Posted on 09/16/2009 9:48:30 AM PDT by vikk
Considering she called the judge corrupt and accused him of treason, statements that put her in danger of being disbarred, I’m trending away from con artist and more towards someone who’s not in her right mind.
From a pragmatic standpoint, what judge will take her seriously after these statements?
This case does not have a leg to stand on.
Sounds like the kinda guys who could care less about the law,or justice, just how he appears before his peers. As I speculated.
That's a tidbit of information that could have been used. I don't know if Orly was the right lawyer who could have used it to her advantage.
Now you're questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Rules of Evidence? Oh brother. Every time I think I can't be shocked, anymore than I already am, I'm shocked.
Try out US Code, Title 28, PRT 5, CHPTRS 111-123 - or thereabouts. Let me know what you come up with.
Here's the best part of your post...
...They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
No where in Rule 81 does it say, "Hey, you can ignore all the aforementioned rules to get to that just, speedy and inexpensive determination, now does it?
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".
The US justice system isn't - in any way - about the delivery of justice, it's about the application of US law - nothing more, nothing less.
As a law professor of mine once said, "If you want to pursue a search for truth, talk to your priest. If you want to understand the law, you've come to the right place."
Consider The Federal Rules of Evidence. It’s the law.
I just checked my notes and forgot to add that , according to my friend, Judge Land can also be
“ inappropriate ,”
“ often makes editorial comments “ and can be “ injudicial “ at times.
Thanks for the info since the IL database view didn't spell that out. Well Curses....
No es problemo, Judge Carter will take up the slack!
Yes, Judge Carter appears to be a more receptive ear who will entertain the plaintiff’s case.
The issue, or at least the one involving who Barry's father was, is that he was not a US Citizen. Doesn't matter of what country, nor if that country makes the children of it's citizens, born outside its borders, citizens at birth. Thus dual citizenship, per se, is not the issue. And it's easy to shoot down. (The "What if Kim Jun Il made all babies born in America North Korean citizens at birth?" argument)
In a legal sense, it's not a FACT that BHO Sr was Juniors father or that if he was, he was also not a citizen of the US. Those are not FACTS, in the same way that "fire burns" is a FACT. And, as I understand it, it matters not that Obama himself, or his ghost writer, made statements to that effect in his books. Those would be facts that needed to be established, and supported by legal documentation. Documentation that is inaccessible absent a court order/supoena.
She did say in her filing, in speaking of "relative hardships" with regard to the need and desirability for a TR:,
However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as the president has to spend only one minute of his time to sign a consent form for release of his vital records, showing that he is a Natural Born Citizen, meaning one born in the country to two US citizen parents.
So the issue was brought up.
I haven't yet read the transcript of the hearing to see what she, or Captain Rhodes, might have said on the matter during the hearing.
OldDeckHand, Probonopublico and Lurking Libertarian,
THANK YOU for your informed posts. Like the 3 of you, I am also an attorney (20+ yrs) and although I have not been what you would call an active litigator, I am no stranger to the rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.
I agree 100% with all the points made by each of the three of you. I’ll probably catch fallout for this, as the last time I posted and raised same/similar issues of each of you are doing now, I got lambasted and accused of being a “plant” or “troll.” Although all I was doing was merely pointing out the unpleasant truths about the weakness of the cases, the problems of establishing standing and surpassing the bar for a “justiciable question” and the obvious lack of skill, knowledge and ability on the part of Ms. Taitz.
A few weeks back, I pointed out several of the flaws in Orly’s pending California case and noted mistakes that no self-respected 2L would make. (Didn’t even include her Bar # on her filings? Seriously, that’s beyond sloppy, it’s downright stupid.) I also noted, as one of you did, that I thought that Orly is in this for Orly and too many people have bought into her act using “X Files” reasoning. (I WANT to believe!)
I’m sorry, but I actually took the time to look up Orly Taitz record in Orange County and looked at every single litigation she had ever appeared in as Attorney, Plaintiff or Defendent. The common thread was this: She has never appeared as an attorney, representing ANYONE as Plaintiff or Defendant other than herself and/or her husband. In fact, the most common cases she was involved with appear to have been the half dozen or so malpractice claims filed against her as a Dentist.
I don’t want to be one of those people who will pop up later and say “I told you so.” So, I will go on record now and just warn those who still believe in Orly and the legitimacy of these cases, I’m really afraid you are going to be sorely disspointed. From a legal standpoint, once the Congress certified the election, the ability to challenge Obama as holding the office “legitimately” went out the window.
As OldDeckHand is trying to explain to folks, if the judge did what some of you want to do - it would be one of the biggest examples of “judicial activism” from the bench in quite some time. I also don’t want to live in a country where anyone can accuse anyone of anything without any real evidence and subject them to the scrutiny of the court and/or discovery by some stranger who has no real basis for seeing that information.
