A Georgia judge blasted attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of court challenges to President Obama’s eligibility, fining her $20,000 for what he called “frivolous” court actions and mocking her concern over Obama’s background.

“Although counsel’s present concern is the location of the president’s birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday,” wrote U.S. District Judge Clay Land in an order released today.

“Perhaps, he looks ‘too young’ to be president, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate?

“Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the president is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution. Or, more to the point, perhaps the court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the president in the Oval Office,” he continued.

“It is clear that the
Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate
in the selection or removal of the president, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are
somehow violated by the process,” Land wrote.

Taitz, who is collecting support for her court battles on her website at OrlyTaitzEsq.com, told WND the order is “outrageous.”

“There was no reason to do it in such a manner,” she said.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

She said she was not finished reviewing the 43-page order but suggested that if it made her subject to criminal penalties, she would be entitled to defend herself by calling witnesses pertinent to the issue and obtaining discovery of evidence supporting her.

The case generating the penalty originally was brought on behalf of a reserve military officer, Connie Rhodes, who questioned Obama’s eligibility to hold office. Rhodes contended the question undermined the legitimacy of her orders under such a commander-in-chief to deploy.

Taitz previously brought a similar case, but the military simply canceled the officer’s orders, eliminating the dispute.

Land rejected virtually every argument raised by Taitz and eventually warned her about sanctions. He imposed them when she continued challenging his orders.

Land criticized Taitz’s convictions, saying, “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.”

A clerk in Land’s court refused to allow WND to contact the judge, saying he “always” refuses to comment.

Land’s order said Taitz “personally attacks” opposing parties and “disrespects” the judiciary, “recklessly” accusing the judge of violating ethics rules.

“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,” Land ordered.

“The [case] claims were based solely on conjecture and speculation that the
president may not have been born in the United States,” Land wrote. But he said, “counsel failed to allege and explain how any such factual allegations
resulted in a denial of plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights.”

Land described some of Taitz’s challenges in the case as “preposterous” and “fantasy.”

And he expressed his belief that the link between an officer following orders emanating from a chain of command in which the president may not have qualified for office as “frivolity.”

“Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their president proof of where he was born.
Counsel does not have the right, however, to file an action in federal
court on behalf of an Army officer to avoid deployment when the only basis for seeking the court’s aid to prevent deployment is speculation
and conjecture that the president is not eligible to serve.

“She pointed to no legal authority supporting her contention
that an alleged ‘cloud’ on the president’s eligibility to hold office
violated one of her client’s individual constitutional rights. And
she provided no legal authority to support the proposition that even
if the president were found not to be eligible for the office, that
this would mean all soldiers in the military would be authorized to
disregard their duty as American soldiers and disobey orders from
their chain of command,” Land said.

He said the nation’s founders “provided opportunities for a president’s
qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct
involvement by the judiciary. In addition to the obvious opportunity
that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s
qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism
for removing a president who ‘slips through the cracks,’ which is how
counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the president
can be removed through impeachment,” he wrote.

“It is clear that the
Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate
in the selection or removal of the president, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are
somehow violated by the process.”

He also tried to deflect, in advance, any claims Taitz would make in defense.

“The court is also aware that
under certain circumstances, sanctions that are imposed solely to
punish and deter the sanctioned party may be so severe that the
sanctioned party may be entitled to the full panoply of rights under
the due process clause, including a jury trial. … As previously explained, the court finds that Ms. Taitz is not
entitled to that full panoply of rights under the circumstances of
this case.”

He said allowing attorneys such rights would be “burdensome.”

Earlier this week, a plaintiff in another case challenging Obama said federal courts must hear the challenges, because to do otherwise would be treason.

The claim came from Charles F. Kerchner Jr., a lead plaintiff in the Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Apuzzo filed suit in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They raise the very issue cited by Land and allege the constitutionally provided verifications of a president’s qualifications were not carried out.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements, the lawsuit said.

Now on the attorney’s blog, Kerchner has written, “The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.”

He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

Taitz also has another case pending in California. She represents several dozen defendants, and attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation represents two others. The judge in that case has taken under review a government motion to dismiss but also has scheduled a trial for January.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.