If anyone’s interested in reading this more than 40 page decision, there is discussion on pp25-28 that this judge believes that the proper forum for outing a POTUS who fraudulently concealed his qualifications to be POTUS is in impeachent proceedings.
I despise Obama and his policies, and believe he has fraudulently concealed his past, but it is a bit difficult to disagree with the substance of this court’s sanctions order, if she engaged in all the behavior he detailed in his decision.
And btw for those who haven’t read the decision and order, he expressly denied being in a coffee shop with Holder, and denied ever speaking or meeting with him.
He was also quite displeased at her specuation that that he had a financial interest in the outcome because he owned stock in Comcast and Microsoft, and she claimed the profits of those companies would suffer if Obama was removed.
You have to be careful about accusing a judge - especially a federal court judge- of illicit and “treasonous” conduct. He obviously took offense to her “fictitious” allegations.
Next case!
Nice summary. I concur on all points made.
Canedawg, you are innocently, I’m sure, being drawn into using an afterbirther troll tactic: “I’m against Obama too, but...” and then make Orly Taitz the issue. She is not the issue. If you’re against Obama (or whatever his name is) and you think his records need to made public, then please help.
He was also quite displeased at her specuation that that he had a financial interest in the outcome because he owned stock in Comcast and Microsoft, and she claimed the profits of those companies would suffer if Obama was removed.
_________________
LOL! Does he own them? She’s probably right, but saying it to a judge, oh no! No!
This is absolutely wrong headed. The proper place is an unbiased court that will decide on the evidence presented.
This Judge full well knows that an impeachment proceeding will never be called by the Democrats in charge of the House, they ar the ones who put him there.
Well, he's probably wrong. If someone is not eligible to the office, then they are not President. The Constitution says "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office upon impeachment for and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and misdemeanors". Nothing about ineligible usurpers.
That said, once a court determined that someone was ineligible, it may not be a Court that removes them. Might be, or it might be a "pitchforks and torches" delegation of the people.