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.
Eight pages of crazy.
Are you trolling again? Odd the Judge did not sanction her. I guess he is too spineless.
September 17, 2009Capt. Connie Rhodes asks for Judge Clay Land to reconsider; attorney Orly Taitz involved
BY ALAN RIQUELMY - ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com
Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, who unsuccessfully petitioned a federal court to stop her deployment to Iraq by arguing President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold the office, has asked U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land to reconsider his Wednesday ruling.
The emergency request for stay of deployment and request to amend the judgement was filed Thursday on behalf of Rhodes by attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement.
In her Sept. 4 complaint, Rhodes argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant. She said she couldn’t be lawfully compelled to obey a de facto president’s orders.
In a Wednesday order Taitz called “sarcastic” and “biting,” Land denied Rhodes’ request and told Taitz she would face sanctions if she ever again filed in his court a similar frivolous action.
“Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United State District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case...” Rhodes’ Thursday filing states.
Rhodes claims in her Thursday filing that Land denied her Fifth Amendment right to due process of law by not letting her file a response to the government’s motion to dismiss. Also, Rhodes had no meaningful access to the courts because Land’s ruling didn’t address any of her arguments, the request states.
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. Instead, Rhodes used her complaint for political rhetoric and call Obama “an illegal usurper” and “unlawful pretender,” the judge writes.
Check back with ledger-enquirer.com for more on this story.
I think if the decision were to be made on the grounds that BHO is innocent until proven guilty; that would have greater strength than what was done.
I can understand questioning the Kenyan Birth Certificate, as it has no chain of authority, no certifications proving it’s authenticity - that is reasonable. However, a .pdf of a short ‘certificate of live birth’ does not prove anything either.
However, I should think that the judge would subpeona BHO’s birth certificate, as that would clear the whole case up instantly. The long form, not the short and simple Cert. of Live Birth.
Since the founding of the Republic, Congress has done a number of things that were overturned because they ran counter to The Constitution, 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. If those that think they are more "enlightened" and wish to do otherwise, they are free to attempt to amend it, but as for now, no two-bit commie judge can countermand that law.
Orly comes into his courtroom with copies of two different "Kenyan" birth certificates, an AOL poll and a backup plan that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he's still ineligible, and the judge is supposed to do the investigative work? Doesn't work that way.
This insane woman is going to wind up disbarred.
She may be or she may be a hero. Either way, the case is bigger than her or any court. It is a search for the truth and someone will carry the torch if need be.
That would seem like the appropriate solution.
Let's get this straight. Her client's civil rights were violated by not giving her a jury trial? So Orly thinks it is her client on trial?
Taitz has no idea what she is talking about. She's a nutjob.
They shouldn’t “search for the truth” in court until they actually have a case. They should search for some proof first.
What if congress voted that a short person was tall? Would that make them tall? Of course not!
Congress can vote a **thousand** times that a person is president, but if he is not natural born he can NOT be president. If he is in the White House assuming the duties of president and is not natural born, he is a FRAUD!
When our legislative process has broken down, there must be some remedy.
I agree with the “birthers” that there is something fishy going on with BHO’s birth and birth certificate, and school transcripts, etc.
However, I agree with everyone else that Orly Taitz is possibly nuts and at very least is not the right person to be taking this on.
Damn balsy!!
Earth to Orly: you sued for an injunction. Cases seeking injunctions are, by definition, equitable, not legal, and therefore are tried to a judge, not to a jury. I learned that in the first year of law school. Didn't you?
I have expressed before (and took heat for the opinion) that while I admire Orly Taitz’s tenacity, I think her courtroom antics and unprofessionalism could be a serious detriment to the birther cause.
I think her courtroom antics and unprofessionalism could be a serious detriment to the birther cause.
Quit thinking......
Just believe
Ditto that.
In school they used to teach that the three branches of government provided a system of "checks and balances". In theory, this is good, but it never accounted for crooked judges and even more crooked members of Congress.
In theory, this is good, but it never accounted for crooked judges and even more crooked members of Congress.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Founding Father took note. There is another check and balance. It is called the Second Amendment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don’t see anyone manning up to do this tough job.
First year law student? FDLMAO...Puhleeeze
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.
First year law student? FDLMAO...Puhleeeze
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.
Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??
