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

Skip to comments.

Soldier’s attorney fights back with another court filing (Orly Taitz)
WTVM (Columbus, GA) ^ | 17 Sep 09 | Roslyn Giles

Posted on 09/17/2009 11:52:15 AM PDT by Drew68

COLUMBUS, GA (WTVM) - Attorney Orly Taitz filed a brief Thursday morning in Columbus' US District Court requesting for a stay of deployment pending her client's motion for a rehearing.

This comes just one day after Judge Clay Land denied Captain Connie Rhodes' temporary restraining order, dismissed the entire case and ordered Rhodes to pay the defendant's court costs.

Rhodes, a military doctor, is challenging deployment orders to Iraq based on allegations that the Commander in Chief is ineligible to hold the office of president. Rhodes maintains that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.

"This is outrageous and a mischaracter of justice. I think that Judge Land should be sanctioned for judicial misconduct. He has violated my client's civil rights by denying her a trial by jury and not giving us 20 days to respond before making a decision, " says Taitz.

Judge Land also stated in his ruling that he would sanction Taitz if she filed any future actions in his court that were similarly "frivolous".

Judge Land was not available for comment.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: article2section1; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; obamanoncitizenissue; orlytaitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: VC42
Orly Taitz is possibly nuts and at very least is not the right person to be taking this on.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don’t see anyone manning up to do this tough job.

21 posted on 09/17/2009 12:35:41 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

First year law student? FDLMAO...Puhleeeze


A “Temporary Restraining Order” is ordinarily issued after an “ex parte appearance” (an appearance in court by one party without the other being present). The Temporary Restraining Order is an order of the court that states that a person is to refrain from particular acts and to stay away from particular places.

A Temporary Restraining Order becomes effective only once it has been served on the restrained person (so s/he has notice and can seek an opportunity to be heard). In addition to the Temporary Restraining Order, an “Order to Show Cause” hearing is scheduled so that both parties will have the opportunity to explain to the court the reasons why a more “permanent” restraining order should or should not be issued.

Temporary Restraining Orders usually can be issued the same day they are requested and remain in effect until the scheduled hearing on the Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause hearing is typically scheduled to occur within 15 or 20 days.


Her case was not heard. Nor were the issues addressed. Nor was the Order to show cause scheduled. It was summarily dismissed. In violation of the states rules.

For a law student, you seem to forget those facts.
eh...would you like fries with that mistake?


22 posted on 09/17/2009 12:35:54 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

First year law student? FDLMAO...Puhleeeze


A “Temporary Restraining Order” is ordinarily issued after an “ex parte appearance” (an appearance in court by one party without the other being present). The Temporary Restraining Order is an order of the court that states that a person is to refrain from particular acts and to stay away from particular places.

A Temporary Restraining Order becomes effective only once it has been served on the restrained person (so s/he has notice and can seek an opportunity to be heard). In addition to the Temporary Restraining Order, an “Order to Show Cause” hearing is scheduled so that both parties will have the opportunity to explain to the court the reasons why a more “permanent” restraining order should or should not be issued.

Temporary Restraining Orders usually can be issued the same day they are requested and remain in effect until the scheduled hearing on the Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause hearing is typically scheduled to occur within 15 or 20 days.


Her case was not heard. Nor were the issues addressed. Nor was the Order to show cause scheduled. It was summarily dismissed. In violation of the states rules.

For a law student, you seem to forget those facts.
eh...would you like fries with that mistake?


23 posted on 09/17/2009 12:36:45 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??


24 posted on 09/17/2009 12:38:11 PM PDT by klb99 (I now understand why the South seceeded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
In his ruling, Land said Rhodes had no credible evidence and made no reliable factual allegations that would support her unsubstantiated claims that Obama can’t serve as president.

No CREDIBLE evidence? How much did 0bama's people pay this judge to say that?
25 posted on 09/17/2009 12:40:39 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (Looking for Fraud? Waste? Abuse? Audit ACORN. Audit The Fed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

and since the Constitution mandates that the President be “natural born” no acts, or laws passed by Congress can counter this, because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly! Being natural born is an intrinsic quality of a person in the same way that race or eye color is intrinsic.

Congress can vote a thousand times over that a person has blue eyes but if the eyes are brown, they will continue to be brown.

In the same way, Congress can approve a person a MILLION times over, but if he is not natural born he can NOT be president. If a non-natural born person occupies the position of president, at best he can merely be a criminal fraud and a traitor to his country.


26 posted on 09/17/2009 12:40:41 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: klb99

Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??


