Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth; Orly Taitz on notice
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/841419.html ^

Posted on 09/16/2009 9:48:30 AM PDT by vikk

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land today tossed out a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.

Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever files a similar “frivolous” lawsuit in his court.

“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

Rhodes, who filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court, argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant.

“This plaintiff cannot in good conscience obey orders originating from a chain of command from this merely de facto president,” Rhodes’ complaint states. “This plaintiff cannot be lawfully compelled to obey this de facto president’s orders.”

In his order, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a “grueling” primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign.

“It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought,” Land says.

The judge adds that Congress hasn’t started impeachment proceedings against Obama, appears satisfied that he can hold the office and has rejected the suggestion he isn’t.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; orlytaitz; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 next last
To: TADSLOS

Who is Barack Obama really, and who is helping cover his tracks?


Great post...

The answer to the last one....unfortunately, many people who would have classified as “conservative” are helping him cover his tracks....the ones like some of the posters on here....media types like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and others who refer to Birthers as “nuts”

The sad part is that there are so many Obama Enablers on both sides....and makes you wonder why such attitude against people who are only asking for proof of his eligibility to be President


101 posted on 09/16/2009 11:03:37 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (America is still great....no matter what Globalists, Communists, Anti-Birthers, Terrorists think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

LOL, now THAT’S a scary thought!


102 posted on 09/16/2009 11:03:47 AM PDT by thecraw (Follower of Jesus...American...Tennessean...Birther! You Betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727
The case to which Orly was referring is the case in CALIFORNIA. Not this one in GEORGIA

There is a motion to dismiss the California case pending. Orly hasn't responded to it yet. (She has 4 more days). No eligibility case has survived a motion to dismiss yet.

103 posted on 09/16/2009 11:03:49 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: IntolerantOfTreason
So she previously felt unable to obey illegal orders from an illegal chain of command ... but now she’s fine following them, for some reason? Something tells me she’s not as principled as you.

She did her duty to determine if her CIC is legitimate. Judge Land just said that he is the legitimate CIC. Therefore Judge Land is now on the hook and he will face a higher court that will hold him accountable for his decision today.

104 posted on 09/16/2009 11:04:37 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Do you happen to have a link for the ruling in this case? It's not in the Ledger-Enquirer story, from what I can tell. I would like to read it in its entirety. Thanks!

Yes: Opinion
105 posted on 09/16/2009 11:06:47 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Although your point is credible....with all the skeletons in the Clinton’s closet....and the ACORN people....Obama would have had a field day with Hillary if she raised the BC issue. And, unlike conservatives, the media would have let Obama get away with bringing up Hillary’s baggage.

She had to keep her mouth shut. She was in checkmate with Obama


106 posted on 09/16/2009 11:11:25 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (America is still great....no matter what Globalists, Communists, Anti-Birthers, Terrorists think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727
The case to which Orly was referring is the case in CALIFORNIA. Not this one in GEORGIA

Oops. I seem to have confused the case where Orly was promising to neutralize Obama by using the Heisenberg Compensator to depolarize subatomic fluctuations, with the case where Orly promised to crawl through the Jeffries Tube, and neutralize Obama with a stream of reverse tachyon particles.

My bad.

107 posted on 09/16/2009 11:19:11 AM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner

yep.

your bad


108 posted on 09/16/2009 11:20:51 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Aria
Very disappointed to hear Rush say this morning that he does not care where Obama was born.
109 posted on 09/16/2009 11:24:05 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/01...NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

I have very little hope that this will pan out to be anything... whether he was born in Kenya, or not. The wheels of justice have a big wrench in them put there by the rats and others who don’t want a constitutional crisis or Obama embarrassed by whatever is on the long form.

Wonder if we’ll ever find out the truth. I hate the arrogance of Obama and his gang doing this to us.


110 posted on 09/16/2009 11:41:08 AM PDT by Aria ( "The US republic will endure until Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the people's $.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Apparently Chester Arthur was also concerned about his father being a British subject and kept it secret until after he had served his term!

Μολὼν λάβε


111 posted on 09/16/2009 11:41:59 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" or "come get some")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
>Judge Land is now on the hook and he will face a higher court that will hold him accountable for his decision today

Is he on The List
to be taken away by
UFOs at night?

112 posted on 09/16/2009 11:42:08 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"His comments about monies spent by Obama’s Democrat opponents, and the $85 million McCain had at his disposal can’t be taken any other way than to depict Obama as an underdog."