People, open your eyes here. There have been numerous attorneys who have shown up and tried to point out the “truth” about this matter and for some reason people have adopted a “shoot the messenger” attitude. Sorry, but these judges aren’t the ones who are failing to understand and comply with the law, it’s Orly Taitz.
Question to you 3 (and any other lawyers here) I am curious as to why Orly isn’t getting into trouble for filing complaints in states where she is not lawfully licensed to practice law? (In fact, I believe that in most of these states, she wouldn’t even be qualified to take the bar exam, given that she didn’t graduate from an accredited law school.) In the Florida case, she filed a motion for limited admission Pro Hoc Vice and she listed local counsel (who was supposedly “sponsoring” her as associated counsel in that jurisdiction) but her motion was not granted, from what I have been able to tell and the local counsel, while listed in the filings, NEVER SIGNED THEM! So far, I believe that she has filed in Ohio, Florida and Georgia and she’s certainly not licensed in any of those three states. Why do you think that she’s not stepping in deep doo-doo and getting smacked down by the judges on that basis alone?
Leo had a smackdown on his site over this very sentence with the disbarred lawyer who apparently wrote the Rhodes lawsuit for Orly .
Leo said it should have been broken into two distinct fact statements, one regarding evidence of location of birth, and one regarding dual citizenship. Two statements of fact would lead the judge could rule on each fact separately.
The sentence you quoted doesn't assert as a fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his admission against interest that he was a dual citizen status at birth, rather it only asks Obama to confirm a weak confusing statement he is not eligible due to his father not being a US citizen.
The judge cannot rule that Obama should confirm facts, the judge can only rule on fact assertions by the plaintiff.
Leo said that even in losing and getting threats of sanctions, Orly is providing herself and other attorneys a roadmap of how to construct a potentially more successful pleading and refile it, although the standing of military plaintiffs seems doomed.
The judge's footnote in the Kenyan BC evidence, for example seemed to clearly indicate that if either BC had been authenticated in advance under FRCP, such evidence would not have been frivolous (tall order, given Kenyan non-compliance with authentication).
I await Leo's post tomorrow.
Oh. Let me be clear that I agree w/ Leo to the extent he’s saying that the pleadings are a mess. They are. I was just saying that she did raise the argument, however inartfully.
I spent 20+ years as a military lawyer, so I'm probably not the right guy to ask. I have had some, but limited experience in Federal court - plus, most states have an special admissions exceptions for military lawyers who meet other administrative requirements (ie admitted to the federal bar as well as admitted the bar in another state).
I think the exigency of a TRO is a probable reason in this case, but I'm at a loss for the other actions. Do you know for sure she wasn't granted Pro Hac Vice in those other cases?
Rhodes Complaint P 148. “All that is asked of the President is that he humbly acknowledge and produce his true and complete original birth certificate, and that he then confirm and acknowledge that, no matter where he was born, he cannot be President because one of his parents (Obama‘s natural father) was not a US citizen at the time of his son‘s birth.”
That seems to me to be a question of law, not fact. How can Obama be forced to answer a question, when there is no court ruling that one’s parents must both be US Citizens in order to be President? (This question has never been asked or answered in the Supreme Court.)
Where’s Orly’s support for the claim in her filing/complaint? (Citatation to the Constitutional provision which so provides, case law, US Code, etc.?)
If you are asking a court to make a determination as to the legal issues involved in such a question, you can’t expect to make the Defendant admit to something where there is no legal support for the conclusion. Especially when there is no legal authority to reach the conclusion she is asking him to reach and “admit.”
If Obama is born in the US, I believe he’s a natural born US Citizen, unless he father was a diplomat and outside the scope of lawful US Jurisdiction during the time of his presence here. I have found no basis for the claim that both parents must be a US Citizen, if you are born in the US, in order to be a natural born US Citizen. (Or at least not post 14th Amendment and the US v Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898.) As just mentioned, the Ark decision found a person born, on US soil, of two non-citizens to be a US citizen at birth. (Further, neither of the parents were even capable of being US citizens as they were prohibited by Federal law at the time which discriminated against Chinese immigrants and disqualified them from naturalization)
Basically, there are only two types of US Citizens - natural born and naturalized. The 14th Amendment grants one citizenship upon birth on US soil. If born in a US state (Hawaii) or qualifying US Territory then the notion that somehow Obama isn’t qualified due to the non-citizenship of his father is very far-fetched given the SCOTUS’s decisions on citizenship in the past and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
Besides, the fact that his father was a British subject was well known BEFORE Obama became president and if there were any substantial law which prevented him from becoming president, why did NO ONE on a national level (such as the Republican Party) challenge his placement on the ballot for that reason?
So again, basically Orly is asking Obama to “admit” something that he really can’t even admit. There is absolutely no presumption that Orly’s claims in regard to both parents needing to be US Citizens in order to be a natural born citizen are correct and she has presented nothing in her filings to support her claim.
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.