Absolutely spot on. I’m a lawyer myself and I am stunned this is the first time Dr-Lawyer Taitz has been threatened with Rule 11 sanction. For the Laymen, Rule 11 requires that all pleadings filed by a lawyer be signed by them, and that by signing the pleading they are certifying that they personally have investigated the facts they are pleading and found them to be non-frivolous nor being presented for an improper purpose. In most of the courts I’ve practiced in, that forged “Republic of Kenya” BC would have been enough for HEAVY sanctions and possible disciplinary proceedings.
I am personally of the opinion that Dr. Taitz is a con artist playing on the credulity of people here who choose to engage in wishful thinking rather than facts (remember those fine folks at the “African Press Institute” and that video they were supposedly going to release if ONLY they could get a little more money? How many here I wonder, ponied up money to them as well?
Here are the simple facts from a legal perspective
1) These cases will NEVER be heard because of the “Standing” problem. The proper place to raise these issues was in a mandamus action before the various State Elections boards and or Secretaries of State. Once they put his name on the ballot, the question of his eligibility to be there was essentially waived. Even if you could get around that, his election by the Electoral College, The enrollment of their results without any objection by the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice administering the Oath, all mean that legally, he IS the president, and Constitutionally, he can only stop being the president by election or impeachment
and
2) more importantly, even if you COULD get around the standing problem and get the case considered on the merits rather than the procedural question, the Supreme Court’s “political question doctrine” means that they WOULD NOT decide the case any more than they cases they refused to decide that sought to have the Vietnam War declared illegal
Thank you for putting it so succintly. I am a lawyer, I have practiced in federal courts for more than 30 years, and I agree 100%.
Considering she called the judge corrupt and accused him of treason, statements that put her in danger of being disbarred, I’m trending away from con artist and more towards someone who’s not in her right mind.
From a pragmatic standpoint, what judge will take her seriously after these statements?
This case does not have a leg to stand on.