Posted on 11/24/2011 5:19:52 PM PST by STE=Q
“Birther rubbish” like the alleged POTUS failing E-verify? And Judge Lamberth indirectly confirming that Obama is indeed not the applicant for the social security number he used on his last tax return?
If this country can’t handle even the simple basics of following the rule of law and requiring lawfulness of our public employees, it’s no wonder we’ve got crap like Solyndra and Fast & Furious, as well as all the other lawless garbage this pretender has inflicted on the nation with nary a peep from our supposed public defenders.
Why do we even have a social security administration, if it doesn’t even matter who is using social security numbers that don’t belong to them? Why do we even have an IRS? Why do we have Secretaries of State or election boards? Why do we even have the friggin’ Congress, for that matter?
If the rule of law doesn’t matter then let’s just dump the whole government, everybody fend for themselves, and save ourselves trillions of dollars we could be spending on our own healthcare, retirement savings, etc. No point in going through this whole farce about laws making any difference, when those precious “middle ground voters” know that we don’t need no stinkin’ laws. Those middle ground voters WANT to live in a third-world corruptocracy, right? Because that’s what we are increasingly becoming - while all the “public servants” wink.
Partisan politics explains a great deal of the msm's fealty and devotion to obama, but obama's ineligibility, the wide variety of outright criminal behavior that installed him and the fallout since is too juicy of a story to ignore, regardless of political affiliation.
There's too much smoke for there to be no fire and too much innate human curiosity, and not just in journalism and law enforcement, for people to ignore all the smoke and not wonder what's burning. That journalist are ignoring the smoke and then joining those ridiculing anyone who raises the smoke alarm is a story in itself.
I tell myself it's only a matter of time before the dam breaks. But, after 8 years of watching the Clinton crime family in action, I don't have the faith I once did. Fortunately, you and many, many others are doing the work journalists, politicians and law enforcement won't do!
He was born somewhere and he is probably a citizen. Even if that were proven wrong there would never be any consequences, never. No one in congress would dare raise the idea of removing the first black man from the Oval Office. After all, being immune to criticism because of his skin color was the purpose behind electing him, was it not?
But, I think the issue of why he has a fraudulent social security card does have some significance. If people are being prosecuted for the same, it should be resolved.
He will likely be reelected and then this issue may become very important in that the will step up his attacks against America and anything that derails him would be a good thing.
There are also long range issues that may come from this.
One day (hopefully next year) the made for television president will be out of office. When he is he will spend the rest of his life serving as world community organizer flying all over the place running down our country and scheming with despots. If he were to be proven illegitimate, even after serving, it could have an influence on his effectiveness in weakening our position in the world. On the other hand, it might help him.
Also worth noting is that there would be a serious debate about the legitimacy of any executive orders (and maybe laws) that he signed while in office.
While all of this is deemed irrelevant by most level headed folks, the question of why he is spending so much money not to answer the charges hangs over the controversy. So too, does the media efforts to make fun of those who would question him. The work of the media is to be curious, but this is something they seem to fear. They created him. So, it follows that they would protect him.
All that said; the fact that swing voters see this as nonsense is reason enough to ignore it and worry more about why Newt bought his wife an expensive necklace or, why a Mormon is ok to be the senate majority leader, but not President.
butterdezillion wrote: “Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited?”
That’s over. The dispositive rebuttal was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11’th Circuit. Sanctions affirmed. Taitz then petitioned for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied.
butterdezillion wrote: “If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt”.
Land was the judge, not the defendant. Birther notions of how courts work are bizarre an hard to fathom. What kind of incompetent shyster makes the court into an adversary?
butterdezillion wrote: “By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.”
That’s your own crank theory, not Judge Lamberth’s. I quoted the judge on his actual opinion: “The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits.”
When Orly Taitz first filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she requested a particular judge by name. Unlike most litigants, she was lucky enough to get her choice of judge: Royce C. Lamberth.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7548
butterdezillion wrote: “Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited?”
