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.
So the judge is going to outwardly biased in his decisions now? I’m sure the guy has thicker skin than you give him credit for.
Larry Klayman is the reincarnation of John Marshall by comparison.
And it about takes about two seconds to correct.
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. (Without courage, all the other virtues are merely theoretical, and indeed, useless.)
Courage!= stupidity.
Courage equals stupidity.
Okay, now I understand you.
No, I said courage does not equal stupidity. (!= is algebraic for "does not equal).
And the more of that, the better! She's a very brave woman!
Okay, good. I don’t know algebra.
Well we better get over it, and soon.
Letter from Captain Rhodes denying she gave Taitz approval to file another TRO
Saw it. Sounds like she sandbagged Taitz a bit. Complaining that her original filing was full of conjecture? Please. Nevertheless, if Taitz filed w/o talking to her about it, that would seem pretty stoopid.
If you look up "pretty stoopid" in the dictionary, I think you find a picture of Orly Taitz.
Might be stupid, but I believe it to be within her purview to do so.
To file a motion without her client's permission, in which she accuses a federal judge of treason? Sorry, not within her purview.
She accused him of treason in her filing? LOL. You are believing the good judges nonsense.
Did she accuse the judge of advocating her to breach her clients oath?
Yes - if you read the brief in context. And, I’m sure you know of her published comments in which she directly states that Judge Land should be tried for treason. Both publicly and in these papers, she has accused Judge Land of committing treason.
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.