Posted on 12/18/2010 4:14:32 PM PST by JLWORK
With thanks to WorldNetDaily:
Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin was just convicted, discharged from service and sent to a six-month prison term for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan - until Barack Obama turns over his credentials and proves his Constitutional Eligibility to hold office. You thought it was all over, finally? Nope.
Here comes another presidential eligibility lawsuit – scheduled for a January 7, 2011 conference in the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit was brought originally by Captain Connie Rhodes, U.S. Army, et al and her attorney, Orly Taitz. Here’s the link to the PDF Petition for Writ of Certiorari that Taitz filed, requesting that the lower Court, which dismissed the original case and fined Taitz $20,000.00 for continuing to file motions on behalf of her clients, be ordered by the Supreme Court to review its decision.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/10-21-10-Taitz-USSC-Pet-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf
Much of the petition centers around two issues:
1) The Courtroom conduct and judicial rulings of the Georgia Middle District Court Justice, Clay D. Land, in which he refused to hear the eligibility case on its merits, then ridiculed and fined Taitz $20,000.00 for continuing to press the legal arguments at hand. Taitz claims that Land provided no explanation as to why she was not allowed to present oral arguments and why her written arguments were “unconvincing”. He summarily dismissed the case without a review of the evidence.
2) Taitz’s investigation into the origins of Barack Obama’s Social Security Number, which was originally issued in the State of Connecticut to a man who was born in the late 1890s, includes an affidavit of the facts prepared by former Scotland Yard officer Neil Sankey. There is no record of Obama ever having lived in Connecticut. The original holder of the number is presumed dead. Land dismissed Taitz’s investigation as frivolous and refused to hear the evidence.
Taitz is asking for her $20,000.00 back, based upon Constitutional grounds that the fine was levied in retaliation against her and her client. The possibility also exists that the fine was actually imposed to intimidate other potential plaintiffs who might be considering similar actions. Land made direct allusions to the political agenda of the “birthers” in his dismissal, without looking at any of Taitz’s evidence.
Last week the Army convicted Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin in a General Court Martial, without hearing any evidence on his behalf and without allowing him to produce witnesses in his own defense. Lakin is on his way to prison – or he is already there. One of Taitz’s clients, U.S. Army Reserve Major Stephen Cook, was fired from his contractor’s job in retaliation for his participation in Captain Rhodes’ original eligibility lawsuit.
The bodies are beginning to stack up all over the country, figuratively speaking. And Barack Hussein Obama continues to refuse to turn his cards over – Occidental College transcripts, Columbia University transcripts, Columbia senior thesis, Harvard University transcripts, financial aid applications, passport records, college application records, public school records, long form birth certificate, Harvard Law Review records, law client lists, Illinois State Legislature records and calendar, and medical records. The computerized on-line image that he’s presented as a valid Hawaiian birth certificate would not get your child into Little League Baseball. So, what’s in all of those documents that he doesn’t want us to see?
Taitz must now present her arguments to the Supreme Court – if she’s allowed to do so. They’ve to this point refused to hear any of these types of cases. Personally, since Congress and the American Press Corps abjectly refused to do their investigative jobs back in 2008, I’d just like hear the evidence argued in an open Court of Law.
I’m just going to kick back and wait for OldDeckHand to step in and tell us all (again) why this just doesn’t matter and why we should all just run along...
Considering the above, one of you with a law degree, can you tell me why or why not, and please elucidate clearly.
This case does not raise any eligibility issues, although Orly Taitz doesn' seem to understand that (she raises all kinds of eligibility arguments in her brief, but that issue isn't in the case anymore). The plaintiff in this case who challenged Obama's eligibility was Connie Rhodes. Rhodes dropped the case, fired Taitz and didn't appeal. Because there is no plaintiff in the case anymore, the eligibility issue is no longer part of the case.
The only person appealing to the Supreme Court is Orly Taitz, and the only issue, therefore, is the $20,000 sanction against her. Taitz also seems to misunderstand why she was sanctioned: it was not for bringing the eligibility case. The sanctions order specifies exactly what she was sanctioned for: accusing the judge of "treason" (that's called "contempt of court," for those of you following along at home), and accusing the judge of meeting with Attorney General Holder in a coffee shop across the street from the courthouse in Georgia (on a day when Holder was appearing publicly in Los Angeles).