That’s over. The dispositive rebuttal was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11’th Circuit. Sanctions affirmed. Taitz then petitioned for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied.
butterdezillion wrote: “If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt”.
Land was the judge, not the defendant. Birther notions of how courts work are bizarre an hard to fathom. What kind of incompetent shyster makes the court into an adversary?
butterdezillion wrote: “By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.”
That’s your own crank theory, not Judge Lamberth’s. I quoted the judge on his actual opinion: “The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits.”
When Orly Taitz first filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she requested a particular judge by name. Unlike most litigants, she was lucky enough to get her choice of judge: Royce C. Lamberth.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7548
Neither you nor any judge has given a reason why the subject of Judge Land’s punitive action of $10,000 should not be given the protection of a trial by jury and the same protections as those who are charged with a crime - as is precedent for fines of $10,000 or more according to the decisions cited by Orly.
IOW, Judge Land was saying, “I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents and how dare you bring up the rule of law to me! I don’t honor precedents or the rule of law!”
And he got away with it. That’s all you’re saying. He got away with it, with nobody to stop him. That is true.
It’s also true that Hell is hot, and that’s where lawlessness belongs. If Judge Land wants to practice lawlessness with impunity, I know of the perfect place for him and all who support him in that action - and it’s NOT the United States of America.
Lamberth can’t just wish away the issue by saying he doesn’t want to dignify it, because any person has standing to make a FOIA request. Legally, Lamberth HAD to either say that the request was handled properly, or give relief so that the request IS handled properly. Which did he do, Blade Bryan?
butterdezillion wrote: IOW, Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents and how dare you bring up the rule of law to me! I don’t honor precedents or the rule of law!’
In his order imposing sanctions, Judge land cited the applicable precedent, among them Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1558- 59 (11th Cir. 1987) and Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d, 1251, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2003), which set the due process for sanctions in the 11’th Circuit. In her appeal Taitz tried to use precedents from other circuits that have never applied in the 11’th.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996612/Rhodes-ORDER-Order-Imposing-Sanctions-10-13-2009-28
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24233365/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-et-al-APPEAL-E-Brief-Tendered-Appellant-PCRQHR4P
How, butterdezillion, do you take an order that cites precedent after precedent, then turn around and claim, “Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents’”? That’s not paraphrasing; that’s just plain lying. It is not the first time. You buy into and promote these crank legal theories, then when they fail in court — as they always do — you turn around and lie about what the court said.
butterdezillion wrote: “Lamberth can’t just wish away the issue by saying he doesn’t want to dignify it, because any person has standing to make a FOIA request. Legally, Lamberth HAD to either say that the request was handled properly, or give relief so that the request IS handled properly. Which did he do, Blade Bryan?”
He found for the Social Security Administration, obviously. He was nevertheless reluctant to dignify the irrelevant crank nonsense with which Taitz filler her briefs.
So every circuit makes their own rules on who gets what legal protections? The 11th Circuit could decide that criminals don’t get jury trials - just in their circuit?
How is that equal protection and due process?
What if the southern states just decided - the separate circuits, that is - that all the Jim Crow cases would be heard by a single judge who could impose $10,000 fines on whatever Black person sued for justice for what that judge called “political” reasons? As long as the precedent was set in a specific circuit, the southern states could have established their own “justice” just for them, according to what you’re saying - if every circuit is a law unto itself, to set what protections are equal and which aren’t.
And the reason I said what I did, Blade Bryan, is because you gave me no rebuttal for Taitz’ cited precedents when I asked you for them. Now you give them. OK, let me look at them when I’ve got some time, but I’ll say from the outset that if individual circuit judges can rule that the judge in their particular circuit can do whatever they darn well please, regardless of precedents set anywhere else in the country, then we’ve got big trouble. When did Judge Land rebut the precedents Orly cited in her appeal, by saying that the 11th Circuit makes its own rules?
Lamberth ruled that Astrue had properly denied Taitz access to the redacted application for the SSN Obama disclosed on his tax return, because there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that number. That would not be Obama then, because Obama had waived his privacy by publishing his SSN - the only thing on the redacted application that would even have a privacy interest according to FOIA rules.
Either Lamberth is too stupid to know the FOIA rules and thus gave a 100% wrong ruling, or else he just confirmed that the applicant for that SSN was not Obama. Which is the case, Blade Bryan?
George III is the King, not the Subject. Colonists notions of how governments work are bizarre and hard to fathom. What kind of incompetent shyster makes the King into an adversary?
What kind indeed? Independent minded people who believe that no one is above the law, not even those who claim to administer it. It is you little toadies that will accept illegitimate government because you believe what "the authorities" tell you.
This is what YOUR world looks like: 
butterdezillion wrote: “So every circuit makes their own rules on who gets what legal protections? The 11th Circuit could decide that criminals don’t get jury trials - just in their circuit? How is that equal protection and due process?”
So after the lies you told, now you want to pretend your issue is consistency of precedents across circuits? That wouldn’t help you either, because Orly Taitz petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for admission pro hac vice, whereby she agreed to follow the rules applicable to that court.
Judge Land later wrote that allowing Taitz to proceed without association of local counsel was a mistake, but that doesn’t excuse Taitz. She chose to put herself under the jurisdiction of the 11’th Circuit. No sense crying about how other circuits might have followed different procedures.
butterdezillion wrote: “Either Lamberth is too stupid to know the FOIA rules and thus gave a 100% wrong ruling, or else he just confirmed that the applicant for that SSN was not Obama. Which is the case, Blade Bryan?”
It’s that you lie, butterdezillion. And this is not just name-calling. I ask you again: How do take an order that cites precedent after precedent, then turn around and claim, “Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents’”? You claimed it. Here again is Land’s order imposing sanctions, in which — contrary to your reporting — he cites the applicable precedents.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996612/Rhodes-ORDER-Order-Imposing-Sanctions-10-13-2009-28
Just a quick response after having read Judge Land’s response to Taitz’ precedents.
His response was basically: Orly is different; she has no valid arguments so a hearing and protections afforded for punitive actions would be a waste of time; therefore it is due process even if we don’t give her the same protections as if it was a criminal charge.
(All this while claiming also that what ORly did was WORSE than criminal contempt, which has a maximum fine of $1,000 - but the $10,000 was justified even if the maximum is $1,000 because she might have also been given a maximum of 6 months jail time if she had been found guilty of criminal contempt, and lost wages for lawyering (never mind that she isn’t drawing a big lawyer’s wage for what she does so there aren’t lawyer’s fees that she would lose) would add up to more than $10,000 anyway)
He NEVER addressed the precedents she cited. At all. Not to say that they didn’t apply to this Circuit, or anything. He just totally ignored what she had said.
The judge relied on two ex parte items to conclude that Orly’s affidavit was bunk: his own claim that he had not met Holder, and a look at Holder’s schedule that didn’t include a specific time schedule showing that Holder could easily have been in GA at the time the affidavit claimed he was there. IOW, the judge relied on “personal knowledge” - which may work fine in Iran under the mullahs but which is highly suspect here in America.
I would have to see ORly’s particular pleadings to see whether she presented any of the arguments that would have showed standing for Cook and Rhodes. Judge Land obviously isn’t familiar with the 20th Amendment, in which a President-elect is kept from “acting as President” totally apart from any impeachment process by Congress (thus making the enforcement of the 20th Amendment a JUDICIAL issue and not a “political issue” as political is defined by the courts), nor the Third Article where the Constitution gives the courts the responsibility of deciding cases AND CONTROVERSIES arising out of the Constitution itself.
I’m way behind in my work since I took the time to read this at this point so this is not a well-written response and it is also a first-glance response, but it shows to anybody who reads this the kind of legal gymnastics Land employed, as well as his refusal to address what Orly actually cited. His use of precedents is accompanied by his reasons why ORLY’S CASE IS DIFFERENT SO THE PRECEDENTS DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO APPLY TO HER.
My reason to say he didn’t cite precedents was because I asked you for the rebuttal to Orly’s precedents and you gave me none. Now that I have read what Land actually wrote, including his rationalizations for why he could impose a $10,000 fine when the ACTUAL LAW regarding criminal contempt includes a maximum fine of $1,000, and his explanations of how the due process of having a hearing would be a waste of time in Orly’s case, etc (blah blah blah) I stand by the basic gist of what I said. He mentioned precedents and how the US code deals with punitive actions but then he explained why he didn’t necessarily HAVE to follow them in Orly’s case. His conclusion of it all is that Orly got due process because Judge Land thinks Orly got due process.
Land’s citations were mostly US code. I didn’t hear him claiming that Orly’s cited cases don’t apply to this court; he didn’t address her cited cases at all, although he alluded to the possibility that due process in punitive cases could require a trial by jury. So his argument was disjointed and did not answer what Orly had claimed.
Regarding Lamberth’s decision you did a complete duck on the issue. I asked you whether Lamberth didn’t know FOIA rules or whether his decision was wrong, and you changed the subject to me “lying” (when what I said was based on your refusal to tell me the rebuttal that Land gave for Orly’s cited precedents; it turns out that Land didn’t give ANY rebuttal to the precedents Orly cited. He ignored it altogether. So I was actually correct in saying that he didn’t rebut her precedents by showing other precedents that overruled what she had cited).
The point, however, is that Lamberth said Astrue properly denied Taitz access to the redacted application for that SSN because of privacy rights that applicant still has. Either Lamberth’s decision was wrong and the applicant is Obama and the application discloseable.... or the applicant was not Obama.
And you have still ignored the question as to which was the case. Was Lamberth right and that access was rightfully denied because the application belonged to somebody who hasn’t disclosed their SSN? Or was Lamberth wrong, and FOIA requires that application to be disclosed to Orly? Which is it?
butterdezillion wrote: “Just a quick response after having read Judge Land’s response to Taitz’ precedents.”
Judge Land had no brief from Taitz on why she should not be sanctioned. Taitz filed a motion to recuse Judge Land, but not the brief the Court had ordered showing cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
butterdezillion wrote: “His response was basically: Orly is different; she has no valid arguments so a hearing and protections afforded for punitive actions would be a waste of time; therefore it is due process even if we don’t give her the same protections as if it was a criminal charge.”
Rule 11 sanctions are not criminal. The limitation on the amount is: “A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” [FRCP 11(c)(4)] By the Rule’s standard the amount was clearly too small as it has not effectively deterred Taitz.
As for “Orly is different”, yes I see that. Judge Land wrote, “The Court does not take this action lightly, and in fact, cannot recall having previously imposed monetary sanctions upon an attorney sua sponte.” I believe his recollection is correct. Since President George W. Bush appointed Land in 2001, Taitz is only attorney Land has monetarily sanctioned on the Courts own motion.
butterdezillion wrote: “My reason to say he didn’t cite precedents was because I asked you for the rebuttal to Orly’s precedents and you gave me none.”
Even were that true, its a non-sequitur. The question is not some claim about what *I* wrote, and you did not even ask me about Land’s precedents. You claimed: “Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents’” Yet we look at Land’s order and in fact he cites precedent after precedent. I did not push you toward that lie; quiet the opposite.
butterdezillion wrote: “Regarding Lamberth’s decision you did a complete duck on the issue. I asked you whether Lamberth didn’t know FOIA rules or whether his decision was wrong, and you changed the subject to me ‘lying’”.
No butterdezillion, you asked me to choose between two of your own fabrications: “Either Lamberth is too stupid to know the FOIA rules and thus gave a 100% wrong ruling, or else he just confirmed that the applicant for that SSN was not Obama. Which is the case, Blade Bryan?” False dichotomy is such an old and obvious fallacy that grade-school children learn to flush it. Are you too stupid to grasp grade-school logic or were you deliberately lying? ;)
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.