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
“Now we never will because of the way the birthers handled this in choosing this attorney in the first place”
She chose herself. She is one of very few. It says a lot about the reality of the US Publics love of the Constitution. They haven’t lifted a finger to protect it. Left it to Orly, a Russian immigrant. The US Public is being disgraced. And when Obama is removed, this judge should go too. He is also a disgrace. I have never seen a Judge conduct himself as badly as this.
I have been thinking the same thing. I wonder if she would try Kenyan Courts? If he is a citizen there, at least they would have jurisdiction. Perhaps she could file a “fraud suit” on behalf of the guy who supposedly went there and paid for the fake Kenyan BC. She already has the fraudulent Kenyan BC document, and his testimony so she would have a cognizable claim. Then she could get discovery.
parsy, who says of course she could also get mau-mau’ed
I believe most attorneys would agree that they've never seen a plaintiff (Orly Taitz) conduct themselves as badly as this. Except, perhaps, for her thrice-debarred and felony-convicted assistant, Charles Lincoln III.
Which he did not do.
According to the judge's order, the soldier's commanding officer decided he didn't want her if she didn't want to be there.
"I dare any top lawyer in the country to take this case."
There's a good reason only nutjob lawyers like Orly have taken this case.
Really. Guess you did not hear about the Rules of Engagement for our troops. The ROE that is getting them killed.
In spite of the headline, I see no evidence in the article that she said that.
WTH does the ROE have to do with Judge Carter?
Think she'll go for double or nothing?
borders on delusional Does everything have to be overstated nowadays. If it is delusional, tell us Judge, if not then keep your yapper shut.
Right. It’s just the Judge’s way of contributing to the cause of the chosen one, by smearing with a broad brush all who would question the messiah’s approved story line.
IF this plays out the way it is going freekitty then America will be destroyed by a FRAUD. Since the hell when does a member of the Military not have any standing concerning the “President?” who is ordering him into battle? This is totally corrupt. America had better stop this evil fraud before he goes much further. Today is just another example. And frankly, you only get to see what they allow you to see. You are not seeing what is being done in behind the scenes. CO
Not now. He has gotten her attention. I suspect she will appeal. It ought to be a hoot.
parsy, who thought the 43 page decision pretty well laid it all out
But that's just from memory.
In this instance, what you are seeing is a very large gap in the Constitution (it specifies a few qualifications for the Presidency, but nowhere indicates how a challenge to those minimal qualifications would be handled), and there is a complete lack of Federal statutes on this kind of issue. It was literally inconceivable until Obama and the rather unique circumstances he presents came along.
I think the legal approaches are fruitless - and I agree with other commentators that Obama has been lucky in the particular "enemies" he has drawn (e.g., Taitz), because. while a genuine question remains, Obama and his supporters can continue to sit on the documentary evidence that would clear up this dispute (one way, or another) while asserting that those who raise the issue are crazies (pointing to Taitz, et. al.)
I don't know how Taitz came to represent those plaintiffs, but there appears to be no organized group that could be labeled "birthers" - just a loose association of visible folks who share with a significant portion of the overall population (under the radar) at least a doubt about Obama's natural citizenship.
Anyone can file a complaint in Federal Court - and if you see enough of them you will see some complaints, mostly pro se, that are completely outrageous and an absurd waste of the time of the courts. But if you pay the filing fee and file the document you can say you have "filed suit" against so-and-so, over this-or-that issue. Never mind that the case is going to be dismissed as soon as possible (because of possible lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction or the lack of a properly identified cause of action, or a host of other possible defects), you can make that claim. In other words - the absolute "front door" of the Federal Court process, the Clerk's office, is agnostic on the legal merits of what gets filed. They just take the filing fee and stamp the file date and case number on the documents (presuming they come within a country mile of the formatting requirements). I have seen complete nonsense, utter rambling incoherence that suggests insanity, filed under the proper caption, stamped and assigned a case number in the Federal Courts.
What I saw of Taitz's filings did not address the jurisdiction and standing issues and contained a lot of extraneous and irrelevant information that made her pleadings stand out as rather odd. Any time you see a pleading that cites a newspaper article or references a website address - be on guard. In legal pleadings you should see citations of prior case law, statutes or the Constitution (state or federal). The case might involve material on a website (it could be a copyright infringement claim and the contents of the website could be the infringement at issue), but the way it would be referenced is as Exhibit A, or Exhibit 12, etc. an noted as "Attached". Then, at the back of the pleading would be an Exhibit A (or 12, etc.) which would have the paper copy of the web pages following. To reference a hyperlink in a pleading is really crazy because the link is to a dynamic page - which could easily be changed between the time the pleading is filed and the time the case is reviewed by the court. No lawyer with any sense would do that, and yet Taitz's pleadings were full of it. That was one gross and superficial indicator that there was something wrong with her efforts, but you seldom fin that someone with a meritorious legal argument is gong to wrap it in pleadings full of technical, formatting or presentation errors.
In the law there is a cliché which goes something like "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law, if you can't pound the facts and the law, pound the table!" Which is to say start off with a challenge to the facts ("The defendant wasn't on the continent of North America on on November 22nd!") then challenge the applicability of the law to the facts ("Wis, Stats. 811.04 says the crime of robbery can only be committed by those under the age of 90."), and if you can't stand on either a factual or legal argument - make some noise. It seems that almost all of what Taitz was doing was making noise.
Unless some has a much better legal approach, all that's left would be political pressure, and given the present makeup of Congress, don't hold your breath. A reversal of control in the House in 2010 could get the House Judiciary Committee in position to do dome digging.
A hoot?? cute. This is deadly serious in case you haven’t noticed!! CO
Fact. Obama has a Kenyan father. Fact. He has never produced his original birth certificate.
If a Judge states such statements as that HE should be removed. For Cripes sake, where is the REAL decorum. A LIEberal for sure. I work in the law and am married to the law, this is bullshiza!! 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.