Skip to comments.Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000
Posted on 10/13/2009 10:39:05 AM PDT by GoldStandard
click here to read article
Easy to say, when you have no money, and deeply believe in something you cannot, on your own, hope to win. A class action lawsuit with a proactive lawyer...even as you say...Orly Taitz, to 48 other defendants, is better than nothing...I understand and respect your position, I also think I understand theirs...just sayin...
Likewise, I assure you...
Perhaps you would be good enough to provide a link, be sure to read it before you respond.
I am sure you have seen this as well....
...Lets first start with what it takes to keep the cacophony of silence and complicit cover-up silent and covered up.
Joan Swirsky writes that Douglas Hagmann, in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth, revealed, The reason for the media blackout about [Obamas] birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media, issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations, but also from Federal Communication Commission officials. According to Hagmann and [his investigative partner] Judi McCleod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, threats were made to fire major talk-show hosts if they mentioned Obamas birth certificate, threats were made by FCC officials to yank broadcasting licenses, and memos were circulated by corporate TV headquarters to all on-air employees advising them not to mention the birth-certificate issue, his lawyers license or his college records.
According to Swirsky, during the interview Hagmann and McCleod alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations.
But the question that begs answering is: Why go to such lengths to keep documents away from public scrutiny? The birth-certificate issue is only a critical problem if, as many believe, it contradicts Obamas citizenship story. And why prevent access to college records or restrict inquiry concerning his law license?
An even more pressing question is: How does a person like Obama a nobody from nowhere come to command such power and money so as to pull this off? Think about what it takes for a presidential candidate, and now sitting president, to have such power.
The answer can only be that Obama is the front man for something far more sinister. One person, without the strength and backing of a cabal capable of toppling governments and affecting worldwide currencies, etc., could not even consider such an undertaking, much less pull it off.
Ergo, the logical conclusion must then be that behind Obama there exists a group or organization so powerful and so sinister that they are able not just to influence global policy, but to control it. I repeat for the record, Obama in and of himself cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, singularly demand that every major media outlet ignore investigating that which could potentially make Woodward and Bernsteins investigation into President Nixon pale in comparison...
“Easy to say, when you have no money, and deeply believe in something you cannot, on your own, hope to win. A class action lawsuit with a proactive lawyer...even as you say...Orly Taitz, to 48 other defendants, is better than nothing...I understand and respect your position, I also think I understand theirs...just sayin...”
Still, there’s something odd here. Law firms take cases that have potential. In other words, that they can win. (Ask me how I know.) If Orly is representing 48 defendants they probably didn’t get together and shop the case very hard. Odds are that they piled on when they heard about the case without knowing much about the lawyer who would be representing them.
As I said earlier, she did OK with Behar. In fact, she exposed FactCheck.org as an Annenberg Foundation (read BHO) front group, shocking Behar, and didn’t back down. Maybe she should get out of the lawyering business and run for Senate.
I call that rude.
The motion for reconsideration is here. It is filed on behalf of Captain Rhodes and no one else. No one but Captain Rhodes was a party to that case.
Looks like you have to sue to find out WHO he is. He is not about to reveal the information. Such simple information. Stinks to high heaven as I said before. And I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on whether it’s important if he is ineligible to hold that office. Seems to make sense to me that he would be only too willing to do away with this one once and for all by showing his documentation. The fact that he’s fighting it like a banshee speaks volumes in itself. CO
Sueing someone is how you settle legal disputes, not how you go about finding things out. Courts aren't investigators. This is one of the problems Orly has. She wants the court to investigate, but can't present a case with a proper legal dispute that can be resolved by a court.
"I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on whether its important if he is ineligible to hold that office."
I have never implied it wasn't important.
"Seems to make sense to me that he would be only too willing to do away with this one once and for all by showing his documentation. The fact that hes fighting it like a banshee speaks volumes in itself. CO"
But he did show his documentation. An official Hawaiian birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii settles the issue. He's not doing any fighting. He didn't go to court to hide anything. Lawyers are simply filing the proper responses to lawsuits they didn't start. That's it.
First of all, being disagreed with is not the same as being called a liar.
Second, yes, generally speaking you don't expect someone to prove a statement was NOT made. You can only prove if it was.
But you appear to be talking about this comment: "...but when a judge rules that the flying Os vetting has been tweeted and facebooked as proof..."
The comments the judge made about things on the internet, were not offered as "proof". They weren't things he relied on to make a decision. So a statement implying he did is in fact false. It didn't happen.
