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

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

[bvw]

It reminds one the Sotomayor’s punt of the New Haven Firefighter case.

[Drew68]

Judge Land in Georgia denied the TRO and dismissed the Rhodes case.

And it appears Smith and Orly have parted ways.

I haven't read the updates this morning (can't access YouTube from work).

[Beckwith]

Key witness shot -- not really!

During the investigation into the passport breach, a key witness was alleged to have been fatally shot in front of a Washington, DC, church. Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with federal investigators, was found late slumped dead inside a car. The reports said that Lt. Harris' death remains unsolved, and mysteriously, unreported until one year later, when the blogosphere discovered the murder.

"Lt." Quarles Harris was a petty street punk con-artist. His name was "Leiutenant" (note spelling), he was not a lieutenant in anything. He was arrested in the possession of many phony credit cards that he had acquired via an identity theft scheme which involved stealing personal information from passport applications.

[SeaHawkFan]

I really don’t have much of an issue about the way this judge resolved this case. The problems that would have arisen if he had granted the temporary restraining order hard difficult to overstate.

[browardchad]

Major smackdown, that.

[bvw]

Punting “Problems” is not solving them.

Hear the evidence in court!

[Non-Sequitur]

That said, it is all too common for judges who don't want to deal with the legal issues to simply say they are frivolous when there is actual merit.

Frivolous, as you know, does have a legal definition as a suit without legal merit and brings in the possibility of sanctions against the plaintiff. It's more than the judges discriptive term. So I don't see him using that word losely.

Also, as the judge noted in his decision, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of civil courts to interfere with military order and discipline. The judge was required to consider the case on its merits and empowered to make a decision based on his conclusions. His disdain for Birthers aside, he does identify some valid points; Rhodes can offer no credible evidence or reasonably valid arguements to support her position and cannot demonstrate any sort of standing to sue. So in the end what sort of choice did he have?

[Pilsner]

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

Her comments, and attempts at litigation, are the legal equivalent of Star Trek techno-babble. She is promising to crawl through the Jeffries Tube, and neutralize Obama with a stream of reverse tachyon particles.

That is why so many Freepers are keep posting that she is either a moron, or a double agent. They know that she could not win the case, even if she really did have. Every second and dollar spent supporting her is a second or dollar spent in the service of Obama.

[Candor7]

Buahahahahaha!

This is JUST the beginning,this whole issue now has legs with the American public, and as I have said all along, we will eventually see Obama's COLB.

And when we do, Obama will likely resign.

Atta GO Orly, lets keep right on with it!

[browardchad]

His disdain for Birthers aside, he does identify some valid points; Rhodes can offer no credible evidence or reasonably valid arguements to support her position and cannot demonstrate any sort of standing to sue. So in the end what sort of choice did he have?

None. To be fair, the highly visible face of "the birthers" is their self-proclaimed leader, Orly Taitz. The judge's disdain is therefore directed at her, and through her antics and missteps, she's earned it.

Why would Taitz even think she could prevail in Judge Land's court this time, when she was shot down by Land on a similar case two months ago?

I believe Taitz has no interest in winning -- remaining in the spotlight is what this is about.

[Sir Valentino]

This is a *BUMP* in the road. I’m not *SURPRISED* a Clinton hack would rule as Land did. In the end *JUSTICE* will *PREVAIL*.

[SeaHawkFan]

I don't totally disagree that this particular case could be deemed frivolous.

While Taitz’ intentions may be good, she is inept. The CA case is much more likely to go forward. The DOJ motion to dismiss is very weak and specifically did not address Carter's statement that the case will be decided on the merits.

Based on that, I think he is going to order production of the long form BC. I also think he is going to pretty much ignore Taitz and focus on the pleadings of Kreep. He seems to know how to approach this case.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This is a *BUMP* in the road. I’m not *SURPRISED* a Clinton hack would rule as Land did. In the end *JUSTICE* will *PREVAIL*.

Clinton hack? He was appointed by George H.W. Bush, on the recommendation of Shelby Chambliss.

[Non-Sequitur]

The CA case is much more likely to go forward. The DOJ motion to dismiss is very weak...

I think the motion to dismiss is very strong myself.

...and specifically did not address Carter's statement that the case will be decided on the merits.

Of course they did. The whole point behind the motion to dismiss is to refute the idea that the case has any merit to begin with. If the plaintiffs have no standing and if the court doesn't have jurisdiction then there is no merit to the case, now is there?

Based on that, I think he is going to order production of the long form BC. I also think he is going to pretty much ignore Taitz and focus on the pleadings of Kreep. He seems to know how to approach this case.

I disagree. I think you're going to be very disappointed come early October.

[Non-Sequitur]

I’m not *SURPRISED* a Clinton hack would rule as Land did.

George W. Bush appointed him.

In the end *JUSTICE* will *PREVAIL*

It already did.

[SeaHawkFan]

How would you attempt to get a court to address the merits?

If there is no specific remedy available, FRCP 1 would come into play.

[Non-Sequitur]

How would you attempt to get a court to address the merits?

The court will not, and should not address anything if the plaintiffs have no standing to sue in the first place or if the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.

[Sir Valentino]

It is my *UNDERSTANDING* that he is a *CLINTON* appointee.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is my *UNDERSTANDING* that he is a *CLINTON* appointee.

You understand incorrectly.

Judge Land Bio

[Sir Valentino]

Wikipedia can be edited by *ANYONE*. Don’t trust *EVERYTHING* you read.