Posted on 08/06/2009 4:32:02 PM PDT by steve-b
On Saturday, Orly Taitz filed in federal court the forged Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama that she'd discovered. It lasted in the file for less than a week -- on Thursday, a judge ordered the motion that Taitz had submitted stricken from the court record....
In the order, which can be downloaded in PDF form here, the judge says the motion was improperly filed "for the following reasons: Lacks proper notice; improper form and format; Counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.; description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court's e-docket."
Taitz could file another motion, accompanied again by the forged birth certificate -- but she'll have to overcome the mistakes she made with this filing, and that might prove difficult. The electronic court record for the case, in which she's representing Alan Keyes, among others, is filled with similar procedural errors on her part.
Not that it would matter anyway -- the document is a proven fake, and the Australian birth certificate on which it was apparently based has already been discovered. Plus, on Thursday an anonymous person came forward claiming to be the source of the forgery, and with evidence to suggest that it was all a hoax, one designed to further discredit the Birthers....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
I guess you may not recognize it but that is exactly where they are now under the result in Cook.
Now I suppose you might argue that withdrawing Cook's orders was voluntary on their part--they were faced with a choice of producing evidence of Obama's eligibility to serve or doing something to get rid of the case.
In Cook, counsel left them with the option of stipulating to get rid of the order making the case moot which is what they did.
I might have drafted my prayer for relief a little more broadly but she didn't do that.
But there are a handful of other cases filed since where plaintiff seeks evidence that the Commander in Chief is really the Commander in Chief before Plaintiff is required to obey orders.
I haven't noticed dispositions of any of those cases but an old friend of mine who is a Reserve JAG officer with a very high rank tells me that JAGS are being instructed to stipulate off the objectionable order to get the case dismissed. We did have some discussions about what you might try to plead to keep them from doing that.
Sure they are.
Now I suppose you might argue that withdrawing Cook's orders was voluntary on their part--they were faced with a choice of producing evidence of Obama's eligibility to serve or doing something to get rid of the case.
You are assuming that any court martial would allow the defense subpoena anything remotely relating to Obama's birth certificate. Or that Taitz's federal suit would have made it any further than any of the other Birther lawsuits. A very big assumption on your part. IMHO, of course.
But there are a handful of other cases filed since where plaintiff seeks evidence that the Commander in Chief is really the Commander in Chief before Plaintiff is required to obey orders.
And they are?
No. That's not the way it works. You're out of bounds again as is often the case.
Then by all means enlighten me.
WND showed several from other areas of Kenya, and none of them looked like each other.
++++++++
Do you have that link? I’ve seen one other BC they posted, and no other short forms.
****************
What’s needed is the same sort of “short form”, (which isn’t as incomplete as Hawaii’s modern version, from ‘64, before December, and from that same region, preferably one reporting a birth in the same hospital.
++++++++++
Agreed. That sort of contemporaneous documentation would help our understanding here greatly. I’m a little concerned that it’s been a week and we’ve seen nothing of the sort yet.
Perhaps you read something I didn’t. My reading was they through the case out for reasons unrelated to whether the document was genuine or not.
+++++++++++++
Apparently, the case may still be tried, if the procedural errors are resolved. We’ll see. Not too sure, the way all these cases have gone.
http://obamanotqualified.com/hoax-claims_kenyan-birth-certificate-replies.htm
“Actually, the court found some filing errors of which are being corrected, this is common on court cases, especially regarding eligibility, and the case should still be heard once refiled.”
Why then was I required to attend, and later present, briefings on the requirement to disobey unlawful orders? It was a part of our AFROTC curriculum too, IIRC. They did emphasize that one had best be correct about the illegality of the orders, but also that one was responsible for any consequences flowing from obeying an illegal order.
Your suggestions are doubtless as worthless and irrelevent as your so called ‘facts’.
Don’t bother replying. You’re a disrupter.
I know, I took the same classes in ROTC too. And we had some spirited discussions. The basic rule of thumb he gave us was that if the order violated the UCMJ or the Geneva Convention or our code of conduct then it was probably illegal. Deciding for yourself if the chain of command is legitimate or if the war is legal or if a treaty is valid is not within those parameters. But by all means, go ahead and try. Many have.
meaning what? please explain --
If the facts you cite in this post are true, then I have to agree with you. I thought she had the original document, but now it turns out that all she had was a picture, an image from the internet that can be so easily manipulated.
I finally listened to the show.
She clearly said that she was headed with her parents to Kishinev, Moldova.
Savage said something about Poland after this (which I can't replay without listening to the whole show over). Taitz said that where she was going was "very close" to Poland. This is sort of true if you overlook the fact that a big chunk of Ukraine is in the way.
__________________________________
Yeah, but Mark himself has distanced himself from any invovlement in this. Why is that? Because the birther movement is a mess.
If promoting a faked document doesn't undermine someone's credibility, as you suggest, then what did Rather do wrong? Wasn't he the victim?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2308687/posts - other BC images.
That’s a helpful thread El Gato - thanks.
Yeah, that's been Mark Levin's stance from the beginning. And I think he just might be a pretty smart attorney.
Yep, that’s why I said we need a “Mark Levin type,” rather than Levin himself.
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.