Judge questions Orly Taitz claims to have Obama birth certificate in hearing ...

Ledger Enquirer ^ | Sept. 14, 2009 | CHUCK WILLIAMS

[SvenMagnussen]

During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.

Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.

California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.

Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.

“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”

Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”

[Non-Sequitur]

You’ll no doubt notice that the slug is proud of his deceit, not contradicting the post I made to you, UC, but actually affirming the assertion I made!

What's to contradict? It's fraudulent because you say it is. How can anyone dispute that? </sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

FACTS. You can keep your eyes closed all you want.

Or I can continue to ask you to actually provide something that supports your claim. Either one would no doubt be an exercise in futility.

[dcwusmc]

That’s a negative. Obama is acting as Commander in Chief now; all orders are HIS orders as of 1/20/2009. That’s the way it works. HE can CHANGE them. If he does not, they are HIS orders, period. Always has been that way, always will be that way. So it is a most legitimate question: IS Obama lawfully and legally qualified, under the Constitution for the United States, to hold that position?

[dcwusmc]

Whether or not he personally gave the order, it was given under his imprimatur as Commander in Chief. Therefore, it must be KNOWN that his authority is LEGITIMATE. Otherwise the orders given by military officers acting under his authority are in serious question, as they should be.

[normanpubbie]

There's some pretty zany stuff on this board but this has to be classic:

All Rhodes has to do is disobey the Army order. If they Court Martial her, then the burden of proof falls on Obama.

What??? I don't know what Army command she is in but let's say hypothetically it's the First Signal Brigade. The commanding general of the Brigade has issued a deployment order, signed by an administrative officer "For the Commander" with her name and others on it. If she disobeys the order, she is disobeying an order issued by a general who was likely appointed to that position before Obama ever became President.

The Army will send out folks to find and arrest her and she will be subject to prosecution under the UCMJ, completely at the discretion of the authority that issued the deployment order.

Sure, Obama signed orders directing the Defense Department to select and deploy a large number of troops to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever. So what?

Qualifications for office: I pointed this out before but it obviously bears repeating. There is no explicit requirement in the Constitution for a candidate or elected official to prove eligibility to be President. It's possible that such an explicit requirement exists in one or more state constitutions or laws. As I understand it, at least one lawsuit is following this tack. I do not know how successful the attempt will be nor do you other folks. We'll see.

The more cynical among us may figure that the only real requirement for elective office is to stuff more ballot boxes than your opponent does. Can you say ACORN?

On to the availability of records: Obama's college transcripts are not required by any Constitutional amendment so why should he have to provide them? To make someone feel better? Please.

The BC is important because of the eligibility issue. Problem is, state law in Hawaii (and I suppose every other state) restricts issuance of birth certificates. There is a legitimate purpose for this statute -- someone may want to get hold of your BC for fraudulent purposes and the law rightly prevents that. And as I pointed out before, plaintiffs have to get past the preliminary legal stages before they can get to the "compelling public interest" area where there may be traction.

People, wishing something were so is nice but our judicial system operates on due process, laws, and judicial precedents. None of these are particularly in y'all's favor.

[nufsed]

You are correct and there is nothing in the cionstition which explicitly states a lot of things. For example: the president is not authorized by any explicit statement in the constitution to transfers troops by airplane. If your l;ogic were applied to everything, the constitution would be 2,000 pages.

What is the point of saying someone has to be a certain age or natural born and then assuming that no one can review their birth certificate? It is illogicalk and nonsensical in its face to hold such an interpretation. Is your version that the constitution is impotent regarding these requirements, but assumes that no one can carry them out?

It is clear by my examples in #238 that the secretaries of state have the power. I also posit that the USSC and the congress have the same power to uphold and support the constitution as they have sworn to do.

[etraveler13]

I completely disagree, she is the only attorney taking this to the the highest courts in the land, she is the only lawyer that has clients with “standing”, and she is not in full discovery with the full permission of the court, see her blog today.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=4327

She is passionate about what she does and says, and although she may not express herself as well as a fully emersed english speaking person, she is brilliant. She holds multiple degrees, is a doctor, a lawyer, a constitutional scolar, and excells in all aspect. Say what you will, she is going after this like a bulldog, and I have nothing but respect for her love of country.

[El Gato]

plaintiff normally bears the burden of proof. But this is a case where the defendant (Obama) has blocked or seeks to block access to decisive evidence

Did you miss the following which was part of the post you replied to?

That said, it doesn't mean that discovery won't be allowed for her to obtain that proof.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but that does not mean she won't be given the power to obtain the documents/information she needs to conduct that proof.