If you remember some of the first words out of her mouth were telling the Cheif Justice that there were criminal activities going on in the SCOTUS or words to that effect. IMO, you don’t tell the Chief Justice that the court he oversees allows criminal activities to go on within it’s rooms. She give him a box of material to read there was nothing else just the reading material. Not sure what she expected the Chief Justice to do.


27 posted on 09/17/2009 12:48:35 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: klb99
Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??

It went something like this:

Yep. Orly publically accused the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to his face, of being party to in criminal activity in his courtroom.

28 posted on 09/17/2009 12:48:47 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

No CREDIBLE evidence?


Are you saying the stuff Orly is providing is credible? If so then she should have some backup material to prove it wouldn’t you think?


29 posted on 09/17/2009 12:50:44 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??


30 posted on 09/17/2009 12:58:18 PM PDT by klb99 (I now understand why the South seceeded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: klb99

Sorry for dup. post.....interrupted by phone.


31 posted on 09/17/2009 1:00:15 PM PDT by klb99 (I now understand why the South seceeded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The chances of Taitz being cited for contempt of court by Judge Land have increased dramatically with the filing of this latest brief.

Here are three examples of what Rhodes alleged in her latest brief:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes asks and requests this Court retract and vacate its sarcastic and biting dismissal of September 16, 2009,...

By its contradictory and condescending tone, the Court...

...suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the Court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate “chain of command” alleged above...


These three assertions seem to me to be way over the line.
32 posted on 09/17/2009 1:02:40 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
Her case was not heard. Nor were the issues addressed. Nor was the Order to show cause scheduled. It was summarily dismissed.

What are you talking about? The motion was heard, with Orly and her client both present, on the day it was scheduled for. Orly claims that her client had a right to trial by jury, but there are no juries in injunction cases.

In violation of the states rules.

State rules don't apply in federal court. The procedure applied here was in conformity with the federal rules.

For a law student, you seem to forget those facts.

I haven't been a law student for a long time. I have been a practicing lawyer for more than 30 years.

eh...would you like fries with that mistake?

What mistake is that?

33 posted on 09/17/2009 1:03:48 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mlo

When allegtations are made that the constitution has been violated, the suspected fraud should produce the records he is avoiding showing. Then the judge will determine if there is a case. To do so beforehand is to allow the suspect to get away without reviewing the “best evidence;” something a judge may eventually stand up for or perhaps history, or the court of public opinion, or an insider tiring of covering up the fraud. There are many ways the truth may be revealed.


34 posted on 09/17/2009 1:05:20 PM PDT by nufsed (Release the birth certificate, passport, and school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Totally agree.

There are a lot of experts on this blog who think they know better how to do what Orly is attempting, but there is only one nutjob who has gone this far and been this successful. Hooray! For this nutjob.

Orly rocks and needs to be encouraged all the way to success!


35 posted on 09/17/2009 1:05:57 PM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Look, Drew, I lived through the Clarence Thomas hearings, the trial of the Weathermen in Chicago, the Iran-Contra hearings, the OJ Simpson trial — no way her brief comes even close to the insanity produced by “mainstream” public judges, lawyers and legislators in those procedures.

You, are the crazy one, amigo. Crazy to not want a full hearing for the facts.


36 posted on 09/17/2009 1:11:14 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I saw the video of her screwy interview where she launched into lengthy disjointed apologetics instead of answering questions, and then read an account of a judge getting fed up with what sounded like the same behavior in court. I think that if this was going anywhere someone w/ legal capability would be on board by now.

She still hasn't managed to get the pistol out of her holster and she is down to about three toes. The left is thoroughly enjoying this, and it suggests Coulter had good cause to recommend the birther issue just be dropped.

37 posted on 09/17/2009 1:33:19 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
The left is thoroughly enjoying this, and it suggests Coulter had good cause to recommend the birther issue just be dropped.


It doesn't seem to matter which party is in the Oval Office you get these type actions from one side or the other. Clinton had his Fort Marcy Park thing, Mena drugs, etc. Maybe the Mena thing include the Bushes also. GWB had his nemesis with the nut that wrote a book or two about his military service and drugs, etc. The nut later committed suicide or died up in OK I believe.

38 posted on 09/17/2009 1:40:46 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

You don’t get to make up your own rules. Just because you think a court should do the investigating, doesn’t create the obligation, or the rational expectation, that one will.

You have to present a case to the court. You don’t go to court and tell the judge you think there’s a problem, but you don’t have any evidence unless the court investigates.


39 posted on 09/17/2009 2:16:26 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GilGil
...but there is only one nutjob who has gone this far and been this successful. Hooray!

You call this success??

40 posted on 09/17/2009 2:21:40 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 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