Crazies Crushed: Judge Dismisses Tim Jones' & Cynthia Davis' Birther Lawsuit

The birther lawsuit brought by Orly Taitz, Rep. Tim Jones (R-Eureka) and Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) was dismissed today in federal court. In the judge's order, Jones and Davis' claims as State Representatives were shot down, and their counsel's actions were described as "improper and unethical."

The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel pulls some choice quotes from the judge's order:

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‚ 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.

District Judge Judge David Carter also specifically addresses the standing of Jones and Davis in the case (emphasis added)

c. State Representatives
The Complaint additionally identifies a group of “Plaintiff State Representatives” as having “unique standing.” While the Complaint does not specifically identify these representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it appears they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative Timothy Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy Jones; Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric Swafford (collectively, the “State Representatives”).

The Complaint alleges that the State Representatives have “a special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.” Defendants argue that this allegation is “wholly insufficient to constitute injury-in-fact” because it is “neither actual or imminent” and is “highly speculative.” Moreover, Defendants assert that the allegation fails to “withstand any logical scrutiny” because the causes of action of theft and conversion require intent. Since Plaintiffs state that they do not know with certainty that President Obama was not born in the United States, they do not have the requisite intent to be held liable for theft or conversion.

In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238 (exposure of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently threatened);see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to anticipate” whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them suffering a constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”). The State Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.

The judge's comments on Orly Taitz' behavior is pretty incredible as well:

f. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD