Posted on 10/13/2009 12:26:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
You PROVE your csse before a duly convened court with all parties to the case under oath and subject to cross examination. She needs access to certain evidence to prove her case. She produced more that enough evidence to warrant the convening of such a trial. This judge’s comments indicate a prejudice and condecension that I have seldom seen before.
His insulting comment only show his unsuitability for the bench.. I don’t give a damn WHO recommended him.
And it was a certified paper copy with raised seal and signature, or the Navy wouldn't have accepted it. It was not an image posted to anti Navy website. That's all Obama, or more properly his minions, have provided, an image. In any of the court cases, rather than filing motions for dismissal based solely on standing, they could have also filed such a certified paper copy of the COLB..but for some reason chose not to. It would have made for a very strong argument for dismissal, unless the issue in that particular case also or only dealt with the lack of citizenship of his father, in which case it would be against his interest to provide legal proof of who his father was, assuming it was BHO Sr, or some other non American dark skinned fellow, that is.
I think that, like the "Filed by registrar" nomenclature is just a difference between an original '61 long form and a 2007, or thereabouts, short form. However the Nordyke twins' BCs do provide some interesting anomalies. Why, if he was born 19 hours sooner in presumably the same hospital, was his filed 3 days before theirs (all three were born on a weekend, in BHO's case Friday night after 7 PM) and yet has a file number higher than theirs. Something wierd about those two facts.
And...I am willing to bet that the Navy commanding officiers can acquire a long form birth certificate on anyone it wants in under their command. ( That's my guess.)
El Gato, there are DOJ trolls here on these threads that I really do respect. Likely they are attorneys. They don't make up or distort known information. I don't agree with their conclusions but some of the trolls seem to be careful about not misrepresenting the facts.
Obviously, Drew isn't one of them.
Probably not, at least not without a court order. But they could certainly require the candidate for enlistment to provide one.
However that's not likely, since the CoLB/short form, generaly provides sufficient information to prove citizenship. But you don't have to be a citizen to enlist, just a legal resident. To be commissioned you do need to be a citizen, so naturalization papers or other proof of citizenship might be required.
Only the President (and VP) are required to be NBCs.
I also suspect that if the Enlistment/induction folks thought there was anything hinky about the documentation, they could request copies direct from the source, but would likely require a signed waiver from the individual to do so, in most cases.
If an officer requests someone in his command to provide a signed permission form would the person in his command be required to provide it, (if the request was related to his duties in the Navy)? If this is the case, then, indeed, and officer can get needed documentation any time he needs or wants it.
Your mature and articulate response is impressive.
Have a good day.
Eventually the truth will come out and this judge’s credibility will forever be destroyed. He will also look like an a$$...
Yes, I inadvertently used the word “prove” rather than “make.” Every case filed has to establish long before trial that there is a cause of action and a remedy that falls within the jurisdiction of the court. It is a fairly constrictive process understood but to God, judges and lawyers. The point remains, Dr. Taitz was given the opportunity to make her case to go forward and did not get the job done. Maybe no one could, that’s not the point of the sanction.
That failure did not warranted this sanction. It is about Dr. Taitz filing a motion she was told not to file (apparently by both the judge and her client). She was warned in the Order to Show Cause that afforded her the opportunity to either get out of the sanction or to have it reduced. Instead of backing off even after the client, Capt Rhodes, had fired her, she went on an irrational tirade including attacks against the judge himself. In filing her “Show of Cause” she could have gotten herself out of the $10K sanction if she’d done it properly, but instead earned herself a $20K sanction.
Has anyone defending Dr. Taitz’s actions in this court asked him/herself why Capt Rhodes who, as active duty, put her military career on the line to be a litigant in this action, accepted the court’s decision and objected to Dr. Taitz’s filing her reconsideration motion, and then fired her and threatened to go to the CA bar? It was Capt Rhodes who put her butt on the line. I would think her actions would speak volumes and be given more weight than an attorney who ‘lost it.’
Federal law is very clear about what grounds are sufficient to disqualify a judge. Owning stock in a company is not grounds for disqualifying a judge unless that company has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case.
It would have been legally baseless to seek to disqualify Judge Land at the outset of the case, because Comcast had no "direct" financial interest in the case. But it's actually much worse: As the judge pointed out in his sanctions order, Orly did not seek his disqualification until after she sought, and received, permission to drop Captain Rhodes as a client. At that point, no one had any financial inerest in the case but Orly herself-- certainly not Comcast!
Orly's motion to disqualify the judge was not "a little over the top," it was a disgrace to the legal profession.
“Judge Land is a Bush appointee, recommended by GA Republican Congressman Saxby Chambliss.
So what? That makes him immune from being an arrogant idiot?
56 posted on Tue Oct 13 22:35:56 2009 by Deepest End”
I agree, “Deep”, Bush appointed some arrogant judges. By noting Judge Land’s background, I’m merely pointing that out.
“Orly’s motion to disqualify the judge was not “a little over the top,” it was a disgrace to the legal profession.”
From what I have seen of the legal guild, it is a disgrace and very few of its members are worthy of praise. Orly should fit right in with the rest of you.
The 2007 COLB is another question for me. Why did his campaign people supposedly send this June 2007 copy to the Kos website in June of 2008? Fact Check claimed the campaign got a copy in March 2008 when people began asking for it. In the first responses to people questioning it’s validity, the Gov of Hawaii said one was sent out in 2008. None of the Hawaii officials have ever attested that one was sent in June 2007. Why did the campaign post the 2007 copy instead of the 2008 copy? I started watching this issue in Spring, 2008 and have followed it closely. I firmly believe that the COLB posted on the KOS website was not an authentic copy from Hawaii even if it contains the same info that an authentic one would. I believe that is why no one has been allowed to examine it (it would prove forgery of a document and possibly fraud) except the FactCheck folks who are supposed to have photographed it. Mr. Polarik says the photos are of an 08 copy which would match what Hawaii and the campaign said in the beginning.
Because when you use some common-sense language to explain the context of what Orly is doing, like the judge, it sounds "nuts".
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.