He wasn't depicting Obama as an underdog. He was illustrating that Obama has had multiple well-funded opponents during his campaign that presumably had access to a wellspring of opposition research available on Obama. And, none of those opponents voiced ANY concerns, let alone substantive concerns about Obama's eligibility based on facts, not conjecture and supposition.

That fact, added to the absolute absence of any evidence presented by Orly in her pleading speaks volumes about the merits of this case, or so this court (and several others) found.

The citation by land of the campaign opposition war-chests had nothing to do with Obama has an "underdog". You should read the decision.

113 posted on 09/16/2009 11:46:16 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Judge Land is now on the hook and he will face a higher court that will hold him accountable for his decision today.

Do you really think Rhodes will appeal?

114 posted on 09/16/2009 11:55:14 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; BP2; ...
Thanks, Smokeyblue.

The site pests are here, too.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

115 posted on 09/16/2009 11:58:50 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
Is he on The List to be taken away by UFOs at night?

No -- he just returned from one of those trips over the weekend as evidenced by his statement that "it would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought”.

His imagination is getting the better part of his logic.

116 posted on 09/16/2009 12:01:31 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

An Appelate Court is not the court I was referring to.


117 posted on 09/16/2009 12:03:41 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Gary Kreep has responded.


118 posted on 09/16/2009 12:04:05 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; Lord_Baltar

There is one school that thinks it does not list SAD as the mother. Wouldn’t that be fun!


119 posted on 09/16/2009 12:08:10 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit The law will be followed, dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar

“Yeah, start throwing around the word Bastard, my FRiend, and those of us that fall into that category might not be all to pleased...”

Then perhaps you should take your issue up with your mother. You are what you are due to no fault of your own.


120 posted on 09/16/2009 12:08:48 PM PDT by Saltmeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton
No other presidential candidate has ever had to prove they were eligible beforehand. It’s always been assumed

Wrong. John McCain was challenged and produced his documentation, including his birth certificate.

121 posted on 09/16/2009 12:10:57 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
That tide began to turn last Saturday. Commies in Washington are now on notice - you ain't seen nothing yet!

Yeah. Ever since Saturday my sense of urgency to emigrate has diminished greatly.

122 posted on 09/16/2009 12:10:59 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 238 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; roaddog727

Sorry, when I said that Judge Land “took” the case I didn’t mean that this was rigged. And I see that he was a Republican politician. But his record on the cases I have seen, including the earlier military case, does not suggest that he is particularly “conservative.”

More likely he is an opportunist, from what little I know of him, mostly from reading his various comments and opinions on these two cases.

These two cases raised a legitimat issue. And evidently someone thought so, or the earlier deployment would not have been cancelled, rendering the issue moot. And this officer’s commander would not have forbidden her to leave her post to attend the court. And the Defense Department would not have threatened to cancel its contracts if the employer of the first guy refused to fire him.

Although the judge yesterday accused Orly Taitz of making PR speeches, all she said was that it was only reasonable to ask the Obama prove his legitimacy by producing the necessary proofs that he is constitutionally qualified to be president. That is certainly reasonable. Nor did the judge have any reason to believe that her Kenyan BC was a fake.

The difference between a legitimate soldier and a pirate or bandit, according to recognized international law for at least 2000 years, is that the soldier is legitimated by legitimate authorities. So, if Obama is not legitimate, our troops have no legitimate excuse to be fighting wars, and would be vulnerable to international courts. Therefore they have a right to ask that Obama prove he is legitimate, since there are very reasonable doubts that he is.


123 posted on 09/16/2009 12:11:07 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“The difference between a legitimate soldier and a pirate or bandit, according to recognized international law for at least 2000 years, is that the soldier is legitimated by legitimate authorities. So, if Obama is not legitimate, our troops have no legitimate excuse to be fighting wars, and would be vulnerable to international courts. Therefore they have a right to ask that Obama prove he is legitimate, since there are very reasonable doubts that he is.”

BINGO!


124 posted on 09/16/2009 12:14:56 PM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
LOL, a new twist on the immaculate conception. Not just a virgin birth, but a spontaneous appearance created from the ether of the universe. (to the KOS lurkers, no I don't believe this. It is called sarcasm.

sar.casm- a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

125 posted on 09/16/2009 12:16:48 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There is a motion to dismiss the California case pending. Orly hasn't responded to it yet. (She has 4 more days). No eligibility case has survived a motion to dismiss yet.

Kreep the other lawyer wrote the response:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19759149/KEYES-v-OBAMA-64-OPPOSITION-TO-APPLICATION-FOR-LIMITED-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-Govuscourtscacd435591640

126 posted on 09/16/2009 12:22:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
John McCain was challenged and produced his documentation, including his birth certificate.