He did mention those things, but that's all. He mentioned them. He did not rely on them.
Something was not right about this, and I have been thinking about it for a few days, then it occurred to me.
You are correct that Orly Taitz did file for reconsideration. She did so quite legally. You said the Captain had fired her, but it fact that was not correct.
But mlo, elegibility to serve as President IS a Constitutional issue and thereby can be resolved in the Courts failing all other attempts to solve it.
And the Hawaiian BC was not official. It was a Certification of Live Birth. Anyone can get that. I could produce my long form BC in two minutes. It has ALL of the information on it such as my father’s name, my mothers maiden name, the hospital I was born in and when, the doctor who delivered me, my nationality etc. Those are the things he will NOT reveal. In addition, he won’t even show his medical records or educational records. He’s a fraud and I would be really uncomfortable with that. The Democrats certainly didn’t waste any time making sure that McCain proved he was a Natural Born Citizen. Yes he was born in Panama but on a Military base to two NBC parents. Big difference. Maybe Orly isn’t the perfect Lawyer to do this but where are all the men when you need them??
I don’t know, this whole situation doesn’t pass the smell test.
Elections do have consequences and the consequences of this last one have and continue to be hugely destructive. Neery a day goes by that something more hasn’t changed and that’s only what you can see. What’s being done in secret? Shudder!! CO
I re-checked and you're right as to timeline. There could have been questions as to whether she had (or needed) instructions from her client to file for reconsideration, but the judge's sanctions order doesn't rely on that-- she was sanctioned for the content of her motion.
Just because something is a constitutional issue does not necessarily mean that the courts must (or even can) resolve it. I have cited a number of times to the courts' repeated refusals to decide the constitutionality of the Vietnam War.
No argument there...
I understand why people think that, but it's not really true. Not every issue can be resolved by the Judicial branch. Not even every real constitutional issue.
The Constitution puts the selection and validation of a President into the hands of the Electors and the Congress. The Judicial branch cannot intervene in a power that is specifically reserved to the other branch by the Constitution. When you read the court filings and see references to the "political question", this is what they are talking about. It's not a reference to politics.
A hypothetical example. In the 2000 election dispute when the Congress was counting and certifying the Electoral votes, Congress could have objected to the Florida vote and rejected the Electors from that state, thereby handing the election to Gore. The only reason they didn't try is that Republicans controlled Congress.
If they had succeeded you might have heard people wanting to go to court to get it reversed. But no court would have intervened. It's a power not delegated to the courts and Congress would be totally within its power to do such a thing.
In this case, the Constitution requires the President to meet certain qualifications. But the power to decide whether those qualifications are met rests solely with the Electors and Congress. Their determination is final, even if everyone else is convinced they made a mistake. No court can intervene.
Every question must have a final arbiter or nothing would ever be settled. For judicial issues that is the Supreme Court. But for this issue, it isn't. And that determination has already been made. The only recourse is impeachment, or to vote the sucker out at the next election.
I read a few days ago that Jon Gosselin's attorney (the dad from Jon & Kate Plus 8), Mark Heller, has his sponsorship in Pennsylvania revoked by the local attorney who had granted it.
How can he (or Orly Taitz) practice in a state without having either a sponsor or passing the bar?
Thank you ☺
In the second sanction order the Judge indicated that he had allowed her to participate (w/o requiring, first, a pro hac vice admission) due to the emergency nature of the filing (I think the plaintiff was then scheduled to depart Warner-Robbins for Iraq or Afghanistan in a matter of hours from the time of the emergency hearing.) Prior to reading that - I assumed pro hac vice (admission on motion after local sponsorship + payment of $150 fee) was the only way it could be done. Methinks that Judge will think twice before granting the next exception.
If one sincerely thought and believed that the judge was dishonest, shouldn't one report him and turn over whatever evidence one has of that dishonesty?
To do otherwise seems to be an attempt to intimidate the judge and to hedge her bet. "Rule the way I want to show you aren't crooked".
Apparently, Judge Land isn't easily intimidated, though.
It'll be interesting to see what the California Bar does with this, as he ordered that his ruling submitted to them.
Since the sucker has NO respect for the Constitution, and most folks have their heads up their collective asses, they won’t do anything until they are cooked. Simple as that. Otherwise, you are looking at a full scale revolution, hopefully, military backed. You will NEVER get rid of this thugocracy without a revolution. That’s how I see it and since the courts are paralyzed it’s the ONLY option. CO
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.