Sorry, when I said that Judge Land “took” the case I didn’t mean that this was rigged. And I see that he was a Republican politician. But his record on the cases I have seen, including the earlier military case, does not suggest that he is particularly “conservative.”
More likely he is an opportunist, from what little I know of him, mostly from reading his various comments and opinions on these two cases.
These two cases raised a legitimat issue. And evidently someone thought so, or the earlier deployment would not have been cancelled, rendering the issue moot. And this officer’s commander would not have forbidden her to leave her post to attend the court. And the Defense Department would not have threatened to cancel its contracts if the employer of the first guy refused to fire him.
Although the judge yesterday accused Orly Taitz of making PR speeches, all she said was that it was only reasonable to ask the Obama prove his legitimacy by producing the necessary proofs that he is constitutionally qualified to be president. That is certainly reasonable. Nor did the judge have any reason to believe that her Kenyan BC was a fake.
The difference between a legitimate soldier and a pirate or bandit, according to recognized international law for at least 2000 years, is that the soldier is legitimated by legitimate authorities. So, if Obama is not legitimate, our troops have no legitimate excuse to be fighting wars, and would be vulnerable to international courts. Therefore they have a right to ask that Obama prove he is legitimate, since there are very reasonable doubts that he is.
“The difference between a legitimate soldier and a pirate or bandit, according to recognized international law for at least 2000 years, is that the soldier is legitimated by legitimate authorities. So, if Obama is not legitimate, our troops have no legitimate excuse to be fighting wars, and would be vulnerable to international courts. Therefore they have a right to ask that Obama prove he is legitimate, since there are very reasonable doubts that he is.”
BINGO!
You should familiarize yourself with Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification, as well as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 44(2) Proving an Official Record.
Orly didn't even come close to meeting ANY of the requirements spelled out in those two rules - not even close. Foreign records, unlike domestic birth records, are not prima facie evidence of anything. Foundation and authentication must be established by the Movant, not the opposing party or the bench. The Movant must provide compelling and specific authentication before the bench may presume that the evidence (a foreign record in this case) isn't a fake.
So, when you say "Nor did the judge have any reason to believe that her Kenyan BC was a fake.", it says to me that you don't have a clue how things work in the US Court system, let alone do you demonstrate any credible foundation upon which to base an allegation of incompetency with respect to this, or any federal judge. Just saying.
Incidentally, the mistakes that Orly made in this case are mistakes that would get a first year law school student laughed out of any moot court in the country. Which probably shouldn't come a surprise to anyone considering she obtained her law degree from a online law school.
Again, this is first year law school stuff. But, I see it repeated, with great frequency, by people who have NO CLUE how US court system works, only how the believe it should work - two wildly distinctive and different realities.
Look up "de facto officer doctrine" which was held most recently in "Ryder v. United States". This case, and several others give great guidance in this matter.
Obama IS the President. Whether or not he was eligible to hold the office, the fact is he was elected to that office and he currently holds the title office and that is what matters in a US court of law with respect to the "legitimacy" of the orders that he gives, bills he signs into laws and other executive actions he undertakes or executes.
This isn't even a close call, despite the protestations to the contrary. People wonder why no well-known, conservative attorney or legal think-tank has championed this battle, this is the reason why.
” More likely he is an opportunist, from what little I know of him, mostly from reading his various comments and opinions on these two cases.”
I just spoke to one of my Georgia friends who has practiced before Judge Land.
My friend is extremely conservative and actually likes the guy on a personal level.
And also believes Obama must produce his long form birth certificate and is obviously hiding something.
My friend’s assessment of Judge Land.
Land is “ very conservative” and often times “ has an anti government bent “ , but,
“ has to show he’s the smartest guy in the room, “
“ gets on his high horse ,” “ plays to the crowd ,” “part of the good old boy network “ ,
“ born with a silver spoon in his mouth,”
“ father very wealthy ,”
his uncle is a Superior Court Judge.
The guy has a definite attitude and his ego is sometimes more important than the law.
There was a book written by an Englishman, David Rose
about some Georgia murders that portrays Land in an unfavorable light -which my friend thought were cheap shots.
“The Big Eddy Club: The Stocking Stranglings and Southern Justice.”
For what it’s worth.