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.
That is not a world that I for one want to inhabit.
Me neither.
But in this case, that's a legal Catch 22. Obama's cousin, reportedly his first cousin, son of Obama's father's sister, is the prime minister of Kenya. A position he acquired after turning his thugs loose to burn, loot and pillage upon losing an election for President. An election where Obama made visits to Kenya in support of Cuz Odinga.
Yea the Kenyan authorities are going to be real cooperative, NOT! A reasonable judge would look for alternatives to prove or disprove the authenticity of the document.
Probably not, but prosecution has a little handy thing called access to a WARRANT, which is pretty much the same thing as DISCOVERY. Since a citizen plaintiff doesn’t have access to warrants, they have to use DISCOVERY.
Now how much of a case do you think ANY prosecutor would have if they did not have access to the court to search (or... DISCOVER?) for their evidence?
In point of fact, Cosimo de Medici was quoting something that I had said up-thread.
A reasonable judge would follow the law. The law in this instance is quite specific as to the legal standards that must be met with respect to proving an official foreign record, and to the litigant to whom that burden falls. If you want to the judge to ignore those standards in order to to reach a conclusion you would find more palatable, isn't that "crafting law from the bench" and completely antithetical to conservatives ideals of American jurisprudence?
Contrary to popular opinion, every judge that has ruled in these cases (with some of them being Republican appointees to the bench) has followed the law, to the letter - including the judge in this case.
The need to show legal standing to sue before they can have a trial, and need a trial before they can have discovery.
Now how much of a case do you think ANY prosecutor would have if they did not have access to the court to search (or... DISCOVER?) for their evidence?
In a civil suit, the plaintiff is in the same position a prosecutor is. They need to show evidence to begin with in order to have a trial, just as a prosecutor needs some evidence to begin with to get an indictment. Going to the judge and saying, "Your Honor, we have no evidence. But we're pretty sure we can come up with some during discovery. So can we indict him, please?" doesn't work. Nor should it.
OK, fine. What evidence could she possibly have access to that would satisfy the "stand up in court" criteria? The best would be the original Hawaiian birth certificate, but she's denied access to that. Any foreign birth certificate suffers from the access problem as well, either because of similar privacy laws, or what could be called "political interferance". IOW the government of Kenya is not about to release and authenticate a birth certificate for the cousin of their prime minister that would show his cuz ineligible to the office of Presidentof the US.
But if you can't name any theoretical evidence that would be accessable to the plaintifs, then you are using the "rules" to deny them any possiblity of having their case decided on it merits, cause you'll never get to the merits.
Even proving, in a legal sense, BHO Sr was his father and that he was not a US citizen would be impossible under your interpretation of the rules. Visa records, government controls them. Birth certificate (to prove paternity), "private". Marriage license records "private".
You can't deny one side access to all possible admissible evidence and pretend you have a system of justice.
Good post Gato. You’ve expanded on our thoughts very well. :-)
Actually a Bush appointee,sad day for the country when the fix is in this solid.
He is afraid to take a case solely on it merits when its too high a profile. Too afraid of peer review.What will the other judges/lawyers say.
With all the evidence that has been garnered, all the suppositions, all the questioning any judge worth his salt,a man who is interested in right and wrong, justice and injustice, would have taken this case and made the usurper prove he is legit.
Whoops!
Leo Donofrio says Orly never argued dual citizen issue in Rhodes. She made such a big deal about it in other filings.
Leo:
If you read the Judge’s order, he correctly points out that no FACTS were alleged to support the claim, only innuendo. This is EXACTLY the reason i said the pleadings were insufficient - nowhere in the pleading did it state the FACT that Obama was British at birth and that he has admitted this fact. It’s clear from the very first paragraph that the Judge only conisdered Obama’s BC and place of birth... he never discussed the dual citizen issue because it was NEVER raised...
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/#comments
My guess is yes that is the case. But more probably,this guy is just a gutless wonder.
If he had cajone one he would call up zero ask politely for a BC and when zero refused agree to hear the case.
But then that will never happen since none of these bozos have any guts.
Posts by "lawyers" on this thread are a good example of why he won't as well. These guys have their own little club and they don't like any one rocking the boat. They have created (and modified) their own little rules and when someone else tries to call them on it,they get threatened.
Words like justice and truth have little if any meaning in todays courts,just another reason why the country is in as much trouble as it is.
You throw that term "the law" around alot. What law? Which Congress passed it? Where is it to be found in the United States Code?
Yes, the USC, specifically Rules of Courts, authorizes the Courts to make rules, but rules are not the law. I'd bet that there are "exception" rules too. ... In fact I found one.
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Denying plaintiffs all access to the only things that would meet the standards of evidence and allow them to prove their case, can hardly be called "just".
Thanks.
Leo says:
[Ed. I should have a thorough analysis of Orly’s case before Judge Carter and the dismissal in the Rhodes case by tomorrow.]
Stay tuned!
So "discovery" once granted, can't at the same time be limited to "relevant" documents? I think I saw in one of the rules that it can be. Does not the court have to approve every supoena?
Here’s an angle to try. Show the court that Obama lied to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which can be proven. He lied to them when he said he had no aliases. Goes to Obama’s credibility. If he lied before to a court he can do it again. The object here is to get a judge to motion for discovery.
” 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.”
I just spoke to one of my Georgia friends who has practiced before Judge Land.
My friend is extremely conservative and actually likes the guy on a personal level.
And also believes Obama must produce his long form birth certificate and is obviously hiding something.
My friend’s assessment of Judge Land.
Land is “ very conservative” and often times “ has an anti government bent “ , but,
“ has to show he’s the smartest guy in the room, “
“ gets on his high horse ,” “ plays to the crowd ,” “part of the good old boy network “ ,
“ born with a silver spoon in his mouth,”
“ father very wealthy ,”
his uncle is a Superior Court Judge.
The guy has a definite attitude and his ego is sometimes more important than the law.
There was a book written by an Englishman, David Rose
about some Georgia murders that portrays Land in an unfavorable light -which my friend thought were cheap shots.
“The Big Eddy Club: The Stocking Stranglings and Southern Justice.”
For what it’s worth.
Thanks for all the details. That seems to make sense.
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.