Posted on 09/17/2009 2:08:06 PM PDT by pissant
(Sept. 17, 2009) — Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D, filed today an Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment, pending the filing of a Motion for Re-Hearing, in the Case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.
Yesterday, Judge Clay D. Land garnered nationally notoriety for his rejection of Captain’s Rhodes’ case, with a severe ruling that was widely faulted by legal experts across the nation.
Attorney Taitz in today’s filings details the errors of Land’s ruling. What follows is The Post & Email’s summary of Tatiz’s Motions, using a copy forwarded us, by Mr. Neil B. Turner.
First, Attorney Taitz alleges that Judge Land’s ruling “violates the 5th Amendment rights” of her client, “to due process of law, in particular, by” the Court’s “violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia, to wit:
7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent’s counsel desiring to submit a response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the same within twenty (20) days after service of movant’s motion and brief.
In other words, Judge Land could not have given a final ruling, on the basis of the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss, without allowing Rhodes’ counsel to reply to that Motion, and that, after alloting 20 days for Dr. Tatiz to prepare and file it (October 1, 2009), which rule must be followed, if no notice from the Court is given, regarding the variation of observance of local rules. Thus Land’s ruling was precipitous and surreptitious.
Dr. Taitz then charges Land with unethical behavior:
Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary. th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.
Attorney Taitz therefore requests the Court to vacate (annul) its Sept. 16th Dismissal against Rhodes, and grant a stay of deployment to Rhodes, pending further hearing of the case.
Taitz then alleges that Rhodes and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the court, since Judge Land’s ruling never addresses the key issues raised in her complaint or TRO. Taitz cites the textual evidence, that Land’s ruling never cites anything in Rhodes’s complaint by page number, putting in doubt that his ruling had anything to do with the substance of her case. Attorney Taitz enumerates these key points:
(1) a U.S. ARMY OFFICER’S OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, (2) the historical importance of an independent army corps to the constitutional balance of powers and Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the Constitution, and
(3) the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights in the people to question the legitimacy and eligibility of their elected officials when questions arise from time-to-time which were not contemplated by the Founding Fathers.
For this reason, Dr. Taitz requests a 10 day Stay of Redeployment to allow her time to file a Motion for Reconsideration, since Land’s ruling, Taitz alleges, is
manifestly unjust and incorrect within the meaning of jurisprudence construing Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and will surely result in a VOID JUDGMENT for denial of due process within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4) by reason of the Court’s unexpected wild deviation from the 20 day response period provided by the Local Rules of this very Middle District of Georgia.
Taitz then attacks the substance of Judge Land’s argument, saying:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
Attorney Taitz then demolishes Judge Land’s treatment of the evidence presented in the case:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for failure to present facts, and yet has ignored or disregarded the facts concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s birthplace sub iudice aliena which were submitted to the Court in the form of the 1961 Hospital Birth Certificate submitted in the Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (Document 10, entered September 11, 2009) in addition the consistent but later dated Certificate which was submitted as an Exhibit to the Complaint and original Application for Temporary Restraining Order. These documents are FACTS and they went unimpeached, unquestioned, and yet utterly unaddressed in this Court’s order of summary dismissal. The fact that the President has admitted his Father was not a citizen, but a British Subject, at the time of birth, is an incontrovertible fact, which supports Plaintiff’s charges that the President is an alien.
Dr. Orly Taitz then points out that the evidence objected to by Land, concerning Social Security Numbers was gathered by a famous detective of Scotland Yard, and cannot be summarily dismissed without violating the very same standards Land appeals to in his ruling; and thus represents a third basis, for an appeal for reconsideration.
In summary, Taitz asks for “to vacate its own judgment of dismissal immediately and simultaneously grant this Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment. “
Noteworthy is the fact, that Rhodes’ counsel has filed this Emergency Stay request on the anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Uh...that’s not what it makes ME think of...(meow).
Lay it on Orly. You have more than half of America behind you!!!!!!!
All this is doing is increasing the size and power of the conservative grass roots movement.A very GOOD thing IMHO.
