Posted on 09/16/2009 1:06:20 PM PDT by Steelfish
'Congress Satisfied President Qualified To Serve' Judge trashes soldier's eligibility complaint, compares merits to 'Alice in Wonderland'
September 16, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
Judge Clay Land – the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook – has rejected another request for restraining order from a medical doctor and Army officer and threatened sanctions against attorney Orly Taitz if she files any future "frivolous" actions with his court.
As WND reported, Capt. Connie Rhodes, a medical doctor and Army officer, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ga., earlier this month, requesting a restraining order preventing her deployment overseas on the basis that the top of the chain of command, President Barack Obama, has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.
Land rejected Rhodes' request for a temporary restraining order today.
"After conducting a hearing on plaintiff's motion, the court finds that plaintiff's claims are frivolous," his ruling states. "Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.
He described Taitz as a "self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as 'the birther movement.' … Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deportation orders because President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president."
The ruling states that Taitz is attempting to "press her birther agenda" and references a purported certification...
"Counsel makes these allegations although a 'short-form' birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the president was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Oh, I see. Congress saw the ‘real’ birth certificate during a closed no-televised, non-recorded, no-notes-take backroom meeting.
Everyone was there. Really judge?
Didn’t Obama’s resolution fail but McCain’s pass?
“the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous,” his ruling states.”
Sorry judge but I don’t think of the Constitution as frivolous. By the way can we see the birth certificate that you are talking about?
The famous Twitter defense!
Judge Clay Land is a Dubya Judge too. Nominated & confirmed in 2001.
They need to get real and show America the real bc.
Lawbreakers are not lawmakers..........
This is a violation of the oath to Swear To PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FROM ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, SO HELP ME GOD.
Obviously this pledge means nothing to the bulk of congress. That makes them traitors and subject to immediate removal.
Oh good so now the judge can release the name of the doctor that birthed Obama so I can make this much needed charitable donation to the hospital childrens ward where Obama was born.
I am only holding off on this large and much needed donation to the Childrens ward because I want to make sure that the One that brought us Obama is recognized.
I have sent emails to the White House asking for the info and I get no replies. I ask on blogs and websites but no one seems to know the name of Obama’s birth docotr that tiny tidbit of Historical significance can be found on the long Version of any U.S. issued Birth Certificate.
Why would Obama hold that information back from the public? The information could only be used in a positive way so Maybe Obama hates the sick Children at Kapiolani medical center and maybe he doesn’t want them to get much needed upgrades to their childrens ward.
Why are no Congressmen entering Resolutions on the HOuse floor that we honor the Doctor that brought the First Black President and First President from Hawaii into the world. This is an historic time and everything Obama should be recognized.
Please someone answer why this information is so hard to come by?
Anti-’birther’ 0bama apologists and enablers arriving to this thread with the usual sneers and chortles in 5...4...3...2...
I’m an anti-birther, I guess. I believe the man was born in Hawaii.
I also believe that his birth certificate states that he is “White”. They can take their racist name calling and shove it up their collective @$$es.
So...hizzoner and the congress have seen the real BC? But, it’s not important that we, the People, see it?
Bull Puckey! He’s ineligible until proven otherwise.
Hey, you didn’t sneer or chortle at all, and it is appreciated.
Yeah.
So Congress is satisfied.
Woopie do.
Tell me, who is satisfied with them? 17%?
Perhaps Taitz is getting a little too close to the truth?
Lovely——
A judge who must learn the intricacies of the law cannot see the difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a real, honest to God BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Our courts need a good housecleaning, IMO.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams, 1770
Of course that was 1770, and today it is ... 1984!
“If Ole Ben Franklin were alive to see what we’ve become, he’d be in tears...”
no,he’d be up in arms
No kidding on your date, there...
Best Congress money can buy.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
OK, what facts and evidence does Taitz have to present? The judge had a point in one area - the plaintiff in a civil suit is in the same position as the prosecution in a criminal case. It is their responsibility to show evidence that their case has merit. If Taitz wants to claim Obama was not born here then fine, include some evidence. If you want to state in your filing that Obama used 140 different addresses and 39 different social security numbers and expect the judge to take you seriously, then include some evidence. If you want to say that "the general opinion in the rest of the world" is that Obama is an imposter, then provide some evidence. Taitz threw every crazy accusation into her filing, and that swamped what little reasonable case she could make.
The true victim in this is probably Captain Rhodes. She hooked her wagon to a legal moron and will probably pay the penalty for that folly for years to come.
“OK, what facts and evidence does Taitz have to present?”
1. The Kenyan birth certificate for Hussien Obama
2. The evidence that the COLB that he tried to circulate is a forgery
Of course, I can believe she f-—ed up presenting either of those. After Lucas Smith’s allegation that she’s been “selling her body” to her legal team in lieu of payment, I can believe pretty much anything about this pathetic excuse for a lawyer.
No, but Congress (not you) has the Constitutional authority to count and certify the electoral votes and affirm the President-Elect, which they did without dissent, under the chairmanship and with the signature of Richard W. "Dick" Cheney of Wyoming.
