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.

[Elderberry]

Yes. They’re running scared.

I hope Judge Carter sees through their nonsense.

[MilspecRob]

The why did Orly submit this?

09/26/2009 19 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Connie Rhodes filed by Orly Taitz.(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 09/26/2009)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20250808/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-19-MOTION-to-Withdraw-as-Attorney-by-Connie-Rhodes-filed-by-Orly-TaitzTaitz-Orly-Entered-09262009-Govuscourtsgamd

[Elderberry]

It looks like that fax to Judge Land from Capt. Rhodes was the real deal.

[Red Steel]

From your link. "The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself...."

-end snip-

Only "apparently"? Taitz doesn't know for sure? When a fax comes from an anonymous 'acquaintance' purported to be representing her is suspicious in itself. The over the top way it was presented to the public smells. The acquaintance who wrote the letter may have put too many words in Rhode's mouth for all we know. No, I'll wait until I hear from Rhodes to all the subject matter in the letter written by the acquaintance and is backed up by the genuine letter from Rhodes to the court and not the facsimile.

[Red Steel]

See post #64. It further expands on my thoughts from my previous post to you.

[MilspecRob]

Do you honestly think the Orly would file a motion to withdraw if she did not believe that Rhodes wanted nothing else to do with her?

[Red Steel]

I’m not going to assume anything. Clay seemed way to eager to accept a fax not really sent by Rhodes as hers. We are still waiting for that court to get a genuine letter from Rhodes, which a court representative admitted to Sinclair would be a problem if there is no follow up letter from Rhodes to the court. Taitz pulling out is besides the point.

[El Gato]

I found the filing that was made on Friday:

SOS, "No Standing", "Political Question", "Court has no Jurisdiction".

If you have the facts, pound the facts, if you don't have the facts, pound the law. They don't have any facts, so they are pounding the law, or trying to. There even is a bit rhetorical pounding of the table in there, which is the next step when you don't have the law.

[American Constitutionalist]

Yeah, you call her a nut job just like those people who called Noah a nut job for building a ark in the middle of a area where there was no water, and those people laughed at Noah, that is ? until the water starting coming....

[El Gato]

Another document filed on Friday:

This one has more table pounding. And they maintain, and cite cases in support, that the 9th amendment is "not a source of rights". Of course neither are the other eight, they merely protect existing rights, or in some cases make those existing rights more explicit.

I guess the anti-federalists were right, list some rights, and the government will maintain that's all there all. Which is, of course, the very reason they put the 9th amendment in the "Bill of Rights'. The DoJ might want to look at them sometime. Since day one, the first 10 amendments have been called the "Bill of Rights".

They also confound "fitness", which is a political question to be answered by the election process, with "eligibility" which is a question of absolute Constitutional requirements, not subject to the political process.

[American Constitutionalist]

" She is fighting to have the constitution upheld "

With the anti-birther's logic, someone, or a group trying to uphold the US Constitution is the same as calling our troops " Nutty " since they are also upholding, and protecting the US Constitution...... I would go far as to say, that those Anti-Birthers are also calling our troops nutty....

[American Constitutionalist]

" Barry’s REAL father is Louis Farrakhan or Frank Marshall Davis. "

After what Momar Qaddfi saying at the UN this week, " OUR SON " .... " MY SON " .... " OUR AFRICAN KEYAN SON " .... one wonders ??? right ?

[El Gato]

It looks like that fax to Judge Land from Capt. Rhodes was the real deal.

Maybe. You'll notice that when speaking of that, the word "allegedly" is used. The main reason for the filing seems to be that Ms. Taitz is going to have to defend herself, and that would be a conflict of interest if she was also representing Captain Rhodes at the same time.

[El Gato]

, the word "allegedly" is used

I misremembered, actualy she used the words "apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes". She also says that Captain Rhodes can object to the filing if she wishes.

[OldDeckHand]

"She is extremely sharp and focused."

Perhaps that's true when she's operating in her capacity as a dentist. But, as an "attorney", she's a hot mess - a complete scatter shot dolt. Her performance has been almost entirely incompetent to the point of exposing herself to possible malpractice claims. At a minimum, it is alleged that at least one former client intends to file a complaint with Taitz's home bar.

I have seen no evidence in her legal work product that leads me to believe she should actually be a practicing member of any bar, let a lone a member who's "extremely sharp and focused". To date in these anti-eligibility cases, she hasn't hasn't prevailed in any case. She hasn't won a SINGLE motion, and she has exposed her clients to monetary counter-claims and she herself is facing substantive fines for mistakes that would likely lead to the firing of any other associate attorney working for a competent law firm. In short, she's an embarrassment to the profession of law, there's no other way to describe it.

I get it, you hate Barack Obama (who doesn't) and you think she's "fighting the good fight". But, to claim she's extremely sharp and focused, is well, laughable.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I do love the court system. The intellect on display is just amazing....It reminds me of the SC ruling on the fraud associated with passage of the 16th amendment. They said “the fraud associated with the ratification of the 16th amendment is not something we can decide here. It is a political question.” No wonder the document(constitution) is little more than toilet paper to these elites. They have minds like a steal traps. I stand in awe.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Well, trot your attorneys out and “save” this poor woman who is trying to enforce a document the courts would rather believe does not exist. Oh, you don’t have any that care about the constitution..? I understand, that is the law professions biggest accomplishment over the years the belittling of anyone that still believes in it.

[Terriergal]

Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if this so called ‘nut job’ despite how everyone seems to think she is inept, manages to take down the windmill?

It would be nice, I admit. I pray her success and that justice will indeed be done. I would just like this to be honestly decided, that’s all. If obama is NOT a US citizen legally, then removing him from office on that basis only buys us a little political leeway/time, but it doesn’t convince anyone his ideas were wrong.

[Terriergal]

Of course, the whole requirement for being a native born American to run for prez is based on the idea of national loyalty, e.g. the IDEAS of someone who has a loyalty to a different country!

[Sibre Fan]

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.

First, here is the September 16 Order Denying TRO, Dismissing Case and here is the September 18 Order Denying Stay Pending Reconsideration & Order to Show Cause re: Rule 11 Sanctions.

Second, no, Judge Land did not find that the plaintiffs had standing. The Court recognized that "It is not always clear whether the analysis of the appropriateness of judicial review of military decisions involves subject matter jurisdiction or abstention principles based on comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process." (Sept. 16 Order at fn 4), then decided that "the proper analysis in this case requires an evaluation of the deployment order using principles of abstention." (Id.) In other words, while he had several tools from which he could evaluate the case, he elected to use the absention principles. He did not find standing. He simply didn't address the issue.

Third, unlike in Rhodes, in Hollister, Judge Robertson (D.DC.) expressly found that he DID have jurisdiction because Hollister's case was based on the interpleader statute. See March 5, 2009 Order Dismissing Hollister, at page 3. Therefore, Orly's claims that Land's opinion was the first time in all the legal actions over Obama's eligibility that the court found "standing" or "jurisdiction" is just factually untrue.

Fourth, Orly is simply wrong in saying that Judge Land's decision goes to the "final disposition" of the case. Judge Land's decision, in dismissing the entire case, and not just the TRO, was that the federal court must abstain from even hearing the TRO/complaint: "Furthermore, competent counsel would have understood that the Court was required to address abstention prior to ruling upon the motion for a temporary restraining order." In other words, abstention principles precluded the Court from even considering the merits of Rhodes' claim, although, as you noted, he held in the alternative that he would have to deny the TRO on the merits even if he could get to them.