In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.” (Pl.’s Emergency Req. for Stay of Deployment 2.) This filing contemptuously ignores the Court’s previous admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. …

Simply, put the motion is frivolous. Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims. Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order. …

Notwithstanding the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and that this Court had no legal authority under the facts alleged to interfere with a lawful deployment order, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present motion seeking reconsideration of that order and seeking a stay of Plaintiff’s deployment. …

Counsel ignores that she sought to have the case heard in an expedited fashion in the first place because of Plaintiff’s imminent deployment. The Court modified its schedule to accommodate this request, and in fact held the hearing during the lunch break in an ongoing jury trial. Yet, she now complains that she only wanted the temporary restraining order expedited and not the entire case. What Plaintiff’s counsel either fails to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that in order to address the motion for a temporary restraining order the Court had to satisfy itself first that it had jurisdiction and legal authority to decide the matter. …

If counsel had carefully read the Court’s order, she would have understood that the Court dismissed the Complaint based upon abstention principles. Furthermore, competent counsel would have understood that the Court was required to address abstention prior to ruling upon the motion for a temporary restraining order. …

Counsel sought expedited review of the motion for temporary restraining order. To consider that motion, the Court had the obligation to satisfy itself that it had legal authority to hear the case. It therefore, at Plaintiff’s counsel’s urging, made an expedited decision on that issue. Now that it did not go her way, counsel has fabricated a specious argument that she needed more time to address the issue. …

Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not even address the legal basis for the Court’s previous order is frivolous.

Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political “birther agenda.” She has provided no legal or factual basis for the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army. She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action. She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a “prevaricator,” allege that the President’s father was “disloyal and possibly treacherous” to the “British Crown,” accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are “subservient” to the “illegitimate” “de facto President.”

Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.

The conduct described above warrants that sanctions be imposed upon Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz.