Considering that Orly Taitz every action is attempting to circumvent, cancel, and violate the Constitution of the United States, is it not time to
call a spade a spade and admit, in true ATS fashion that there is only one possible explanation, namely that:
Orly Taitz is an agent of a malign force in the Radical Conservative movement in the United States seeking to overthrow the Constitution and
replace it with a tightly controlled Stalinist/Fascist dictatorship.
Extract from The USA is not the CCCP
What Orly Taitz is trying to do through her lawsuits, public appearances and most of all on her web site is nothing less than the Sovietization of her
followers. She wants Americans to believe that their government is essentially corrupt and the newspapers are all in on the conspiracy–basically
imposing the milleu of the former Soviet Union on her fans’ perception of the 21st century United States.
Extract (the DISPOSITION section) from
Judge Carter's
dismissal of Taitz lawsuit in California (emphasis mine)
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.
DATED: October 29, 2009
_______________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
|