Really? From McCain's motion filed in the Hamblin case, it appears that he did not produce his birth certificate and that the two certificates available online are not accurate.

I have no doubt that McCain was eligible to serve as President. But I do not believe that he published his birth certificate based on his Motion in Hamblin as well as an ABC story saying that he had not done so, but his team had shown the author a copy of the real one.
127 posted on 09/16/2009 12:23:42 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; pissant

No, Kreep responded to the motion to stay discovery. No one has responded to the motion to dismiss yet. (They still have time, though.)


128 posted on 09/16/2009 12:24:55 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I thought it was joke until someone pointed out that there are no credible report of SAD actually being pregnant. Then she showed up in Washington Sate with a new baby that she did not seem to know how to take care of. “Reports” are that it was an Aunt who actually had the kid. Hey, good a guess as anything else. One branch of the story goes that SAD actually did have 0, but in Canada since it was so close to Seattle. Who knows but they will keep making it up as long as the truth is not revealed. Oh and I did get sarcasm just thought the bastard angle was good!


129 posted on 09/16/2009 12:27:55 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit The law will be followed, dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Kreep the other lawyer wrote the response:

And Kreep specifically says there that he's writing on behalf of his two clients only, and not on behalf of Taitz or her clients. Orly still needs to respond on behalf of her clients, who have different interests.
130 posted on 09/16/2009 12:28:16 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; pissant

I have now read Kreep’s response to the discovery stay motion and I see that he also addresses the issues raised by the U.S. Attorney in the motion to dismiss. He and/or Orly will still need to file a separate document formally responding to the motion to dismiss, but at least Kreep has done the work needed to state an argument.


131 posted on 09/16/2009 12:28:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Do BCs state religion?

I don't think so. I have an original copy of my long form and it does not.

My crazy theory (everyone has one) is that the father isn't listed (thus the word 'bastard' could be thrown around.)

That's my theory (more-or-less) as well.

I don't know that it would actually say bast*rd, but it might say "unwed" or some such.

I also think this: if you and I are correct, it benefits him to keep it quiet for as long as possible. If he's ever forced, by a court or by circumstance (an act of Congress, let's say - though that will never happen), he'll tearfully produce it and say he was trying to protect the memory of his mother.

Ta-da! He wins and everyone who doubted him looks terrible in the minds of the public - who largely have not been following this.

132 posted on 09/16/2009 12:29:40 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Would you buy a used car from this man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Non-Sequitur
Non-Sequitur knows that. He just thinks that "this time" it will be different.

Exactly like every other useful idiot has thought at every other "this time" in history.

133 posted on 09/16/2009 12:31:00 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 238 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
I still believe wholeheartedly that if there was something out there, Hillary's team would've found it and used it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Chicagoland thugs have just as much on Hillary as she has on Obama.

Think of it as a nuclear blackmail stand off with mutual assured destruction.

134 posted on 09/16/2009 12:35:58 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

How many other people have been vetted for positions of prominence and found not qualified?

Ed Jui, of San Francisco, was found ineligible and jailed.

We have had presidents of Universities found to have embellished their resumes. VETTED!

We have had presidents of companies found to have embelished their resumes, fired, sued etc. VETTED!

We have had executives of corporations commit fraud for years, going undetected, until the peoblems were suddenly too enormous to ignore.
Adelphia, Qwest, MCI/Worlcom, Enron, etc! The list is numerous!

There have been police chiefs, presumably applying to some of the most competent organizations who sucessfully complete investigations. VeTTED !!!

Tell me who vettED this chump?

on what basis was he vetted and what was the information they relied on as proof?

There are no, nada, zip documents that were used.

Anyone who tells there is is lying and should be able to provide resources were we can see the wonders of Barry’s proof.

There is none and absent proof a vacuum of legitamacy exists!


135 posted on 09/16/2009 12:38:22 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"Nor did the judge have any reason to believe that her Kenyan BC was a fake."

You should familiarize yourself with Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification, as well as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 44(2) Proving an Official Record.

Orly didn't even come close to meeting ANY of the requirements spelled out in those two rules - not even close. Foreign records, unlike domestic birth records, are not prima facie evidence of anything. Foundation and authentication must be established by the Movant, not the opposing party or the bench. The Movant must provide compelling and specific authentication before the bench may presume that the evidence (a foreign record in this case) isn't a fake.