[etraveler13]

I agree that there are several factors that make him ineligible to be president, but that is the easiest one to prove to the courts that he is not qualified. Once proven, discovery happens (actually it already is happening), read Orlys blog
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=4327
It specifies why it is happening, and the house of cards will fall...

[etraveler13]

N-S and I have had our run arounds, and I think that he likes to jerk peoples chains, just as he has jerked yours, to see how you react. He has found your hot button, and that ticks you off. I understand.

[Red Steel]

What??? I don't know what Army command she is in but let's say hypothetically it's the First Signal Brigade. The commanding general of the Brigade has issued a deployment order, signed by an administrative officer "For the Commander" with her name and others on it. If she disobeys the order, she is disobeying an order issued by a general who was likely appointed to that position before Obama ever became President.

The Army will send out folks to find and arrest her and she will be subject to prosecution under the UCMJ, completely at the discretion of the authority that issued the deployment order.

I may add that Land's up coming decision on Wednesday is about a temporary restraining order on her Army's deployment orders. If he grants it, then the Army is not going to arrest her for any missing movement.

And her orders to deploy to a war zone, as is her unit's orders, originate from the Executive Branch, as in Obama, if the person giving those orders are illegitimate, so are her orders.

[Red Steel]

As I posted to you, he likes to generally go around jerking a lot of chains on many subjects.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

LOL

It is easy to call this lady nuts.But I do believe 0bama is hiding alot.

What was up with this?

The 0bama,Clinton,McCain Passport file case during the POTUS campaign.(NOTE:We all know where Clinton and McCain were born)

April 19, 2008

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

[Diggity]

They would use what ever the UK used at the time.

[El Gato]

Sure, Obama signed orders directing the Defense Department to select and deploy a large number of troops to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever. So what?

The order to deploy that individual, or her unit, flows from Obama's order. If one is not legitimate, neither is the "derived" one.

[El Gato]

People, wishing something were so is nice but our judicial system operates on due process, laws, and judicial precedents.

Justice and enforcement of the law (the Constitution is the supreme law) apparently have no place in the modern judicial system?

I guess we are about to find out.

[El Gato]

He put an image on a website.

You said he provided the COLB. An image is not the document.

[Non-Sequitur]

I completely disagree, she is the only attorney taking this to the the highest courts in the land...

Both Berg and Donofrio took their cases to the federal district courts, both had cases dismissed due to lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs, and both unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court the hear them. Orly hasn't gotten as far as they did.

...she is the only lawyer that has clients with “standing”...

That has yet to be determined. The defense's motion to dismiss lists lack of standing as one of their four reasons.

...and she is not in full discovery with the full permission of the court...

She is in the most elemental part of discovery. Basically she gets to see what the defense has and the defense gets to see what she has. ALL of what she has. Subpoenas for Obama documents won't be granted until the motion to dismiss is ruled on.

She holds multiple degrees, is a doctor, a lawyer, a constitutional scolar, and excells in all aspect.

Yes, well the attorney and Constitutional scholar aspects are open to doubt.

[Non-Sequitur]

You said he provided the COLB. An image is not the document.

I don't know of anyone who has seen the actual document. Yet that doesn't stop people from proclaiming it a fake. But I also don't know of any law mandating that he produce the actual document, and who to produce it to.

[etraveler13]

Hi N-S, good to square off with you once again LOL

---

Berg and Donfrio had their cases set aside because of lack of standing, neither have filed in federal court this year.

---

As for clients with standing, the court is hearing the case because of the preponderance of evidence of the captain, he has, however, given the defendents time to prove why the captain does not have Standing in the MTD, which he stated in court, in front of witnesses, but not in court documents, that the MTD was not likely to be upheld.
You and I already had that discussion...

---

As for discovery, note the [u][b]link[/u][/b] I supplied

---

Why? by the way are you only taking snippets of what I said, not words before the statement, and words after the statement? It makes it appear that I am saying something different from what I actually said. That is an old trick my friend, and it won’t work with me.

---

Orly clearly shows in court documents that the court encourages early discovery on both sides, and that cooperation is encouraged as well. Mandatory discovery can happen if one side refuses to cooperate however. This is normal procedure, talk to any lawyer on this point. I have.

---

Her acedemic credentials are impressive.
She completed a dentistry degree at Hebrew University
=
She later received her law degree from Taft Law School in Santa Ana, California, and subsequently passed the California bar exam., argueably the toughest of bar exams.
=
She holds a second degree black belt in Taekwondo, and speaks five languages: English, Hebrew, Romanian, Russian, and Spanish.
=
by anyones expectations, a remarkable woman.
Add to that, a mother of three sons, a full time job in itself. She is married to the father of those sons, no divorce, which is again, an accomplishment in itself.
She supports Israels right to exist, which I also personally support.

---

Good talking to you N-S, keep up the good work.