Replies

"...viscious slander against Orly Taitz on the sole basis of some leftwing blogger!

This is a serious slander against Orly Taitz, which apparently some Freepers are buying.

I know that there are a lot of problems that many people, even sympathetic people, have with Orly Taitz.

But this should not be one of them.

. . . . Check out #213, please.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2468926/posts?page=213#213

[Thanks, Dajjal.]

MinutemanCDC_SC says:
Dear O.C. Weekly readers and Patriots, Christians, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Countrymen,

I wrote the above post as a possible explanation for an abrupt flip-flop by a Patriot, a Conservative, a Marine: U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, for the Central District of California.

From out-of-character conduct by judges, I deduce that judges are being threatened, even honorable ones, even conservative ones, and even ex-Marines.

Judge Carter, an ex-Marine, originally stated on the record that the court had jurisdiction to hear Dr. Taitz’s case, Barnett et al v Obama. He apparently was threatened when Mr. Obama placed Siddarth Velamoor, one of the attorneys working for his defense law firm, Perkins Coie, as a law clerk for the judge.

Judge Carter looked very scared, very intimidated by something at the last hearing on October the 5th. Later, he decided that the plaintiffs no longer have standing, and his court no longer has jurisdiction.

Far from inciting to violence, by sarcasm my post opposed violence, intimidation, coercion, and obstruction of justice.

My post was not calling for a criminal act by Patriots, Constitutionalists, or Marines, but decrying acts which have already caused dismissals, without any hearings on the merits, of over 100 legitimate lawsuits demanding public verification of Mr. Obama’s eligibility for office, using the original documents, one of which is the vault hard copy of his supposed Certificate of Live Birth.

My post did not encourage coercing any judge. It merely painted a most conceivable scenario of what had obviously already happened, considering the result.

The poster who quotes me here erred by ignoring the cardinal rule of interpretation:
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. He also ignored the difference between “inciting” (future) and “reporting” (past).

“No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1, ¶ 5

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taiz-approves-threats-aga/