No Court and no citizens have the authority to specify the process they must follow in the execution of this responsibility. Your sole recourse is to vote them out, and I hope you will.
Otherwise, this is a nonjusticeable political question. The last thing on Earth you or anyone else should want is unelected judges who serve for life intervening in elections. They've already gone way too far over that line, IMO, and I'm not anxious for them to go any further.
Why do you think Dick Cheney certified Obama's election? Because he was bribed?
Reagan gave us MLK Day, and GWB gave us some bad lower-court judges. No wonder the people fell for all of this now.
I wholeheartedly agree.
IMHO. The Congress did not verify. The Nat’l Parties did not verify. The responsible State Parties did not verify. The responsible State offices/agency did not verify. Plus, the Courts keep passing on the subject giving no real guidance to anyone.
In this case a rudderless ship.
Every one failed the citizens this time around. Of course to their discredit none of them have ever verified before, so they would not know how.
The Ballot Box is the remedy, once the people see what has happened to them and their country.
She did. An AOL poll.
Yes. That's correct. She submitted an on-line AOL poll showing that 85% of Americans don't believe Obama was properly vetted.
(Now where's that "facepalm" jpeg?)
With all due respect to my birther friends, this sentence is pretty funny...
“Then, implying the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President ‘might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.’”
Wandering nomad indeed!
‘might have used’: I don’t think she is as familiar with how the legal system works as well as she thinks she does.
I know a lot of folks here like Orly, but I am at a loss as to why. She has been proven repeatably incompetent, apt to hyperbole, and doesn’t seem to understand how the law or politics work very well.
Oh yeah, she keeps losing. Usually to embarrassing decisions such as this one.
I know she doesn’t like 0bama same as the rest of us (which is admirable), but if we can’t honestly critique those purporting to speak on our behalf, we deserve the collective criticism that comes back. Just because you hate 0bama’s policies doesn’t mean you are right about anything else.
Orly seems more and more like she is becoming our own version of the liberal’s ACORN. But unlike that issue, the MSM will actually start reporting on it.
She presented neither in the Georgia case. I believe she's submitted both Kenyan birth certificates in Keyes v Obama in California. But nothing I know of on the COLB.
Good lord :-(. She didn’t present even the slightest bit of evidence ... I’m no longer surprised about how this turned out.
And she’s presenting BOTH Kenyan birth certificates as evidence? Is she out of her mind? They can’t both be valid. This is tantamount to her admitting that she is submitting known-bogus evidence.
Now waiting for this Moscow whore to be disbarred by an irate judge, and for somebody competent to step in and replace her.
Supposedly there are steps being taken to get her disbarred in California, but her staggering legal incompetence has nothing to do with it. It's being driven by die-hard Obama supporters. She could be Perry Mason in a blond wig and drag and they would still be trying to get her disbarred over this.
Is she presenting the AOL poll as well? That's sure to convince Judge Carter.
But the problem that a lot of us have is the catch-22 factor. Before the election we had no right to demand the answer because he hadn’t been elected yet, after the election and before the inauguration we had no right to demand proof because he wasn’t in office yet and hadn’t signed any bills into law or done any other official action(s). After he was inaugurated they said “Too late. He won. Deal with it.”
But the people of the United States deserve and have a right to know if the leader of their/our country has a legitimate right to hold that position. Screw congress and the electoral college! I don’t forfeit my individual rights to them!
Whatever happened to the phrase “Of the people, By the people, and FOR the people”? I’m one of ‘the people’ and I want to know the truth! If that marthafokker can’t produce a simple document to let us all say “Okay, thanks for proving you’re not a usurper”, then he needs to step down and let Biden run the show. Until one of those things happens, we have an illegitimate goverment.
One more thing: This case needs to revolve around 0bama and whether or not he’s a NBC and not around Orly Taitz. I hope Judge Carter can see the forest for the trees and simply say to the 0bama side “You claim he was born in Hawaii, show me. Court is adjourned for 3 days and you’d better have a certified copy of the long-form birth certificate when we reconvene or you’ll be held in contempt of court and jailed until such a document is produced.”
Cut through the crap and the legal wrangling and get down to the meat of the matter.
One problem is there may not be any elections, honest ones anyway. Time for impeachment proceedings before our sovereignty is gone by way of Dem-dominated Congress, joining NAU, ICC, etc.
That’s right. “When you don’t want to do something, any excuse will do.”
In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court declining to rule in a case because:
The U.S. Constitution has committed decision-making on this subject to a coordinate branch of the federal government; or
There are inadequate standards for the court to apply; or
The court feels it is prudent not to interfere.
Recently, courts have held that Congress’s impeachment procedures and the President’s authority over foreign affairs, particularly the President’s powers to abrogate treaties and commit troops, are political questions.
The doctrine has its roots in the federal judiciary’s desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision.
Justice Felix Frankfurter was an active and eloquent exponent of maintaining and expanding the political question doctrine.
