Taitz Files Emergency Stay and Motion for Rehearing

(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.

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.

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.

After reading the rest of the comments on this thread, it’s obvious how 0bama has managed to campaign, get elected, and continue his tenure in the White House as long as he has.

Even to many members of Free Republic, the fact that no one has vetted 0bama, seen any of his documents showing who he is, what kind of citizen and from where, mean nothing. The important thing is some legal details that somehow make the above inconsequential. It’s like people arguing over the design of a fire escape sitting in the burning room, saying it’s not the perfect fire escape, while other people run down it, to escape the conflagration.

Maybe not a good analogy.

Maybe like people arguing, when slavery was still legal, about the niceties of existing law, precedent, and so on, while human beings were being enslaved. Caring nothing about the reality that was happening at that very moment.

If these freepers who are so critical - nastily and snidely critical - of all legal cases trying to basically prove whether 0bama is actually eligible or not - were sincere, they’d be offering ways and means, out of their deep knowledge of legalisms and lore, how to help the case in discussion, how to win, they’d start a case themselves, or offer to help those struggling.

But no, they laugh and deride all efforts, sounding veritably pleased by every setback.

“If these freepers who are so critical - nastily and snidely critical “

That’s probably me and maybe I am too nastily sarcastic. I apologize. Its just that Orly is a friggin joke. The case is nuts. I could maybe say it nicer and for that I will probably suffer some Karmic justice, but the truth is what the truth is. There just ain’t no durn evidence. If there was, Hillary would have already trotted it out.

If you read the judge’s opinion, he is right. Courts don’t go messing around in the military’s bailiwick. Good thing. This is a frivolous suit. It has no merit. Orly’s claims read like some kid wrote it. No legal facts. No legal basis. Would you want someone suing you who had no legal facts to back them up, and no evidence?

Whatever your opinion of Obama, the system is working here the way it is supposed to.

parsy, who will try to keep his acid tongue under better control but right now he is on a crusade against Wall Street and is all wound up

As I understand it, the good judge order Dr. Orly to pay the legal fees of Obama's lawyers.

If Obama's lawyers dare to submit a bill for legal fees to Dr. Orly, we may finally find out how much it is costing Obama, or the Democratic party, or the taxpayers to defend Obama in court.

1. That is, if we multiply Obama lawyers' fees in this case by the number of legal cases throughout the country, we should be able to get a rough estimate as to how much it is costing Obama to defend himself in court.

2.As we know, some people say it is costing Obama or the Democratic Party or us taxpayers at least 1 million dollars so far to defend Obama.

3.However, some other people say it is costing Obama nothing. Let's see who is right.

4. What is sad and disgusting is this: We all know if Obama called Hawaii officials today to allow Hawaii officials to release Obama's long form birth certificate to the public, it would probably cost Obama nothing.

Birth certificate on Internet: I found the judge's statement that Obama's birth certificate is found on the internet an amazing statement coming from a federal judge in a court of law.

As we know, the Obama birth certificate on the internet was displayed on an Obama controlled site and was not displayed directly on the website of a Hawaii agency.

Note: Obama proudly shows his short form birth certificate on his Obama controlled site, but if anyone asks Obama to give Hawaii permission to publicly release the same short form birth certificate so that the public can examine the same short form birth certificate in one's hands, Obama won't do it.

And if one argues to the Hawaii government that it should release Obama's short form birth certificate to the public because Obama has already released it on his website, the Hawaii government won't do it.

1. So, I found it amazing that the judge would refer to and vouch for a document that one can only see on a site controlled by the Obama camp. Also, it is a document that we can only see and examine on our computer monitor as opposed to seeing and touching the original document while holding it in one's hands.

2. That is, I would think that a federal judge would want to see a birth certificate sent to him directly by the Hawaii government that he can examine in his own hands as opposed to a birth certificate that he can only examine at an Obama controlled website.

3. To my surprise, the following doesn't seem to occur to the judge: If the only place one can see Obama's short form birth certificate is at Obama's own site, then there might be a strong possibility that some person in the Obama camp touched up Obama's short form birth certificate before it was displayed on Obama's site.

4. In other words, the good judge seems to be naive in that he absolutely accepts the idea that the Obama camp is one truly pure and honest camp, where no one would even think about cheating by making illegal changes to Obama's short form birth certificate, when, it is reported---on the same internet---that some Hawaii officials deny that Hawaii sent anyone an Obama short form birth certificate with the stamp date of June 2007 on the back in June 2007.

5. And doesn't the good judge wonder why a Senator Obama would order a birth certificate from Hawaii in June 2007? Did the judge wonder if Senator Obama lost his original birth certificate and that is why Obama ordered a new one?

6. Maybe it is me, but I find it bizarre that a federal judge would stoop so low as to download Obama's short form birth certificate from Obama's own site and be legally satisfied with what he downloaded.

Note: I wonder if the good judge would accept Obama's birth certificate as quickly if it was published in the National Enquirer instead of being displayed on the internet?

That is, would the good judge say something like this: "Well, Obama's short form birth certificate was published in the National Enquirer for everybody to see and examine. That is good enough for me."

7. For instance, wouldn't it be legally better and more objective if the good federal judge ordered his own copy from Hawaii of Obama's short and long form birth certificates so that he could be sure that no one outside of the Hawaii government, especially no one in the Obama camp, touched the short and and long form birth certificates before the judge could examine them personally while he held them in his own hands?

8. One good thing I see coming out of all these Obama eligibility court cases that are being dismissed one after another: The community organizer and state senator won't get a free pass during the upcoming 2012 presidential primaries, because Obama will be challenged in every state before he is allowed to put his name on the primary ballots.

9. That is, when Obama signs a state form where he declares that he is a natural born citizen, he better show up with his long form birth certificate, because anti-Obama voters---voters inspired by the failed eligibility court cases--will demand that Obama provide proof that he is a natural born citizen as he stated on his application form.

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.