So, when you say "Nor did the judge have any reason to believe that her Kenyan BC was a fake.", it says to me that you don't have a clue how things work in the US Court system, let alone do you demonstrate any credible foundation upon which to base an allegation of incompetency with respect to this, or any federal judge. Just saying.

Incidentally, the mistakes that Orly made in this case are mistakes that would get a first year law school student laughed out of any moot court in the country. Which probably shouldn't come a surprise to anyone considering she obtained her law degree from a online law school.

136 posted on 09/16/2009 12:39:08 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar
Yeah, start throwing around the word Bastard, my FRiend, and those of us that fall into that category might not be all to pleased...

Count yourself among Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Payne. The count yourself as lucky that your mother loved you enough to suffer people who shamed or shunned her - just to have you.

Those kinds of accusations may be what Obama is counting on - that there would be loud public outrage of him somehow being forced to out his mother as an unwed mother.

Very few people hold that sort of thing against the child - those who do have a screw loose. Having to "out" his mother could transform him into a very sympathetic figure.

Most people recognize that there is no shame in bringing a child into the world if the mother finds herself pregnant. That is the only correct thing to do.

And no, I don't approve of sex outside of marriage, but abortion towers over it as a sin.

137 posted on 09/16/2009 12:41:54 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Would you buy a used car from this man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
No, Kreep responded to the motion to stay discovery. No one has responded to the motion to dismiss yet. (They still have time, though.)

But, Kreep specifically addresses and mentions the Governments 'Motion to Dismiss' issues of "Standing" and counters them in the Application. The Governments Motion to Dismiss is all about Standing or Jurisdiction. This is a response no matter what the title says. And you wouldn't oppose the Government's opposition to Standing unless you thought the case would go forward.

138 posted on 09/16/2009 12:44:53 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
...And you wouldn't oppose the Government's opposition to Standing unless you thought the case would go forward.

Uhm, no. If you don't oppose a Motion to Dismiss, the Court can treat it as "conceded," and you automatically lose. Plaintiffs HAVE to file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (titled as such) or the Court can (and would) grant the motion automatically.
139 posted on 09/16/2009 12:48:46 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
And Kreep specifically says there that he's writing on behalf of his two clients only, and not on behalf of Taitz or her clients. Orly still needs to respond on behalf of her clients, who have different interests.

Well that sucks but the arguments that he put forth counters the Government arguments in the same case will same amount weight to the judge as it would to Orly's plaintiffs. Her plaintiffs still benefit.

140 posted on 09/16/2009 12:49:42 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

OK , they could resubmit by changing the Title and use the same arguments that was used in their Opposition to Limit Discovery, And add all the plaintiffs to it. We do like paperwork. ;-)


141 posted on 09/16/2009 12:55:38 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I hope this is a slice of humble pie to Orly who was railing against Berg, Kreep, Phil from therightsideoflife.com and others just days ago, because she has decided that they are all secret Obama supporters and/or miserable failures at making any difference on this issue. She sees herself as the one great success story on this matter because she has pushed her cases into higher courts and farther along than anyone else had. I can’t help but think that the Bush appointed judge’s charge says a great deal negative about Orly’s tactics and competency when practicing law at this level.

I dislike always pointing out the problems with Taitz because she doubtless stands alone in terms of tenacity, enthusiasm, resourcefulness, personal investment and elbow grease. I do suppose that is why Alan Keyes retains her services and why she has gotten a tiny step farther than any other similar case by getting hearing tentatively on the schedule in California. (To those who say this in actually no farther than any other case: yes, I can see your point). Nevertheless, as good as a uniquely impassioned heart and a commitment to try one’s hardest are, they are not always enough.

I will grant her that she has likely fought harder for us than anyone else has and that no “more competent, professional” lawyers have stepped up to the plate as wholeheartedly as she has, but at the end of the day it looks as though we need something more than we have gotten from anyone so far. We need a lawyer or law firm that is both full of tenacity and thoroughly competent to present a tight case at in the higher courts.

This is terribly disappointing. To me, the logic dictates that Rhodes’s case should at least be on the border line of being considered a viable case. I wonder if it had been presented differently if the judge wouldn’t have been more open to it—-at least not placing counsel on notice.

Admittedly, I'm no lawyer, but I think the question that this case should be seeking to answer is whether Rhodes has just grounds to delay deployment in order to demand clarifying evidence that 0 is qualified to head the chain of command through which her orders come. It would seem to me that her counsel's arguments should not bear the burden of proving that Obama is ineligible, but instead proving just that his eligibility is unacceptably uncertain and that due diligence has yet to be performed or published to answer that question.

