In his dismissal – which is, despite the legalese, a pretty entertaining read – Judge David O. Carter writes that removal of a sitting president for any reason "is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
"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," he writes.
"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic," continues Carter. "Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."
Carter says at another point that "the hearings have been interesting to say the least."
"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," he writes. "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."
"[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves," writes Carter. "This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court."
Elsewhere in the document, Carter says that "[p]laintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved."
"Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya," he writes.
The Judge complains that the 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."
At one point, in a footnote, Carter says that "The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling."
The birthers' claims have been repeatedly knocked down by media outlets.
Taitz has filed multiple court cases making similar claims, and was fined $20,000 following another dismissal by a judge who says she had abused "her privilege to practice law." She is refusing to pay the fine.