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.
This judge allowed the case to proceed to this point for precisely this opportunity. It has done nothing but strengthen Obama's position.
I know, I was afraid she was going to blow it. Glad we have someone so dedicated, but God she’s a loon.
It has always been the conservative view of the law that courts should stay out of fights that should be resolved by the elected branches of government. It was conservative Supreme Court judges who authored all of the decisions limiting plaintiffs' standing, for precisely those reasons.
Nope. Stalemate maybe.
IF she has the goods on 0bama, she can still use them, provided the release can't be traced back to her.
What happens if her flying monkeys release the damning data as soon as the bloom is off the 0bama rose (not quite yet!)?
0bama gets lead away from the Offal Office in irons (possibly to face treason charges and hanging).
Bidet becomes president.
Biden selects the most logical candidate for Veep: the first runner up in the race, the woman who never actually quit the race, the respected senator, and former occupant of the Whine House, and did I mention she's a gurl?
Congress will promptly approve 'one of their own' (who happens to have the FBI files close at hand)...
Poor old gaff-machine Joe. *sniff* His heart just couldn't take the strain. *sob* We'll sure miss him!
Yes, it's hard to get to the evidence when the perpetrator controls the evidence, using laws to help him hide, something akin to under the color of law.
Absolutely. The entire campaign I said that McCain was his own mole. Even now he is chastizing a soldier for asking if Obama is a liar (about the Joe Wilson thing). McCain was Obama’s biggest supporter and if you ask me, I don’t think he expected Palin to be what she was. He nominated someone he thought would help him lose and got blindsided.
John McCain did not want to be President. That was evident in the non-campaign he ran.
I feel like I just found out my parents sold me into slavery or something. Seriously, the conspiracy is that no one cares and that perplexes me more than anything. To say it’s not important is one thing, but we must question something when SO MANY PEOPLE are ACTIVELY preventing anyone from finding out the truth.
I can’t help but chuckle. You just said basically the same thing that I said in response to antiRepublicrat’s post as I did, but a little more succinctly.
It took me over 600 words. Lol. Reminder to self: Brevity is the soul of wit.
I hope this judge can straighten these two out or they may end up E’ffing up this golden opportunity.
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God...
A politician who’s a bastard? The horror!
Nobody cares. Really.
100 years ago, certainly.
50 years ago, maybe.
But now? Naaahhhh!
McCain’s opposition in the 2010 primary should be able to easily raise money to oppose him.
Odd that 0bama believes it's a shameful punishment, though...
Oh, goody ... let's add forum shopping to the fact that this Taitz woman is not a very competent attorney.
In some parts of the world, yes.
Doubt it. We’ll probably be buried in the same trench.
There’s a revolting thought, being next to the likes of you for eternity.
Yes, they love to gloat, but the next one they may not be.
No, surprisingly by George W. Bush.
But never underestimate his ability to spin it if that is, in fact, the deep dark secret hidden away on his birth certificate.
I suspect sometime between now and the deadline.
Like I asked yesterday, is this the letter of someone who is willing to work with the counsel of the other case she's tied with?
Wow, how does one respond that?
Well, at least in a way that won’t get me banned.....
We'll see. After all, she has some free time now since her presence is no longer needed in Georgia.
Is Orly Tatz before this judge?
Okay you are right. Dred Scott was a very well reasoned ruling — that is what is to damn bloody about it, and we “gut feeling” has to be the final arbitrator as applied to laws written by man. That’s why Juries and Mandamus and Habeas — a way of making super well reasoned law that ends up not being Truth, to mesh with the real world.
Dred Scott was super well-reasoned, an exercise in pure legal reasoning.
This ruling in Georgia today is not any of that. It is — mark it by it’s words! — a emotional outburst of a cranky arrogance.
You are right. They are vastly different. One pure logic, the other pure bully crankiness.
Both wrong. Both rulings cheered on by many in the establishment, but despised by those who at the time were considered the lowly.
typos: that is what is so damn bloody about it, and why gut feeling has to be the final arbitrator as applied to laws written by man.
She was before this Judge. He threw her case out and warned her that he would sanction her if she filed a frivolous complaint in his court again.
If you mean Judge Clay Land as "this judge", then yes - this TRO was adjudicated before Land. The hearing was on Monday of this week, with the judge issuing his ruling this morning.
Tell your son that the Hawaiian birth certificate, long form, does not even show anyone's religion.
Show him this, a BC from a child born the day after Obama, actually 19 hours later on a weekend, so the form was unlike to have changed in between the births.
Now that's a little hard to read, so here is one from 1963 that has all the same fields. (The '63 copy was made in 1998 and was cropped to only show the copy of the original, and not the copy certification information (Seal, signature, etc) but one can see that the field are the same.)
They don't want the court to do their investigating, they want the court to provide access to the information that would allow them to prove their case. After all what's discovery for if not to provide information supporting your case. Sure you have to have some information, but not all the final proof.
In Judge Carter's court in Central California. This a different case, before the same Judge who had thrown out, as moot, the Major's case a while back.
Isn’t it interesting what can be presented to the court by the ACLU or the left, but what can’t be by those on the right?
If it were Bush who was under consideration for whether he was a citizen or not, the courts would have approved of digging up 75% of the nation looking for evidence.
I think you are confounding the two cases. This judge had already heard and thrown out one of Taitz's cases.
It's judge Carter of the Central District of California that looked and looks promising.
I just noticed that Judge Land says in a footnote that Major Cook's case was dismissed for lack of standing. I though it was because the case had become moot due to the cancellation of his orders. Perhaps it was both?
It also seems Judge Land is taking an awful lot of "judicial notice" of things not presented in his court, much of it hardly common knowledge.
Maybe, but she had and has very high negatives. It would have been much closer, and I believe with the high positives of Sarah Palin on the ticket, and the partial neutralization of the "female factor" by the same, McCain might very well have won.
Besides which, we don't know what the Chicago mob has on Hillary. I'm sure they have something.
So with this judge’s logic, that “ample opportunity existed for discovery” without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.
HI ones don’t list religion.
She did not want to take the legal risk of deploying to a war zone under unlawful orders, but she has her duty as well. She'll be doing it. I'm sure any solider, Marine, airman or sailor she patches up won't give a hoot about the circumstances leading to her being there.
Did the the prosecution go to the judge and say, "Your Honor, we don't have squat in the way of evidence. But it you'll allow us to haul Bernie into court then we're pretty sure we'll get what we need from the defense during discovery?"
Then Stanley Armour Dunham must be the father. For Barry is the spit'n image of "Grandpa", only with a darker tan, darker hair and eyes.
Exactly. An accuser with no EVIDENCE of wrongdoing on the part of the accused has no business being in court. As we’ve observed before, the seriousness of an allegation is not enough.
I don’t think the Obama is eligible either, but so long as there is no evidence thereof and no otherwise discernable legal harm has been done, we’re stuck with him.
It seems that Orly hasn’t taken this lying down.
She’s accusing the judge of treason.
I’m not sure how that tactic is supposed to serve anyone but her.
It’s TPM, so take with a grain of salt, but it’s not like it’d be unbelievable for her to have said this.
Why am I not surprised?
Well, that'll teach him. </sarcasm>