right and responsibility for Obama’s birth certificate is Hawaii, NOT ARIZONA.
The people, as in We the People, said so in Article IV Section 1. “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
The people, who ratified the Constitution in conventions, said that Congress may prescribe the manner by which those Acts, Records, and Proceeding shall be proved, not the states. This does not grant that power to Arizona.
Good video Slart.
________________
Quote:
Republicans defend merits of measure but won’t force vote
Obama’s birth certificate not needed
PHOENIX – Barack Obama won’t be required to produce his birth certificate for Arizona officials if he decides to run for re-election.
Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said Thursday not enough of the 18 Republicans in the state Senate support the House-approved measure. And with all 12 Democrats opposed, Harper said it makes no sense to force the issue to a vote.
But Harper defended the merits of the change, rebuffing claims by critics it is silly.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_e6cab037-f0db-534c-a2e3-a226b7204636.html
Bdaman,
Likely not for the same reasons (unless you think that these laws only help President Obama’s re-election campaign). Did you watch the video?
Slartibartfast 1, April 22, 2010 at 8:30 am
Personally, I welcome the Arizona legislation and others like it.
Me Too 🙂
Bdaman,
You repeatedly ask why President Obama wont release his birth certificate – here’s why:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjRthxvSFg&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]
And . . . Hawaii follows through.
Obama Birth Certificate Requests Limited By New Hawaii Law, Pending Governor’s Signature
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_554692.html
CEJ,
No worries, Orly started to bore me long ago. Good night!
Vince and Slarti,
I just meant Orly both your posts and points were worth reading!
Wow, reading about Orly is so tiresome I just might be able to sleep now.
Vince,
I’m guessing you’re not going to be offering Orly your services… 😉
After watching some of MSNBC’s coverage of the Arizona ‘birther bill’ I’ve come to the conclusion that I support this bill and hope that the birthers can get similar bills passed in as many states as possible. The only person on MSNBC that I agreed with was John McCain’s primary opponent, the teabagger J. D. Hayworth. Representative Hayworth said that he thought the bill’s focus was too narrow – he thought it should apply to all federal office seekers (he was also willing to say that he believed that President Obama was born in Hawaii without hedging). The various MSNBC personalities that raised this issue all did so incorrectly in one way or another – they ridiculed birthers while making arguments that did not answer birther objections appropriately. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Vince’s thorough debunking of birthers, but I think that it may be vital for President Obama to have as many of these challenges as possible during his re-election campaign in order to show the low-information voters who may have heard some birther propaganda that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Otherwise it’s not important whether or not the birther allegations are true, but how many people wont vote for the president because they think that President Obama might not be a natural born citizen. We all know that the big lie is used so frequently by the right wing because it works and that the truth is not necessarily a bulletproof defense against it – so support ‘birther’ legislation wherever possible – we want them working hard on the vehicles of their own destruction. Plus getting to see them hoist on their own petards will be really funny…
Did someone just say “Orly Taitz”?
She just filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision by t Chief Judge, Royce Lamberth, dismissing every single count of her Quo Warranto and other claims.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30565037/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-24-First-MOTION-for-Reconsideration-gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-24-0
This is incredible. She filed originally pro se, so she did not have to be a bar member. Now she added crazy failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff.
So now she must be a lawyer in the courtroom, not just an ignorant pro se filer. So she asked for admission to the bar, limited to the particular case [pro hac vice]. If the Judge denies it, she will have to get a Member of the DC Bar to join her as counsel, and by so doing risk his or her bar membership, or be subjected to sanctions for frivolous filings, or both. See what happened to that poor shlunk in Hollister v. Soetero.
More fun than a barrel of birfers.
HERE is the text, from NNBCE:
QUOTE ON
MOTION: REQUEST TO FORWARD TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE MULTIPLE ACTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD, PERJURY, IDENTITY THEFT, FRAUD AND OTHER POSSIBLE FELONIES PERPETRATED BY MR. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED AS MATTERS OF LAW AND FACT ARE AT ISSUE
YOUR HONOR,
Plaintiff would like to start this motion for reconsideration with reference to your remark in your latest order regarding Plaintiff’s quixotic quest.
Yes, Taitz would agree that it is extremely difficult to be a person, an attorney, who brings forward evidence, showing that the sitting president of the United States is committing multiple felonies and needs to be criminally prosecuted, however if Your Honor will be so kind to review some historic events, Your Honor will see that some events considered quixotic at a time, were correct, just and successful in the long run.
When Susan B. Anthony undertook a cause of voting rights for women, many laughed and considered her quest to be quixotic, yet she succeeded and we see today a first female Speaker of the House, female Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and female senators and congresswomen as a direct result of her quixotic quest.
When a young woman by name Golda Meir set on her quest to build a Jewish state after six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, many considered her actions quixotic, yet she succeeded and became the mother of the state of Israel.
When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan set on the quest to defeat the Communist Soviet Union, many considered them as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet they succeeded, and the iron curtain was lifted, the Berlin Wall fell and free people marched through the Brandenburg gate.
Today it might seem an impossible quest, but Taitz is fighting to make sure that the Constitution of the United States of America does not turn into a Dulcinea, who is never rescued by her Prince in Shining Armor.
