Skip to comments.Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth; Orly Taitz on notice
Posted on 09/16/2009 9:48:30 AM PDT by vikk
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land today tossed out a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.
Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national birther movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever files a similar frivolous lawsuit in his court.
(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States, Land states in his order. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.
Rhodes, who filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court, argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant.
This plaintiff cannot in good conscience obey orders originating from a chain of command from this merely de facto president, Rhodes complaint states. This plaintiff cannot be lawfully compelled to obey this de facto presidents orders.
In his order, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a grueling primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign.
It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought, Land says.
The judge adds that Congress hasnt started impeachment proceedings against Obama, appears satisfied that he can hold the office and has rejected the suggestion he isnt.
Supposedly he saw his birth certificate in his mother’s or grandmother’s stuff in 1972, according to one of his autobiographies. So your argument won’t fly.
Land was nominated by President George W. Bush on September 21, 2001
Perhaps this is grounds for appeal. On appeal it could be asserted that Judge Land failed to apply the law (the NBC provision of the Constitution) to the facts (fact of dual citizenship at birth).
There is no “argument”, if his real name isn’t Obama he likely didn’t know that (or at least understand the legal implications) until he was an adult, that’s all.
Malfeasance yes, but treason? I don't think so. Close maybe.
Treason against the United States shall consist *only* in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..
Constitution for the United States, Art. III, Section 3.
It hinges on the meaning of "their enemies", that is enemies of the United States. One could argue that someone unconstitutionally occupying the office of President is an enemy of the United states, especially if the person also turns out to be a foreign citizen, but since that remains unproved, the charge is at the very least premature.
I’m just saying that whatever is on his birth certificate, he’s known about since 1972, unless that part of his book is also a lie. Which would not be surprising.
Absolutely spot on. I’m a lawyer myself and I am stunned this is the first time Dr-Lawyer Taitz has been threatened with Rule 11 sanction. For the Laymen, Rule 11 requires that all pleadings filed by a lawyer be signed by them, and that by signing the pleading they are certifying that they personally have investigated the facts they are pleading and found them to be non-frivolous nor being presented for an improper purpose. In most of the courts I’ve practiced in, that forged “Republic of Kenya” BC would have been enough for HEAVY sanctions and possible disciplinary proceedings.
I am personally of the opinion that Dr. Taitz is a con artist playing on the credulity of people here who choose to engage in wishful thinking rather than facts (remember those fine folks at the “African Press Institute” and that video they were supposedly going to release if ONLY they could get a little more money? How many here I wonder, ponied up money to them as well?
Here are the simple facts from a legal perspective
1) These cases will NEVER be heard because of the “Standing” problem. The proper place to raise these issues was in a mandamus action before the various State Elections boards and or Secretaries of State. Once they put his name on the ballot, the question of his eligibility to be there was essentially waived. Even if you could get around that, his election by the Electoral College, The enrollment of their results without any objection by the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice administering the Oath, all mean that legally, he IS the president, and Constitutionally, he can only stop being the president by election or impeachment
2) more importantly, even if you COULD get around the standing problem and get the case considered on the merits rather than the procedural question, the Supreme Court’s “political question doctrine” means that they WOULD NOT decide the case any more than they cases they refused to decide that sought to have the Vietnam War declared illegal
You don;t get discovery unless you can prove you have a sustainable case that has a chance of winning (Federal Rule 56.1) It’s shocking to see so many of my fellow conservatives who are usually more aware of the need for Tort reform and an end to Lawsuit abuse being so very in favor of it in this case.
The Burden of Proof is always with the Plaintiff and right now Orly has exactly ZERO that will stand up in Court. Imagine if the law really worked the way you think it should in this case
you could be accused of anything by any random person without a scrap of evidence, and then be forced to open up and turn over all your most private records (nearly ANYTHING is discoverable-even things that would never in a million years be admissible as evidence)
That is not a world that I for one want to inhabit.
THAT will get her disbarred, and possibly even jail time for contempt of court. As an Officer of the Court (which is what a lawyer is) there are certain things you are simply not allowed to say or do, it’s a right you give up when accepting the oath as an attorney, and disparging the court in this fashion violates that oath and the Rules of Professional Conduct
Thank you for putting it so succintly. I am a lawyer, I have practiced in federal courts for more than 30 years, and I agree 100%.
I enjoyed your post though! So much more indepth!
I know, it’s not like he’s out getting the hard core conservatives anyway. Not with the abortion record he has. Besides, he was conceived out of wedlock and I don’t think anybody cares.
No, there has got to be something much bigger. Pride isn’t worth a cool million.
Yes, I read that! Most definitely my mistake though. I had another judge (Florida?) mixed up with this one.
You don’t and let them sit in their own misery of judgement toward others. High and mighty falls fast and hard.
Ok, but a 10 or 11 year old seeing his birth certificate wouldn’t go “Hmmm, so my legal name isn’t Obama. I better be careful how I fill out loan applications and filing papers for political office in the future.”
And yeah, his books are full of made up crap.
I personally think he was born in Hawaii (the conspiracy theories start falling apart with the newspaper notices of his birth), but there is something on the BC that is more than just embarrassing.
A different Father and a different legal name puts him in legal jeopardy for all the forms he has filled out over the years. Nothing “jail time” most likely, but enough to make sure he doesn’t have any power left and will end his chances at a second term.
However I believe there now rules that prevent a father not married to the mother from being listed on the BC without his permission. But in '61, I don't know.
But of course the field for "father" could all be blank. Or theoretically they could list someone else entirely. A direct descendant of King Kamehameha
or the last King, Kalakaua
or perhaps his sister Queen Lili'uokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch
Or maybe, and more likely, some relative, spiritual or physical, of this guy:
Duke Kahanamoku, beach boy, Olympic Swimmer and the man who brought surfing to the world.
Appeal what? Courts at a higher level won't touch this until it's made it through the lower courts first. She has nothing to appeal. Best she can do is buff it up and refile it.
Any other judge is going to look at the Rhodes v MacDonald decision that Judge Land just handed down. I doubt she's got a chance anywhere. Back to the drawing board and trolling for another sucker.
So with this judges logic, that ample opportunity existed for discovery without results, most career criminals like Madoff would be free today.
Yes, I wondered the same thing. Is this setting a precedent? (is that how it’s spelled? not a legal scholar)
I mean if he is LEGALLY saying that as long as someone can get away with it, they are allowed?
Every case of fraud in the country should be filing a defense with this case as an example.
“Your honor, my client should not be convicted for practicing medicine without a license. The plaintiff had plenty of time to research private medical college transcripts to see if this man who claimed he was licensed was or not and she didn’t do it in time. Therefore this lawsuit of fraud should be dismissed. It’s her fault she is missing her spleen!”
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.