Posted on 10/13/2009 12:26:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A Georgia judge has blasted attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of court challenges to President Barack Obama's eligibility under the constitutional demand the Oval Office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen, fining her $20,000 for what he called "frivolous" court actions, and he then mocked the concern over Obama's background.
"Although counsel's present concern is the location of the president's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday," wrote U.S. District Judge Clay Land in an order released today.
"Perhaps, he looks 'too young' to be president, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate?
"Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the president is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution. Or, more to the point, perhaps the court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the president in the Oval Office," he continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The Judge ordered $20K, not the threatened $10K, to be transmitted to the United States and then the United States is to transmit the $20K to the Judge’s favorite charity.
Stunningly corrupt.
Is is not unbecoming of a judge to demonstrate such prejudice? Is he not supposed to ensure that all of the the facts and pertinent information is available for him to make a decision?
It just seems to me that no one of authority wants to address the substance of issues at hand in this matter.
There were a number of ways to secure a birth certificate in Hawaii in 1961. The primary one is the long form that identified the hospital and attending physician. But if the child was not born in a hospital the applicant could still make a declaration and secure an equivalent to the long form as a Certificate of Live Birth. In this case there might not be a hospital or attending physician. The legal requirements for this avenue to acquire a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth were "loose" at the time. Taking a look at the long form would clarify whether Mr. Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii or elsewhere in Hawaii. Of course the possibility exists that a close relative could have secured a Certificate of Live Birth for Obama even though he was born elsewhere. Many people just do not know. They would like to feel assured that all is well and in order in this case.
The real story is the unprecedented lack of openness by our President in connection with his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records, not to mention his sources of funding.
I believe that being a natural born citizen meant that both of your parents were US citizens. Obama has acknowledged that his father was not a US citizen. What gives?
Works for me!! Frankly, this alleged "judge's" snotty, condescending demeanor toward Ms. Taitz, IMO, is sufficient to justify him being thrown off the bench and into the unemployment line.
He is not providing impartial judicial review, but extremely prejudiced political discourse. It begs the question how many times this fool judge has been overturned on appeal?
Amen!
Fact is he can’t be a NBC because of parent ineligibility i.e., mother lacked residency and father non citizen. Questions are who is his blood father and is O a foreigner as claimed by relatives. And who the hell is this guy and how does his admin top our Constitution.
His mocking tone makes a mockery of the Constitutional requirement that someone be eligible to hold the office, AND PROVE IT
Perhaps this judge thinks we should just take his word for it?
How about this:
Has BH0bama provided ANY documentation regarding his fulfilling the eligibility requirements?
only two bits of information have been provided to date.
1. a jpg on a website proven to be a forgery (not admisible anyhow)
2. witness testimony by his paternal grandmother stating she was at his birth in Kenya
if any other information has been officially provided (and not just Internet bs) please let me know
The problem is substantially bigger than that. First, zero has sealed ALL of his records so that NO ONE can get a copy of them under an FOIA request. Second, zero claimed on his Facebook page that he was born in 1958 - until he realized that Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959!! Then he changed his birth date to 1961 so he could claim to be born in a US state; thereby meeting the "natural born" requirement.
In addition, research has proven that his parents never lived at the address of record listed on his COLB. This raises more questions about what he is hiding.
Where there's smoke, there's fire; and the smoke is definitley getting a lot thicker around zero's BC issue!!
“He did offer Dr Taitz several opportunities to prove her case, and she didn’t do it.”
Counselor, first you have to provide some proof of what you allege in order to proceed.
Well your honor, that’s why we need you to order discovery first—so I can do just that.
Me? But your claim is bare counselor. What would that prove?
What? Our claim that ...
No, I mean who would benefit from this discovery?
Uh, the American peo ...
I mean right now, here, not some hypothetical, crazy world.
In the instant case?
Yes, now.
Well, first, we all would benefit by seeing that Article 2 of the US Const ...
OK, let’s start over, let me try again crazy lady. If what I order results in you being able to prove your case who benefits?
What—me?
Are you getting smart with me?
Who me?
Costello: Well then who’s on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow’s name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy playing...
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: I’m asking you who’s on first.
Abbott: That’s the man’s name.
Costello: That’s who’s name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That’s it.
Costello: That’s who?
Abbott: Yes. PAUSE
Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who’s playing first?
Abbott: That’s right.
Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it.
Costello: All I’m trying to find out is the fellow’s name on first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy that gets...
http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html
I produced a birth certificate to join the Navy. It was a computer-generated short form that looked just like the one Obama displayed.
I think it’s that she accused him of treason, among other things, in both her filings and in comments to the media. No judge is going to stand for that.
In any courtroom, the judge is the boss. If I go in and don’t get what I want and start disrespecting him, I shouldn’t expect much more than to be thrown out on my a**.
So it goes here...
Yes, that might be true in the judge's view of things. But doesn't the First Amendment guarantee of free speech offer Ms. Taitz protection against being penalized by government in retaliation for her public criticism of a government official outside the courtroom?
Separately, it would seem obvious that the lawsuit that Judge Land describes as "frivolous" is anything but. Taitz' failure to cite precedents to justify her claims can be explained simply by the fact that hers is a case of first impression (no case remotely similar to the this was ever presented to any court in the past). There is no case law barring any federal court from hearing a case merely because it presents a novel factual context.
Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution confers federal judicial authority "to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." The question of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president is clearly within this jurisdiction. A military officer, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, has a personal interest in this question, because he or she must know whether orders issued from the top are given by a constitutionally qualified CIC or by a usurper, and can only act appropriately with such knowledge in hand.
“I produced a birth certificate to join the Navy. It was a computer-generated short form that looked just like the one Obama displayed.”
First of all, Obama has NEVER PROVIDED ANYTHING. His “campaign” provided a COLB to a website, sao the website says. I have never seen or heard Obama state that he has provided any PROOF to anyone. The White House won’t even validate the letter Obama sent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.
She has a First Amendment right to criticize the judge outside of court, but anything she puts in papers filed with the court can subject her to sanctions. She made accusations of bias against the judge, in papers filed in court, which are factually and legally bogus. (He is prejudiced against her because he owns stock in Comcast?) That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and lawyers have been disbarred for that.
And...I bet the Navy had every right to check it against the long form, if the officers in charge of the enlistment process cared to do so.
And?...When has Obama even acknowleged having provided a short form to be freely inspected?
Drew...I really do respect the other Obama defenders. At least they are very careful to post accurate information. They may draw conclusions that sometimes infuriate the Constitutionalists but at least they don't deliberately distort the issue.
That may sound farfetched, but Comcast is "regulated" by the Obama-controlled Federal Communications Commission. As you may know, there has been some concern among people in broadcasting about the possibility of O's FCC abusing its authority by shutting down outlets as political retaliation against perceived "enemies." I think that might her point, although I'm not sure.
So, if anything, Land should be biased against Obama, not in favor of him.
In any event, stock ownership doesn't disqualify a judge from any case unless the company whose stock he owns is a party or has a direct financial interest in the outcome.
Finally, if you think a judge's stock ownership disqualifies him, the law is that you have to say so before the judge rules on your case. Otherwise you can go into the hearing and say, "if I win I won't say anything but if I lose I'll say the judge is biased." Courts don't stand for that kind of gamesmanship.
Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."
Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."
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.