Plaintiff wants to make sure, that she, as well as three hundred and five million American citizens are not treated as brain-dead robots, as a herd of sheep by Barack Hussein Obama who went through life with multiple Social Security numbers, who is sitting in the White House today using the Social Security number 042-68-xxxx(which was assigned in the state of Connecticut to another individual born in 1890), who never provided any vital records that would be admitted in any court of law, and who does not even possess a valid long form birth certificate with the name of a doctor, name of a hospital and signatures; who has allegiance to three other Nations and god knows who else. Plaintiff is not asking your Honor to tilt windmills, but rather uphold the US Constitution, that your Honor took an oath to protect.
Motion: Request to Forward to the Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute multiple acts of Social Security Fraud, Perjury, Identity Theft, Fraud and other possible felonies perpetrated by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
On 12/21/94, when your Honor reviewed evidence presented and found that Mr. Ira Magaziner has committed perjury, your honor contacted Eric Holder, prosecutor at that time, and asked him to start an investigation of Mr. Magaziner for perjury and criminal contempt. Your honor also asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the affair. According to the US Constitution, nobody is above the law. Millions of American citizens are following this case, as are Millions around the World. Even if your Honor does not find injuries sustained by the Plaintiff to be sufficient and the connection to Barack Hussein Obama to be strong enough, your Honor clearly has seen evidence of numerous felonies committed by Barack Hussein Obama:
1. Social Security Fraud 42 USC §408 (a)(7)(B), which is punishable under title 18 with up to 5 years in prison for each offense (Investigator Sankey shows some 39 different Social security numbers used);
2. Conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 USC §371, which carries up to five years in prison for each offense;
3. Perjury 18 USC §1621 with up to five years in prison for each offense
There are other crimes committed such as elections fraud, voter fraud, identity theft, that any other US citizen would have been convicted of and serving a lengthy prison term for the above crimes. Plaintiff is asking your Honor for equal treatment of the law for Mr. Obama, just as your Honor has treated other parties and any other citizen, and to forward the request to the US Attorney’s Office and Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate multiple felonies perpetrated by Mr. Obama.
Motion for leave of court to file a second amended complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party on the 2008 ballot Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, and Vice Presidential Candidate on the ballot in 2008 election Gail Lightfoot.
Motion for reconsideration is allowed when there is an error of fact or law. While typically Quo Warranto is utilized by interested parties, who challenge the franchise of the government, §16-3502, does not specifically limit quo warranto to such parties, whereby Your Honor is not statutorily precluded from granting Taitz Quo Warranto.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application…
As an attorney for plaintiffs, Keyes, Lightfoot and others, Taitz has submitted Quo Warranto requests to the Attorney General and US Attorney, who have not responded. Therefore, Taitz is asking for leave of the Court to proceed under Quo Warranto, and in case your Honor does not grant Quo Warranto to the Plaintiff, she moves for Leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party in 2008 election Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, as well as Gail Lightfoot, a Vice Presidential candidate for a write in Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Additionally, Ambassador Keyes was a senatorial candidate in the state of Illinois. Plaintiff previously submitted to this Court the March 25th Official report of the National Assembly of Kenya. Page 31 of the report contains a statement of the minister of Lands James Orengo, clearly indicating Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, and there is no evidence of Mr. Obama going through proper immigration procedures after his birth. As such, not only is Mr. Obama’s Natural Born status in question, but his citizenship in general is in question, and whereby, Ambassador Keyes has suffered particularized damage in losing both the senatorial and presidential elections to one who is not entitled to hold office, which indicates clear standing.
Motion for this Honorable court to grant Plaintiff sua sponte admission to US District Court bar without local attorney movant.
Typically, admission to this court requires a sponsor/movant local attorney or a local counsel for pro Hac Vice. Due to the sense of fear associated with a legal action, implicating a sitting president, the damage by slander and libel of Taitz has chilled the opportunity to secure a local attorney as a pro Hac Vice movant; however Your Honor can authorize her acceptance to the court Sua Sponte without such pro hac vice movant. She requests Sua Sponte authorization of acceptance to this bar in order to represent above mentioned additional plaintiffs and opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint on their behalf.
Commerce Clause claims
Your Honor has stated that the First Amended Complaint was filed prior to Patient Protection Act being signed into law, which signifies lack of standing. However, standing exists not only in relation to current injury; it exists in relation to imminent injury as well. Taitz has filed her First Amended complaint after the bill was approved by both houses of Congress and the injury was imminent, which suffice for standing. In the alternative Taitz is seeking a leave of Court to file a Second amended Complaint based on Amended Patient Protection Act, since the original act was modified through the process of reconciliation in Senate and House of Representatives, wherefore making any complaint in regards to the initial Patient Protection Act, moot.
FOIA relief
Your Honor has stated that the FOIA complaint has failed since Taitz did not wait until April 9th for the administrative remedies to be exhausted. As there was no response to the FOIA request by April 9 th and none was received by today, April 26th, Taitz is moving this Honorable court for a leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint for FOIA relief, due to the fact that by today, April 26th administrative remedies were exhausted and no relief was provided.
Fraud and RICO claims
Similarly, Taitz is seeking a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on these causes of action, more fully pleading reliance and damages based on 10th, 9th, 5th and 1st amendment with reference to the pattern of multiple crimes with more than two predicate acts of the enterprise.
UNQUOTE