Skip to comments.Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth; Orly Taitz on notice
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 presidents 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 hasnt started impeachment proceedings against Obama, appears satisfied that he can hold the office and has rejected the suggestion he isnt.
Who is Barack Obama really, and who is helping cover his tracks?
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
LOL, now THAT’S a scary thought!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Do you really think Rhodes will appeal?
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.
An Appelate Court is not the court I was referring to.
Gary Kreep has responded.
There is one school that thinks it does not list SAD as the mother. Wouldn’t that be fun!
“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.
Wrong. John McCain was challenged and produced his documentation, including his birth certificate.
Yeah. Ever since Saturday my sense of urgency to emigrate has diminished greatly.
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.
“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.”
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.
Kreep the other lawyer wrote the response:
No, Kreep responded to the motion to stay discovery. No one has responded to the motion to dismiss yet. (They still have time, though.)
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. âReportsâ 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!
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.
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.
Exactly like every other useful idiot has thought at every other "this time" in history.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
And when this is over all you guys will go back to your villages and resume your duties.
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.
By Clinton, yes.
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.
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)
What's that old saying? The more paperwork to cover your @s$ the better. The courts like paperwork.
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’.