After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
While many others here are very critical of you, I do think you raise reasonable issues on many occasions. That said, it is all too common for judges who don't want to deal with the legal issues to simply say they are frivolous when there is actual merit.
I do not think the use of military plaintiffs in an attempt to prove Obama's ineligibility is the proper route to take. I think the California case is a much better one for this purpose; and I think it has a reasonable chance of success, especially now that Kreep is representing some of the plaintiffs.
I doubt the Rule 11 sanctions and imposition of costs would hold up on appeal since to support those sacntions, the court would pretty much have to prove the allegations were false, which is impossible to do without producing the actual long for birth certificate.
It reminds one the Sotomayor’s punt of the New Haven Firefighter case.
Frivolous, as you know, does have a legal definition as a suit without legal merit and brings in the possibility of sanctions against the plaintiff. It's more than the judges discriptive term. So I don't see him using that word losely.
Also, as the judge noted in his decision, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of civil courts to interfere with military order and discipline. The judge was required to consider the case on its merits and empowered to make a decision based on his conclusions. His disdain for Birthers aside, he does identify some valid points; Rhodes can offer no credible evidence or reasonably valid arguements to support her position and cannot demonstrate any sort of standing to sue. So in the end what sort of choice did he have?