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 Obamas 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 Obamas birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a usurper.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
It reminds one the Sotomayor’s punt of the New Haven Firefighter case.
And it appears Smith and Orly have parted ways.
I haven't read the updates this morning (can't access YouTube from work).
I really don’t have much of an issue about the way this judge resolved this case. The problems that would have arisen if he had granted the temporary restraining order hard difficult to overstate.
Major smackdown, that.
Punting “Problems” is not solving them.
Hear the evidence in court!
Frivolous, as you know, does have a legal definition as a suit without legal merit and brings in the possibility of sanctions against the plaintiff. It's more than the judges discriptive term. So I don't see him using that word losely.
Also, as the judge noted in his decision, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of civil courts to interfere with military order and discipline. The judge was required to consider the case on its merits and empowered to make a decision based on his conclusions. His disdain for Birthers aside, he does identify some valid points; Rhodes can offer no credible evidence or reasonably valid arguements to support her position and cannot demonstrate any sort of standing to sue. So in the end what sort of choice did he have?
Her comments, and attempts at litigation, are the legal equivalent of Star Trek techno-babble. She is promising to crawl through the Jeffries Tube, and neutralize Obama with a stream of reverse tachyon particles.
That is why so many Freepers are keep posting that she is either a moron, or a double agent. They know that she could not win the case, even if she really did have. Every second and dollar spent supporting her is a second or dollar spent in the service of Obama.
This is JUST the beginning,this whole issue now has legs with the American public, and as I have said all along, we will eventually see Obama's COLB.
And when we do, Obama will likely resign.
Atta GO Orly, lets keep right on with it!
None. To be fair, the highly visible face of "the birthers" is their self-proclaimed leader, Orly Taitz. The judge's disdain is therefore directed at her, and through her antics and missteps, she's earned it.
Why would Taitz even think she could prevail in Judge Land's court this time, when she was shot down by Land on a similar case two months ago?
I believe Taitz has no interest in winning -- remaining in the spotlight is what this is about.
This is a *BUMP* in the road. I’m not *SURPRISED* a Clinton hack would rule as Land did. In the end *JUSTICE* will *PREVAIL*.
While Taitz’ intentions may be good, she is inept. The CA case is much more likely to go forward. The DOJ motion to dismiss is very weak and specifically did not address Carter's statement that the case will be decided on the merits.
Based on that, I think he is going to order production of the long form BC. I also think he is going to pretty much ignore Taitz and focus on the pleadings of Kreep. He seems to know how to approach this case.
Clinton hack? He was appointed by George H.W. Bush, on the recommendation of Shelby Chambliss.
I think the motion to dismiss is very strong myself.
...and specifically did not address Carter's statement that the case will be decided on the merits.
Of course they did. The whole point behind the motion to dismiss is to refute the idea that the case has any merit to begin with. If the plaintiffs have no standing and if the court doesn't have jurisdiction then there is no merit to the case, now is there?
Based on that, I think he is going to order production of the long form BC. I also think he is going to pretty much ignore Taitz and focus on the pleadings of Kreep. He seems to know how to approach this case.
I disagree. I think you're going to be very disappointed come early October.
George W. Bush appointed him.
In the end *JUSTICE* will *PREVAIL*
It already did.
How would you attempt to get a court to address the merits?
If there is no specific remedy available, FRCP 1 would come into play.
The court will not, and should not address anything if the plaintiffs have no standing to sue in the first place or if the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
It is my *UNDERSTANDING* that he is a *CLINTON* appointee.
You understand incorrectly.
Wikipedia can be edited by *ANYONE*. Don’t trust *EVERYTHING* you read.
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.