Critics of the doctrine argue that it has little or no basis in the text of the Constitution and is used by courts to shirk responsibility for deciding difficult questions.
When the courts rule that we the people don’t have a right to know something as basic as whether or not our president is legitimate or an illegal usurper, we’ve taken another step toward the approaching revolution and/or anarchy.
I really don’t give a steaming crapola about what courts have recently held... unless it’s strictly in keeping with the constitution in word and intent.
Here’s the bottom line: I want to know the truth! Lots of good American citizens want to know the truth! If there’s no avenue for us - as individual citizens or as a group - to get the truth in a timely and verifiable manner, our system is fundamentally flawed and must necessarily fail.
But you don't have the individual right that you assert.
In fact, you have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to participate in the selection of the President at all.
You have a State legal right (I presume) to participate in the chusing of Electors, and you can ask any candidate any questions you like, or make any demands you like - but if they don't satisfy you, your entire remedy is to vote for the other guy, or to stay home.
The Constitution mentions Electors choosing the President - not Two Kid's Dad. It mentions a special Joint Session of Congress counting the votes - not Two Kid's Dad.
You haven't forfeited ANY individual rights to them, because you don't HAVE any individual rights in this process to begin with.
Most of the time I consider you a wet rag in the elegibility debate. While I respect your desire to see cases follow rule of law, I often think you lack the passion that is necessary to persevere against the socialistic bastardization we currently have to claim as our majority government.
However.
I must agree with you that Orly is a ditz. What I’ve heard from her mouth, while heart-felt, is disjointed and erratic. I live near Columbus. We have some really crappy judges here - and I’ve had to deal with some of them - but Judge Land isn’t one of them. My opinion is that he just got po’d at Orly cause she comes off like a bi-polar X-wife.
He lost patience with her tirades. I too feel bad for Ms. Rhodes. There are a number of local attorneys that could have argued this case in a more organized and competent manner if not for Orly’s ego.
You and I may differ on a number of issues - you apparently strict in your approaches and me as much a renegade as can be mustered. But, you do have my respect.
The Courts are essentially saying that in these kinds of controversies the Constitution has allocated the decision-making power to one or the other branches of government . If the President is not a natural born citizen then its up to the people to change their legislators or impeach their president, or amend the constitution to give the courts the power to make this specific inquiry.
“Why do you think Dick Cheney certified Obama’s election? Because he was bribed?”
I don’t know the answer to that. Tell me what you think.
Before you do, I will tell you that Dick Cheney is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations.
You can believe whatever you wish, but Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth of that era do not have a "field" for race of the child. None, Nada, Zip. IOW, you're wrong. It's something else which The One, The Only, The Messaih, (sometimes referred to as the Magic Negro) didn't want us to know before the election, and continues to not want us to know. "us" being the People of the United States.
The Certificate of Live Birth IS the Honest to God BIRTH CERTIFICATE. But the judge wasn't referring to one of those, he was referring to an image of a Certification of Live Birth, which is a birth certificate, sufficient for most purposes, but insufficient for determination of Natural Born Citizen status, plus it's easily forged to produce evidence of native born citizen status, where it really does not exist.
Even a true Certification could reflect fraudulently submitted information. Which is one of the reasons the state department will not accept one that shows more than a year between the date of birth and the date filed or accepted by the registrar. That's a marker for a fraudulently filed Certificate, but unless you see the real certificate, you don't have much basis for saying one way or another. Similarly a fraudulently filed Certificate could show a birth date closer to the filing date than the actual birth, and/or a false place of birth. This is unlikely with a hospital filed certificate, since at least two "third party" people, usually doctors, have to "chop off" on it. Not so for a "home birth" where only one person other than the parent must sign, and even that could be a close relative, say a grandparent.
The Certificate of Live Birth IS the Honest to God BIRTH CERTIFICATE. But the judge wasn't referring to one of those, he was referring to an image of a Certification of Live Birth, which is a birth certificate, sufficient for most purposes, but insufficient for determination of Natural Born Citizen status, plus it's easily forged to produce evidence of native born citizen status, where it really does not exist.
Even a true Certification could reflect fraudulently submitted information. Which is one of the reasons the state department will not accept one that shows more than a year between the date of birth and the date filed or accepted by the registrar. That's a marker for a fraudulently filed Certificate, but unless you see the real certificate, you don't have much basis for saying one way or another. Similarly a fraudulently filed Certificate could show a birth date closer to the filing date than the actual birth, and/or a false place of birth. This is unlikely with a hospital filed certificate, since at least two "third party" people, usually doctors, have to "chop off" on it. Not so for a "home birth" where only one person other than the parent must sign, and even that could be a close relative, say a grandparent.
The jury box is being effectively denied. Why would you think the ballot box won't similarly be denied?
Remember this is a President, and Secretary of state, that called the actions of the Honduran Courts and Legislature, completely in accord with the Honduran Constitution, "a coup". With such "authorities" anything is possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.