So the first time she did it, it was with a fairly high ranking officer, and the Army decided that they had enough shit to worry about in Afghanistan without some whiner there, and so they stationed him somewhere else.  The court said "well that's nice, situation resolved itsself.  Kthxbai" 

Although Ms. Taitz's antics at the time caused the court concern, the court exercised restraint, optimistically expecting that Plaintiff's counsel would not return for a repeat performance.  The Court's hopes were quickly dashed when it learned of Ms. Taitz's subsequent press conference, in which she reportedly stated that the Court's ruling made "absolutely no sense, was totally illogical" and defied any sense of deceny" notwithstanding the fact that her client had obtained the relief he sought and thus had no legal standing to maintain the action.
Land, pg 5

So she went trawling for another one, and found Cook.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779860-p2.html

As noted by Land,
Plaintiff apparently had followed other orders (without questioning them) that had been issued since the President had taken office. Plaintiff’s sensitivity to the President’s eligibility only existed when she faced deployment to Iraq, where she may be in harm’s way.  pg 9

She was dismissed this time, for “Plaintiff presents nothing but conjecture and subjective belief to substantiate the basis for her claims[.]” 

She retaliated by saying that the judge was guilty of treason.  Also, she is just like Nelson Mandela and the judge is a dirty commie.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/birther-orly-taitz-compares-self-to-mandela-judge-treason.php

So,  7 days later, what does she do?   File the motion again in the same court.  

To Quote Land, 

Instead of arguing pertinent legal authority supporting her position, counsel reverted to “press conference mode,” repeating political “talking points” that did not answer the Court’s questions or address the Court’s concerns. Specifically, counsel was unable to explain why this Court should not abstain from deciding this case based upon well-established precedent, and she was unable to articulate clearly how the alleged “cloud” on the President’s place of birth amounted to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. 

Rather than address these two important questions, counsel retreated to her political rhetoric. When the Court admonished her for not addressing the legal issues presented by her Complaint, counsel accused the Court of unfairly badgering her and implored the Court to ask Defendants’ counsel questions instead of her.

During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel threatened that if she did not get the opportunity to obtain the relief she sought (discovery of a birth certificate), then a wave of subsequent similar actions would be filed in this Court until she obtained what she wanted. 
pg 8 

Okay, note to people?  Don't threaten the judge.  Judges don't like that, and you won't like the judge when he's angry.

Judge is still being patient, so placed Ms. Taitz on notice that the filing of any future similar frivolous filings would subject her to Rule 11 sanctions

Now, sanctions are when the judge decides that you were such a bad lawyer you need to be punished.  Judges are allowed to do this.  Now, about this time, Cook, realizing just how batshit her lawyer is, fires her and writes a letter to the court saying pretty much "I am so sorry, I had no idea she was this crazy, please don't associate her with me anymore."  You'd think that these two things would be enough to give a person some thought.  Did she think? 

No!  Instead, she files a motion asking the court to reconsider.  In this motion,  she accuses the Judge of treason.  pg 10

She claims that 
1. The Judge is in cahoots with the attorney general
2. The judge owns stock in Comcast and Microsoft and so has a financial interest in the case
3. Judges aren't allowed to impose monetary sanctions (Note: they can)
4. the fact that she didn't win proves that the court is biased against her.
pg 10

Shockingly enough, this did not go over too well.  Judge orders her to show cause why she should not be given a $10,000 sanction.
* That's how it works.  If the judge decides you've been really bad, s/he says "I'm going to sanction you by making you pay for the other side's lawyers for wasting their time/disbarring you/ making you write an essay on why you were a jerk and won't do it again", so you have a chance to show up and and explain why you actually aren't such a bad lawyer and what you did wasn't that bad and please your Judgeship, don't punish me.

Does she do this?  Nah.  Instead, she repeats all her accusations and says that since the judge obviously doesn't like her, it's not fair and she should get a new judge.  Also, she is just like Thurgood Marshall!