I have to laugh at the elitists here in FR who are denigrating Orly on the basis of "political correctness." She is doing great in the face of overwhelming odds. Why should she pull her punches. She is right!
Not you, thats for sure. LOL. Trolling again are you?
Nor you, or apparently anyone else. Unless, God help you, you consider Orly Tatitz a legal expert.
Trolling again are you?
No, just once again asking the kind of questions that birthers can't answer.
But look at it. Not a single typo or mistaken reference to gender in it. That's not the Orly we all know and love.
I was struck by that, also. It's definitely above her usual standards, although the argument is typically outrageous, especially when she repeats Judge Land's line about her "implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook."
Who knew court cases could be this humorous?
Well, maybe she'll only get a month or two in jail.
I don't believe either one will go to trial, certainly not the Rhodes case. But we'll know for ssure in about 3 weeks, give or take.
Don't play dumb... you do know. Magistrate Judge Nakazato exception.
That would be the same Judge Nakazato that Orly unsuccessfully tried to get recused? Regardless, the order specifies only that discovery necessary to respond to the motion to dismiss. Leaving aside the fact that Orly has only 3 more days to get her reply in, which kind of precludes any sort of subpoenas, Obama's citizensip is irrelevant to disputing the standing or jurisdictional reasons for dismissing.
Obama hasn't won anything here.
Not yet.
Bingo. But the fact is that Judge Land and those who applaud the actions of this illegal pretender are not interested in facts. They revel in the fantasies of Obama's making. While they think that they will be rewarded for their accommodations, they will instead one day pay a hefty price for it.
LOL!
parsy, who will have to take a second look.
In many states, a lawyer can be disciplined by the bar for bringing the judiciary into disrepute, by making public and unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing against a judge. Lawyers have been penalized (though rarely disbarred) for saying less than Orly said. I did a quick check, and I don't see a similar provision in California's Rules of Professional Conduct, so Orly may be in the clear. (Judge Land can still sanction her or charge her with contempt of court, but I suspect he just wants her out of his court as quickly as possible.)
I’m beginning to think that Taitz is the second coming of Larry Klayman.
That's actually a better analogy than you think. If someone would have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Alabama in 1855 seeking to have slavery declared unconstitutional, I would have been laughing at them, too. It would have gone nowhere and would have only strengthened the forces of slaveholding by making abolitionists look like cranks.
The way to fight Obama is through the political, not the legal, process. If you believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S., elect some birthers to Congress in 2010 and have them conduct a Congressional investigation. A congressional subpoena will get all of his birth records. Even short of that, a widespread political demand for the birth records will probably force Obama to either release them or face a total loss of credibility.
Having Orly Taitz claim that, because she lost a motion based on well-settled precedent, the (Republican) judge is secretly and illegally taking orders from Obama, won't lead to widespread political support for the eleigibility issue-- it will only make it look like the Birthers are cranks.
There are a lot of well-respected and influential conservative lawyers in this country-- Robert Bork, Ken Starr, etc.-- and none of them will touch this issue. It's not because of political correctness or fondness for Obama. It's because they don't want to make arguments that they know will be laughed out of court.
Maybe, but at least Klayman could type out some sort of cognizable claim. Orly’s stuff is horrendous. “The world is laughing at us” cause of action???? Oooookayyy....
parsy, who says Orly is a dip
That's the same Judge Nakazato that Orly moved to disqualify (and lost). She's making friends all over the federal judiciary.
The judge ordered Orly to pay "costs," not attorneys' fees-- very different things. And the defendants in this case (and the Califiornia case) are being represented by the Department of Justice, not by private counsel, so we know it is costing Obama nothing.
In 1855 we know what happened when both the political and judicial process consistently failed.
Personally, I have 4 children and 10 grandchildren. A great grand child is due in December. I am **praying** with all my heart that the judicial system with rectify this abominable injustice because clearly the political system has failed.
While Obama’s eligibility does not rise to the level of slavery it is part of a larger communist movement. That communist movement will mean slavery, but this time it will be all of us.
Please read post #138.
Oops! She has to refile. (Not signed, yet again, and "incorrect event used.")
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.