Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.
Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.
California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.
“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”
Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
NS isn’t a long time troll. Just a recent Obama chinslurp.
Get close enough tand you’ll smell O on his breath.
“...courtroom drama queen...”
I have to agree, reluctantly. When addressing the court, Taitz sounds like she is trying to score rhetorical points with the general public, going over the judge’s head. Land seems to have that impression too. This does not bode well. Also, Taitz is accusing Obama of having been born in Kenya. But she can’t prove that. The point OUGHT to be that Obama has NOT shown proof of being born in Hawaii. That puts the burden on him, not on those who accuse him of Kenyan birth on the basis of questionable evidence.
Yes. Here are my thought about NS over the years:
2004 He's trollish.
2005 Yup, a troll.
2006 Still a troll.
2007 The troll hasn't changed.
2008 Could be paid troll.
2009 Naw, can't be paid he's no good.
I wonder if he gets a bonus for every anti-Obama thread he actually manages to disrupt. Or maybe it’s a flat-fee/commission deal. Must be nice to have a job (these days). Especially one that you thoroughly enjoy.
I doubt that. You defend socialism and Obama.
Since 'when' has being good at your job been a criteria of the idiotic left? Tenacious, persistent, dogged, vitriolic, vile and vehemous yes. But good? Nah!
Yes, even if he was a lawyer... there not very good in their arguments either.
Good point. ;-)
Uh, you want to rephrase that Newb?
The President is Commander in Chief of the Army. That much is explicitly in the Constitution. The theory is that all authority then flows down from him to the individual service members. Thus if he is illegitimate, lower level orders implementing his high level ones (stay in Afghanistan.. for now, for example) are also illegitimate and could subject military members to legal ramifications at a later date. ("Just following orders" hasn't been a defense in a good while)
Maj. Ausprug is the Army's attorney. The plaintiff in this case is Captain Rhodes. She is the one putting herself at risk. But only if she actually violates the diploment order. Technically she is asking for clarification of the legitimacy of the order, before violating or obeying it. Without knowing if the order is legitimate, she maintains she is taking a risk either way.
The American people eat this up, don’t they? They can never admit they erred badly.
Try again.
You're a judge, court reporter, or some other unnecessary snout at the legal trough who just really, *really* digs the process, outcomes be damned.
Am I getting warm?
Only if she disobeys an order to go. She hasn't yet done so. She even stayed in Kansas rather than attend the original Friday hearing in Georgia, because she was ordered, verbally at least, to stay there. Doesn't sound like someone who really wants to violate orders.
You better hurry and get your phone call to Judge Land! LOL
This STUPID judge is one of those held accountable by his oath of office in article six to "support this Constitution". This means that HE is held accountable to ENFORCE all of the Constitution including section three of the twentieth amendment which reads as follows:
”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
The burden of PROVING his eligibility to CONGRESS and anyone who insist that the Constitution be obeyed is the "President elect". It is the "President elect" who either succeeds in doing so are "shall have failed" to do so. Congress is ordered to name a replacement if this occurs so they MUST be made aware of whether or not he fails at qualifying. This judge is WRONG and should be held accountable for not obeying HIS oath of office requiring him to ENFORCE the Constitution.
As much as I admire Orly Taitz’s tenacity, I find myself wondering if her flamboyant courtroom drama queen tactics aren’t counter productive.
I disagree Red Steel, I think N-S, is genuinely amused at how Orly is being very amateurish, and to a certain extent she is, but, she is tenacious, she is determined, and she loves this country. So execution of what she does, may not be perfect, but her goal is, and she will not quit.
I admire her, and I bet N-S does as well....JMO
See post #115 which refers to the twentieth amendment, section three. It explicitly requires that the "President elect" must "qualify" or not be allowed to serve as President. Your Congressperson is not doing his job.
To expand on your thought.
From the article. "“Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.
The judge pointed out that burden fell on Rhodes because she sought the restraining order to stop her deployment. "
Orly should have retorted him with 'Has there ever been a case where the defended was in control of the known evidence that can prove or disprove the case? Has there ever been a case where the defendant under the color of the law hid the evidence from the court of his corruption? [cite pertinent cases if they exist]
Obama has lied to a court before. I am introducing exhibit 'A' the document that Obama lied to the Supreme Court of Illinois about not having different aliases. Obama has gone by Barry Soetero. Judge I submit this evidence since it goes to the defendant Obama's credibility.
Orly has to at least blunt this line of questioning from the judge and defending Lawyers. She has to make the judge go hmmmmmmmm? She has to persuade the judge to go to the next step - discovery.
So now you are The Amazing Kreskin?
Just because some other courts have ruled wrongly about standing in the issue, it doesn’t mean that is what will happen in this case.
Or the others still open.
99% of Freepers who pray for this situation to be righted, never say THEY KNOW what the outcome will be.
Why is it you think you know everything about this matter. And more importantly, why do you feel the need to tell us over and over and over again.
You have no idea what will happen in the future with these cases. None.
You just love to blindly throw monkey wrenches into the hopes and prayers of anyone interested in this subject.
What does that say about you?
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.