Orly Taitz: Plaintiffs file a surreply in response to Defendants’ Reply filed on Friday

www.oilforimmigration.org ^ | 9/26/2009 | David-Crockett

[Elderberry]

Dr. Orly Taitz: Important - Plaintiffs hereby move and request leave of court to file a surreply in response to Defendants’ Reply filed and served on Friday, September 25, 2009.

[browardchad]

Yes well, the problem is that Judge Carter already advised Orly, on September 23, that a Second Amended Complaint "even if filed today" (Sept. 23), "will not be ready for hearing by October 5 and will therefore not affect that hearing." Link.

So this filing, even if allowed by Judge Carter,  will have no bearing on the Oct. 5 hearing, and can only be considered judicial theatrics, Orly-style.

[deport]

Well, any three of them would at least put to rest his eligibility issues.

---

LOL................ Well onto the next issue.

[ml/nj]

She is nuts

Hey! Welcome to FR. It's almost been a year for you now. She is decidedly not nuts. I've had the pleasure of watching and listening to her as most FReepers have and I've also had the honor of a phone call from her, and not a short call either. She is extremely sharp and focused.

ML/NJ

[AmericanVictory]

In her motion to file a surreply, she states:

It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military.

Can you find for us where Judge Land held, as Dr. Taitz seems to be claiming,that there was standing? Did he really hold that there was standing? I can't find any such order or finding in a search on SCRIBD. In abstaining he cleaarly stated in his order that were he to receive a Rule 12 (b)(6) dismissal motion he would dismiss the case.

[Diamond]

She doesn't seem to demonstrate competent legal skills as an attorney, and I'm one to believe Hussein is more of a Communist mole than he is a natural born citizen.

Cordially,

[jarofants]

A_HOLE ALERT!!!

[jarofants]

A_HOLE ALERT!!!

[deport]

Here’s the order from Judge Land.
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wtvm/ConnieRhodesvsArmy.pdf

There was a 2nd one which he threaten a $10,000 sanction but I don’t have it marked.

[AmericanVictory]

Thank you very much for the link. I have the one from the 18th. Am I missing something? While admittedly abstention based on not interfering with the military is not a decisioni on the merits, I can’t find anything supporting the assertion that Judge Land admitted standing. It seems he indicated the opposite while denying actually deciding the point. Am I misunderstanding the motion for a surreply that she has just filed and her statement in it?

[CodeToad]

“I’ve also had the honor of a phone call from her, and not a short call either. She is extremely sharp and focused.”

wow. That’s very cool to hear.

[CodeToad]

“Here’s the order from Judge Land”

Judge Land is clearly politically motivated and his order was full of blantant errors. More on that issue, no doubt, as this all unfolds.

[Non-Sequitur]

I found the filing that was made on Friday...

There were two filings on Friday. The one you posted was in reply to the filing by Gary Kreep on behalf of the two plaintiffs he's representing. The reply to Taitz's filing is Here

[Non-Sequitur]

Judge Land is clearly politically motivated and his order was full of blantant errors.

Like?

[wideminded]

Barry’s College Transcripts will show ... 3) that he was a very vocal and active member of the Students for a Democratic Society at Occidental College and beyond.

I don't think the SDS was around any more by the time Obama went to college.

[Jude in WV]

Basically, what they are saying is that there is not a court in the land that can take him from office even if he committed fraud to get there.

[rocco55]

ml/nj, I agree, Orly is great ! Say, whatever became of the letter Rhodes purportedly sent to Judge Land ? At first, it was assumed to be real, then Larry Sinclair debunked it, then Larry Sinclair “undebunked” it and claimed that Rhodes sent it via a friend, which explained the fake signature ?

To the best of my knowledge, Orly has not addressed this on her site. Also, didn’t Sinclair state that he was sending Judge Carter a sworn affidavit accusing Orly of unethical conduct ? and I also read that an attorney (or judge ?) from the mid-west was sending a complaint to the CA bar to investigate Orly’s recent appeal to Judge Land ?

Do you know anything about the veracity of any of these issues ? I hope they are false (!) Thx rocco55.

[ml/nj]

Do you know anything about the veracity of any of these issues ?

No.

ML/NJ

[prplhze2000]

Then you need to chip in and get her a media coach because she looks like a total kook on tv.

and calling a judge a traitor isn’t too sharp either. I can think of a few counties where that would get you a contempt of court and some sanctions by the bar. Got one prominent lawyer here a six month disbarment a couple of years ago.

[Red Steel]

From your link. The Government's argument:

" if this Court were to hold that it had the power to try the

question of whether a sitting President of the United

States is fit or qualified to remain in Office, or whether

he should be removed from Office, the political life of

this country would be exposed to chaos. If a court did have

such power, anyone with a political agenda and a filing

fee, could file an action or, indeed, multiple actions in

any one of the 93 Judicial Districts in the United States,

alleging, for various legal or factual reasons, that the

President was not fit to continue to serve. Such cases

could subject the President to a barrage of discovery"

Uuuummmm, there are preliminary hearings to see if evidence before cases gets to court. The mechanism is more than adequate to address possible suits that could be lacking. So it is utter nonsense that the courts will be inundated with cases to remove future Presidents if this case proceeds. Obama may have failed to Constitutionally qualify for which he has not yet proven that he is qualified. The court may not have the power to remove a legitimate president, but it has the power to remove a de facto president who failed to qualify under the U.S. Constitution. If Obama is not qualified to hold office, it is the U.S. political process that is already in "political chaos" and the outcome or consequences should not be considered. The Goober-mint's argument here doesn't hold water.

[Red Steel]

We haven’t heard from Rhodes about the alleged faxed letter she sent to Land’s court. It’s fishy when “an acquaintance” sends a letter by fax when the court house is only few minutes away that could be dropped off. The longer it goes that we don’t hear from Rhodes about the veracity of the subject matter in her letter written by an acquaintance the more I suspect it’s BS.