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.
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.
It went something like this:
Justice Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. "Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?" "My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o'clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and to ask you a question."
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.
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?
Some months ago Orly supposedly had the attention of Chief Justice Roberts about the b/c matter. Anyone know what became of that??
Sorry for dup. post.....interrupted by phone.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
You call this success??
The case was made when the secretaries of state, the parties, and the congress admitted they didn’t check the guys birth certificate. No one is asking the court to make the case. They are asking the court to uphold the constitution and oath taken by every judge. Judges grant discovery all the time. The have to compel the guy to present the records because he refuses to do so. The court should demand the “best evidence” be presented so that the issues can be decided on that basis.
How does this make Orly's case? You aren't making sense.
"No one is asking the court to make the case. They are asking the court to uphold the constitution and oath taken by every judge."
Oh please. You don't make your case by demanding the judge uphold the consitution. You make it by presenting a factual case for the court to act on.
"Judges grant discovery all the time."
When there is a case. Orly isn't getting that far because she can't present one. You guys want discovery first and a case second. It doesn't work that way.
I do not have an opinion about her sanity, but the passage you quote doesn't mean she thinks her client is on trial. A plaintiff, and for that matter a defendant in any civil case has a presumptive right to a jury trial. It doesn't mean the plaintiff is "on trial". Just that they have a right to a trial of the issues.
As to the motion, it seems her complaint is that she was not accorded the amount of time to respond provided in the rules.
As to the right to a jury trial, you are correct that injunctive relief is not submitted to a jury, but is that the only relief sought in the case? If she is asking for other things, there could be a basis for the right to a jury trial.
As to state vs. federal. There you are mistaken, although the reference to “the states rules” is misleading. The federal courts have a dual set of rules: one that is common to all the federal courts in the nation and what are known as “local rules”, which are promulgated on a state-by-state and circuit by circuit basis. So she may be referring to a local rule when she refers to a rule applicable to federal court in that particular location.
“Since the founding of the Republic, Congress has done a number of things that were overturned because they ran counter to The Constitution, 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.”
Well said. No election nor negligence by congress can undo any part of the Constitution. The SCOTUS really needs to be hearing a case on this to definitively define what “natural born” in the Constitution means. Or, Congress can define it and be subject to suit which the SCOTUS will have to decide. Ultimately, the SCOTUS is going to have to decide this issue.
“The Founding Father took note. There is another check and balance. It is called the Second Amendment.”
Be careful to not give Speaker Pelosi more ammunition in claiming how “violent” the tone of the country has become.
“ordered Rhodes to pay the defendant’s court costs”
What costs? The attornies that represented POTUS Obama work for the taxpayers. These were NOT private attornies. Does a federal court charge federal attornies “court costs”?????
"Costs" doesn't mean attorneys' fees. It is automatic in federal court that the loser pays the winner's "costs," but that refers only to things like filing fees, court reporters' fees and the like. In this case, which didn't go to trial or even into discovery, the defendants' costs are probably very minimal.
You guys????
It is you guys don't want the truth to come out, but it will; one way or the other. The burden is on the office holder to prove he is qualified and some judge or appellate court will catch it. If they don't, an insider or investigator will eventually get to it. There is more than one way to get to the truth even though those in official positions and their cheerleaders don't want it to happen.
We are talking about Orly's court case. You are trying to change the subject. Somewhat understandable given what Orly has.
"It is you guys don't want the truth to come out, but it will."
I have no problem with the truth, whatever it may be. Hell, it's a no lose propostion for me. If by some miracle I turn out to be wrong in my interpretation of the facts, then Obama is done. I'd take that trade. But I'm not wrong.
"The burden is on the office holder to prove he is qualified and some judge or appellate court will catch it."
Wrong. There is no such burden at this point in time. The only time that burden existed was prior to being sworn in, and he met it then. You can argue that the burden wasn't strong enough and someone should have been more thorough, but that's a different argument.
We're past that now. He's the president. He has no burden to prove anything to be president. The burden belongs to anyone seeking to change that status quo by going into court and proving a case. But the birthers haven't even begun to come close to meeting that burden. Until they do they are wasting their time in court.
Of course, not all of them are wasting time. Some of them are getting exactly what they want. Money, fame, attention, and making conservatives look like idiots.
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.