Whether the judge was biased or not or whether he had unfair expectations or not, it seems hard for me to believe that a more experienced, competent lawyer could not have made this case more palatable to him—again, at least enough so as to elude being served notice.

Counselor Taitz, I know you take this seriously, and I can imagine that you feel betrayed and attacked when you’re out there risking so much and working so hard only to see your methods criticized by me and some other would-be supporters who are acting like armchair attorneys. Nevertheless, the best vigilance includes an honest ability for one to recognize his or her limitations and to lean on the counsel and aid of others--sometimes admitting mistakes and sometimes passing the ball along to a teammate ready in the wings to proceed from here.

Unfortunately tenacious people can sometimes lean toward unwise stubbornness and narcissism. For the sake of doggedly proving themselves mighty before all who would criticize, they risk rendering as void all their own valiant, tireless advances.

Ms. Taitz, please, please keep this in mind as you proceed from here.
142 posted on 09/16/2009 12:55:47 PM PDT by ecinkc (Socialism: America's Darkest Hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Exactly like every other useful idiot has thought at every other "this time" in history.

And when this is over all you guys will go back to your villages and resume your duties.

143 posted on 09/16/2009 12:59:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"So, if Obama is not legitimate, our troops have no legitimate excuse to be fighting wars, and would be vulnerable to international courts"

Again, this is first year law school stuff. But, I see it repeated, with great frequency, by people who have NO CLUE how US court system works, only how the believe it should work - two wildly distinctive and different realities.

Look up "de facto officer doctrine" which was held most recently in "Ryder v. United States". This case, and several others give great guidance in this matter.

Obama IS the President. Whether or not he was eligible to hold the office, the fact is he was elected to that office and he currently holds the title office and that is what matters in a US court of law with respect to the "legitimacy" of the orders that he gives, bills he signs into laws and other executive actions he undertakes or executes.

This isn't even a close call, despite the protestations to the contrary. People wonder why no well-known, conservative attorney or legal think-tank has championed this battle, this is the reason why.

144 posted on 09/16/2009 1:00:46 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

By Clinton, yes.


145 posted on 09/16/2009 1:00:55 PM PDT by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Kreep the other lawyer wrote the response...

So when's Orly going to respond? Since she's representing the lion's share of the plaintiffs then shouldn't she be submitting something on their behalf? It's due Monday.

146 posted on 09/16/2009 1:01:59 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
He wasn't depicting Obama as an underdog. He was illustrating that Obama has had multiple well-funded opponents during his campaign that presumably had access to a wellspring of opposition research available on Obama. And, none of those opponents voiced ANY concerns, let alone substantive concerns about Obama's eligibility based on facts, not conjecture and supposition.

Additionally, during the campaign, McCain went out of his way to tell a woman at a rally that Obama was a citizen. Quite a risk to take if he wasn't sure.

McCain Supporter: "Obama is an Arab" (^ YouTube)

147 posted on 09/16/2009 1:02:30 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Would you buy a used car from this man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I have now read Kreep’s response to the discovery stay motion and I see that he also addresses the issues raised by the U.S. Attorney in the motion to dismiss. He and/or Orly will still need to file a separate document formally responding to the motion to dismiss, but at least Kreep has done the work needed to state an argument.

What's that old saying? The more paperwork to cover your @s$ the better. The courts like paperwork.

148 posted on 09/16/2009 1:02:58 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

According to everyone here, he is the bastion of conservatism.

Of course ‘conservative’ today in a judge or politician is equal to ‘stuck so far up Obama’s a&& that they have to ask if it’s daylight yet’.


149 posted on 09/16/2009 1:04:12 PM PDT by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Well that sucks but the arguments that he put forth counters the Government arguments in the same case will same amount weight to the judge as it would to Orly's plaintiffs. Her plaintiffs still benefit.

Yes, to a certain extent. However, for example, Kreep has no military clients, and he has no state representative clients. So, there's no argument on the record with respect to them. Orly - to represent her clients effectively -- simply MUST file her own papers, making THEIR arguments, not just the argument of an elector and a VP candidate.

OK , they could resubmit by changing the Title and use the same arguments that was used in their Opposition to Limit Discovery, And add all the plaintiffs to it. We do like paperwork. ;-)

I suspect that Kreep's Motion to Dismiss will contain much of the same arguments as in his Opposition. Of course, Taitz has said that she will refuse to work with him and is working on a motion to disqualify him, so there's just no way she is going to let him put all the plaintiffs/ names on his papers. Again, Taitz still must represent HER clients, who have different interests than Kreep's clients.
150 posted on 09/16/2009 1:05:15 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson