But what else is new?

Here’s her take on US District Court Judge Roger Vinson;s order of April 8, in which he denies her motion to intervene in the cases filed by 13 US Attorneys General against the new health care reform legislation:

Orly Taitz Judge Vinson in FL states: “”As a Doctor of Dental Surgery, who will be affected by the Act, she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action”- he indicates standing, which was viled as a judicial notice in DC

(I’m assuming she meant “filed” rather than “viled,” but, considering her history, what a slip, huh?)

Now, she’s filed a motion befor Judge Royce C. Lamberth in D.C. — in another of her birther cases — to take judicial notice of what she claims the Vinson decision means, namely that she has “standing” to pursue her claim that President Obama is a usurping Marxist who was not legitimately elected to his office. Standing is important, because Obama’s lawyers are asking Lamberth to dismiss her claim because she does not have standing to file it.

But as usual, this mail-order lawyer either doesn’t understand Vinson’s order, or is deliberately misrepresenting it to achieve her desired ends. (That’s a nice way of saying she’s lying). I note that in her motion to Lamberth, she references including Vinson’s order as an exhibit, but the exhibit is not attached (at least in the version on Scribd).

The snippet that Taitz provides in her Facebook post and in her motion to Lamberth is, of itself, accurate; Vinson did write that. But she neglects to include the context. Vinson writes about the four-pronged test that judges use in determining whether to allow an intervenor in a suit. He says that while Taitz satisfies the first two, she fails in three and four.

With respect to the impairment of interest (step 3), Taitz contends that her legal interests will be “immensely” and “significantly” hampered because there is the “risk that conflicting results may be achieved in the DC and Northern Florida Districts.” However, the mere possibility of inconsistent results in cases filed by different individuals in different districts does not, by itself, hamper or impair a litigant’s legal interests.

As for the fourth prong:

Moreover, Taitz has not shown that her legal interests will be represented inadequately by the existing parties in this case (step 4). She acknowledges that she and the Attorneys General in this litigation are ultimately “seeking identical relief on an identical theory.” The Eleventh Circuit has stated that courts should “presume adequate representation when an existing party seeks the same objectives as the would-be interveners.” Although this presumption is “weak,” it imposes on the proposed intervener “the burden of coming forward with some evidence to the contrary.” There is no such evidence in this case. Although Taitz states in conclusory fashion that her interests “are not being represented by the current parties to this action,” the only support she provides for this contention is her claim that — unlike the Attorneys General — she is a doctor whose “gainful employment in Dental Surgery” will be directly impacted. However, the fact that she might be affected by the Act on a more personal level than the current named plaintiffs does not constitute evidence that representation by the Attorneys General is inadequate.

Fail and fail.

Taitz also takes out of context a statement made by Vinson that:

(T)he parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible. That task will be made exponentially more difficult if all those who have an opinion and an interest in the outcome of the case were allowed to intervene and to join in these proceedings. Already this court has received many such pro se requests for intervention. Furthermore, with respect to Taitz’s motion in particular, I believe the parties to this case and the court should remain focused solely on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).

Not surprisingly, Taitz completely misstates Vinson’s intent in her motion before Judge Lamberth: here

While motion to intervene was not granted under judicial discretion due to the fact that multiple interveners have filed their motions and the presiding judge decided to limit the case to the issue of the Commerce clause raised by the original plaintiffs …

and here:

Additionally, Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs. Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is frivolous.

Judge Vinson made no such assertion, Orly. You’re lying.

As you are here:

Regardless of whether ultimately the plaintiff in this action will prevail or not, above  ruling of the sister court has indicated that Taitz has standing to bring her action challenging H.R. 3590 …

To wit:

For these reasons, Dr. Taitz’s motion to intervene (doc. 17) must be, and is, DENIED.

I guess when you’re a desperate attention whore, you’ll do anything to keep yourself relevant, even outright lie in legal papers.

My only question is, when will this woman be disbarred?

Keep the faith.