Posted on 10/13/2009 12:26:51 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A Georgia judge has blasted attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of court challenges to President Barack Obama's eligibility under the constitutional demand the Oval Office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen, fining her $20,000 for what he called "frivolous" court actions, and he then mocked the concern over Obama's background.
"Although counsel's present concern is the location of the president's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday," wrote U.S. District Judge Clay Land in an order released today.
"Perhaps, he looks 'too young' to be president, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate?
"Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the president is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution. Or, more to the point, perhaps the court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the president in the Oval Office," he continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
By that reasoning, every judge in America is disqualified, because there is theoretically something Obama could do to any of them.
Sorry, if you are going to move to disqualify a judge, you'd better have the law on your side.
Did you scan them a copy of it onto the Kos website with the id # blacked out or did some unbiased human get to actually hold it in their hand and examine it?
After the blackout was removed Obama’s # has 1961 in it whereas the twins born at about the same time have 61 in theirs instead of 1961. Please explain how this might have happened.
obumpa
justiceseeker,
This wasn’t ‘outside the courtroom.’ Dr. Taitz filed her “Show of Cause” with the court to which she is not admitted but to which she was afforded the extraordinary courtesy of appearing pro hac vice without local counsel.
As an attorney and an officer of the court, subject to the court’s rules, she accused the judge of treason, of colluding with an ally of the defendants, of having a bias in the case because he owned stock in comcast. She further threatened to reveal attorney-client correspondence.
As we all know the First Amendment doesn’t allow one to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. The Rules of the court, which I again emphasize govern behavior in the courts and to which Dr Taitz subjected her self by appearing and filing, don’t allow those accusations to go without penalty. This penalty should not surprise.
This is a link to the story showing the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins who were born the day after Obama in the same hospital claimed as that of his birth. Notice the difference in the numbering system on the certificates of the twins versus Obama.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347
“She made accusations of bias against the judge, in papers filed in court, which are factually and legally bogus. (He is prejudiced against her because he owns stock in Comcast?) That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and lawyers have been disbarred for that.”
While I agree that stating such things in court papers is a little over the top. How can you state they are “factually and legally bogus.” It is a matter of opinion....it might have made him prejudiced.
Also, as a previous poster pointed out....this “judge” was already biased before he heard the case. His smart ass comments emphasize that bias. He should not have heard this case. I hold him in contempt. In my opinion, as a private citizen, this judge should not be on the bench and his actions are contemptable...and possibly treasonable. I emphasize that is my opinion as a private citizen.
You mean they didn't just take your word for it??? Why didn't you hire a legal team, and cadre of bloggers to stonewall for you???
It was a computer-generated short form that looked just like the one Obama displayed.
Obama has displayed nothing and you know it.
Wow, looks like the judge isn’t being as impartial as we would hope a judge would be.
Obama, Obama's handlers, his campaign, whatever. I really don't care. The one of Factcheck looks just fine to me (despite what a self-proclaimed, pseudonymous "forensic image analyst" who turned out not to be one at all says). Hawaiian officials says he was born there. Good enough for me. None of his opponents contested this. Chief Justice Roberts swore him in.
As far as I'm concerned, Birthers have produced no compelling evidence that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii.
He is an activist judge. He doesn’t like his political enemies and his lessers in life challenging his politics, authority and class. The living constitution gives him the power to abuse the peon who dared stand up for that old dead constitution when she was told to sit down and shut up by her superiors in society. I wouldn’t want to be him.
Sad, but unfortunately all too real.
Drew68
=troll posting crap while awaiting it’s “Soros” check.
I recognize your “name” and troll fumes from other conservative sites.
Hope the check arrives soon; maybe you can buy a brain from the wizard....
he is the very opposite of an activistjudge-- he recognizes the limits of the judicial power when the issue before him is one for the elected branches ofgovernment.
I think his political statements around this case speak louder than your excuses for him.
Judge Land is a Bush appointee, recommended by GA Republican Congressman Saxby Chambliss.
So what? That makes him immune from being an arrogant idiot?
Judge Land is a Bush appointee, recommended by GA Republican Congressman Saxby Chambliss.
So what? That makes him immune from being an arrogant idiot?
My point exactly.
Lindsey Graham is a "Republican" from South Carolina, Olympia Snowe is a "Republican" from Maine. Need I name more?
And who appointed O'Connor and Souter?
Open your eyes ... It might help you see.
Just because you disagree with one decision of his doesn’t give you the right to castigate someone you obviously know nothing about. That says more about you than it does about Judge Land.
I base my judgment on knowing precisely what I read in the approximately 40 pages of his order. Did you actually read the rantings of that madman?
I suspect not. Better to stick to the headlines. Easier to swallow the koolaid that way ... right?
I base my judgment on knowing precisely what I read in the approximately 40 pages of his order. Did you actually read the rantings of that madman?
I suspect not. Better to stick to the headlines. Easier to swallow the koolaid that way ... right?
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.