Her claims (and the ensuing beautiful smackdown) are:

1.  The Judge is in cahoots with the attorney general: to prove this, she has

the affidavit of Robert D. Douglas. Mr. Douglas states that on the day of the hearing in the Cook case, he saw in the “coffee shop” across the street from the federal courthouse someone whom he recognized as Eric Holder, the Attorney General. Mr. Douglas’s identification is based upon what he describes as the Attorney General’s “distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion.”

(Douglas Aff., Sept. 26, 2009.) The affidavit further states that Mr. Douglas “new [sic] instantly that it was none other than Eric Holder, the current Attorney General of the United States.” (Id.) Mr. Douglas has apparently never seen the Attorney General in person, but Mr. Douglas states that he recognized the Attorney General because he had seen Mr. Holder on television. The undersigned has never talked to or met with the Attorney General. As to whether the Attorney General took time out of his busy schedule to visit an “obscure” “coffee shop” in Columbus, Georgia onJuly 16, 2009, [the Judge] cannot definitively say because [the Judge] was not there.  pg 19

2. The judge owns stock in Comcast and Microsoft and so has a financial interest in the case:

While that proceeding will certainly affect Ms. Taitz’s  financial condition, it is fantasy to suggest that these proceedings will in any way affect the fortunes of Microsoft and Comcast.

Furthermore, counsel’s suggestion—that if she were to succeed on her frivolous claim, and as a result the President were removed from office, that these two companies would suffer as a result–is so speculative and ridiculous that it is not worthy of additional comment. The Court must nevertheless remind counsel that she has been fired by her former client, who has made it clear that she no longer wishes to pursue the matter. Therefore, counsel cannot possibly succeed on her main claim that she maintains would topple Microsoft and Comcast because she has no means to appeal the Court’s dismissal of that claim.

3. The fact that she didn't win proves that the court is biased against her.  In this, her proof is the tone of the Court’s previous rulings.  She adds that the rulings indicate that the Court would have denied access to civil rights claims had the undersigned been on the bench during the civil rights movement. Pg 19

Yes, she just told the judge that he would have voted against Brown v. Board of Education (That's the one that said it was illegal to segregate black and white children in public school) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v_board

The smackdown begins:

The Court makes no apology for the tone of its previous orders. They were direct and strong but apparently not strong enough. They certainly do not demonstrate personal bias. They do demonstrate a lack of tolerance for frivolous legal claims asserted by lawyers who should know better. A Court’s insistence that lawyers comply with their duty to follow the rules and their obligations as officers of the Court is not a legitimate basis for recusal. 
pg 20

Finally, counsel insists that her substantive claims are so meritorious that only a biased judge would find them frivolous. Comparing herself to former Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall, counsel likens her plight to Justice Marshall’s epic legal battle to desegregate American schools and public places.  Quite frankly, the Court is reluctant to even dignify this argument by responding to it, but it captures the essence of counsel’s misunderstanding of the purpose of the courts and her misunderstanding of her own claims.

Page 21 is a lecture on how Justice Marshall was a god the likes of which this grubby lawyer is unworthy of mentioning (Note: Supreme Court Justices are the legal field's fandom.  Do not tell the judge that your abominable crossover OC is just like Legolas) it ends with:

Finally, Justice Marshall had real evidence that black children were being sent to inferior segregated schools based solely on the color of their skin. He had credible evidence as to the impact of inferior segregated schools upon the schoolchildren forced to attend them by their government. Justice Marshall was also able to articulate how this conduct on the part of the government violated the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment clearly designed to assure that the government finally recognized the promise of the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal.

Counsel here has an affidavit from someone who allegedly paid off a government official to rummage through the files at a Kenyan hospital to obtain what counsel contends is the President’s “authentic” birth certificate.

If counsel truly admired Justice Marshall’s achievements, she would not seek to cheapen them with such inapt comparisons.
pg 23

But no, she was right.  $10,000 is not right.  She should pay $20,000