Judge Land (a conservative Republican appointed by President Bush at the recommendation of Senator Chambliss) specifically held that Taitz was not sanctioned for her original Complaint, but only for the frivolous and contemptuous language in her motion for reconsideration (a motion she legally had no right to file at all, since her client had already fired her).
I know a number of attorneys and they all feel obama is ineligible to be the President under Article 2. Do you agree?
Pinging on a shameless Kangaroo court, especially on Dr. & Pastor and Patriot James David Manning, PhD, civil rights violations???
http://atlahmedianetwork.org/?p=11907
Is this guy gonna plead guilty too?
Taitz discredits any cause she involves herself with.
You don’t understand. The Old Deck Hand knows that the legal system is far above and superior to a Constitution written by a bunch of gay founders(according to Harry Reid).
I’m sure you recall the etiquette involved in pinging a Freeper you mention in a comment. I’ll save you the trouble.
Frankly, it's embarrassing that anyone who describes themselves as "conservative" would hang their hat on anything that comes from the court jester known as Orly Taitz.
She's an embarrassment. I'll dance a jig, bare-ass naked on the National Mall if the Court grants cert here.
Of course, I'm sure some will use that denial as additional "proof" that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are both in on the George Soros super-conspiracy.
sorry about mentioning another freeper.......I should not have done that.
I think Thomas already admitted they were ducking the issues. Soros told him too duck and cover?
I would be interested in this opinion as well
Sure, that's it. You know, because Soros and Clearance Thomas are so close - regular drinkin' buddies.
I have it on good authority that George Soros and Antonin Scalia have a time-share in Boca - shh, don't tell anyone.
She won't be.
Funny. I just thought it was cowardice and lack of integrity, but now that Soros is involved it makes more sense. You have uncovered a great truth.
I’ll dance a jig, bare-ass naked on the National Mall
Orly Titz.......... Don’t hold your breath on this one being granted.
And there ought to be so many of legal cases similar to these that the President thinks they are like flies on his stink.Maybe then the supreme Court will do the Right thing and Honor the Oath administered to all public servants including the despotic branch called the Judiciary.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could find just one judge that took his oath seriously. Of course, they would find he did not have “standing” to make a ruling. “Standing” is the ultimate dodge and weave. We (the citizens)don’t have standing because we are defrauded like everybody else. Our damages are the same as everyone’s damages. This makes perfect sense to attorneys. It makes my reason stare. Pardon me while I scream.
Back in the 70’s Woodward and Bernstein became somewhat of national heroes for exposing Watergate and Nixon’s cover-up to the public. Today we have not one single national reporter or journalist rising to that level to question authority. Not one man or woman of steel or of character to step forward on principle and truth. It’s Alinsky’s principles they abide by, the ends justify the means.
Bucking a stacked deck. If any one of us is still around 25 years from noe perhaps Jesse Ventura may find the conspiracy to keep Obama from hiding his records, but I doubt we will find out the truth even then.
No biggie, I was just lurking and saw that you needed to be pinged.
Ms. Taitz has some ‘issues’ and I’ll just leave it at that.
I bear her no ill will though, and I hope she doesn’t do something (else) um, unfortunate and end up in jail for contempt.
I think prying open Obama’s school records would be much more feasible and entertaining.
No biggie, you just forgot to ping the other party. It happens.
Boy, I should think that the court would want that lead pursued. When they originally issued that Social Security number to the fellow born in the 1890's, did they know that Obama would need to use it a few decades later? This trail goes back to FDR and may provide a whole new interpretation about why they created the Social Security system.
“I’ll dance a jig, bare-ass naked on the National Mall if the Court grants cert here.”
Let me know when that happens so I can stay home. :)
It is frightening how flippant we have become over the abandonment of the Constitution. Will that not even be an issue after two more years? Can we wait that long?
It is frightening how flippant we have become over the abandonment of the Constitution. Will that not even be an issue after two more years? Can we wait that long?
On Monday SCOTUS will throw this out as they have done every on case before it. They don’t want this hot potato and I don’t think there is any way to force them to do it.
When even the liberal/Marxist comedians are laughing at Obama and his natural born citizenship, then Obama has lost in the most important court of all: The court of public opinion.
Obama is FLUSHED! Big Time!
I think the place for these arguments is in the political arena rather than in the courtroom ..... just as the impeachment process of Clinton while hinging on legal matters ( perjury ) was fought out in the Congress. Politically Obama should explain all this ( no long form BC etc.) during his re election campaign.(If he has one).
If this all becomes a joke ,which it has , no one will ask him the serious questions that are still out there.
On the other hand Supreme Court justices and their clerks need something to laugh about, too.
The court of public opinion.
Obama maybe flushed for sure but that doesn’t get Orly her $20,000 dollars back which is the purpose of her filing. Orly needs to fill a few more teeth to replace that cash.
Yep! He is.
As for the legal court stuff, you may have noticed that I don't comment on that. I am not an attorney.
It is evident to me, in watching the polls on Obama’s natural born citizenship, that Obama is losing it.
Too many pesky Americans, the enemy, expect him to come clean ....
“When they originally issued that Social Security number to the fellow born in the 1890’s, did they know that Obama would need to use it a few decades later?”
Ummmm, probably not......
“This trail goes back to FDR and may provide a whole new interpretation about why they created the Social Security system.”
Umm, probably not - again. A wild guess here - but - I think you’ve missed the salient point here.
The question is - What’s the CIC doing with a SS# that was issued from a state in which he never lived - a # that originally belonged to someone else? Mine came from CA - because I lived there - and it was issued solely to me.
But, you may not be curious at all about how that could happen. It’s okay. The Press Corps isn’t interested either.
Now, if the problem had involved George Bush’s SS number, that would have meant something entirely different - and I’ll wager it would have triggered a huge media investigation. But then, I entirely misunderstand the proper function of the Press Corps, don’t I.
Best,
JW
Placemark.
“The sanctions order specifies exactly what she was sanctioned for: accusing the judge of “treason” (that’s called “contempt of court,” for those of you following along at home), and accusing the judge of meeting with Attorney General Holder in a coffee shop across the street from the courthouse in Georgia (on a day when Holder was appearing publicly in Los Angeles).”
Got a link to the sanctions order?
Best,
John
Disregard the prior request for a link to the sanction order. I found it. Thanks.
JW
Here’s the link to Land’s sanction order against Taitz.
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/PDF/PDF%20Archive/Order_denying_motion_for_recusal.pdf
You can read it for yourselves and see if you detect any hostility against or derision toward Taitz from the Court.
I agree with Lurking Libertarian - probably no grant of certiorari in this case. Would like to see the transcript of her alleged accusation of treason against the Court. Yes - that would indeed be contemptuous of her.
Thanks, Lurking Libertarian, for your comments.
JW
Would like to see the transcript of her alleged accusation of treason against the Court. Yes - that would indeed be contemptuous of her.
Check page 5 of the following and see what you think. I don’t know if this is what the judge is referring to or not.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19939482/Motion-of-Consideration-by-Orly-Taitz-91709
I don’t know, either, but I’ll bet the Court was not particularly pleased to read this page of the filing. From the Judge’s ruling, I thought she made the accusation while addressing the Court - but you could have it right here.
Thanks for the research. Think she’ll get her money back?
John
I don’t know, either, but I’ll bet the Court was not particularly pleased to read this page of the filing. From the Judge’s ruling, I thought she made the accusation while addressing the Court - but you could have it right here.
Thanks for the research. Think she’ll get her money back?
John
I have some questions about this SS number mystery:
As regards the SS number that was issued to Obama and which is alleged to have been previously been issued to some other fellow, how old was Obama when he was issued this SS number? Is it felt by those investigating this mystery that when Obama was issued this number, he had, because of his position or station in life, the power to control what number he was issued by the SS Administration? Is there some sensible theory as to why Obama (or anyone else) would have wanted Obama to be issued the same SS number that had been previously issued to someone in a different state? What is this SS number and to whom (name) was it previously issued?
IOW, does any of this make any sense to anyone who possesses any common sense? Finally, is it possible that an investigator found a document that by simple human error erroneously associates Obama with the SS number for somebody else?
Truther???????
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.