Supremes looking at eligibility, again

WND -- WorldNetDaily ^ | August 12, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[stevenl77]

A California attorney who more than a year ago told WND she would go back again and again to the U.S. Supreme Court until she gets an answer on Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has returned to the court's calendar.

According to a posting on the U.S. Supreme Court website, Orly Taitz' latest request for an opinion from the high court has been "referred to the Court."

Taitz, who has spearheaded several of the prominent legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility based on claims he does not qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution, has brought before the court a penalty of $20,000 imposed by a federal judge on her for her actions in one of her cases.

Taitz confirmed to WND she has had donations of about $2,000 to defray the penalty, but she is arguing she should not be subjected to the penalty....

[jamese777]

Excellent post Spaulding.

I see the same qualities you do and the same vituperative reaction from the lefties.

Another woman with balls.

---

The problem with Orly Taitz and her balls is that her lawyering skills are minimal and every time she loses, it sets precedents that make it more difficult for more skilled constitutional attorneys to overcome.
The judge who fined her $20,000 was a former conservative Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia who was recommended for the federal judgeship by Georgia’s Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and that judge was nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush.
Here’s what that judge said in his opinion dismissing one of Ms. Taitz’s lawsuits:
““The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). “

“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
“–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

---

And a Ronald Reagan appointed CHIEF US District Court judge said of Orly Taitz: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

---

And a federal judge who is a Vietnam Veteran US Marine Corps Lieutenant who won the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart at the Battle of Khe Sahn said of Ms. Taitz:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.” October 29, 2009

[Man50D]

You have the plan. Why are you waiting? Get the ball rolling!

[jamese777]

You have the plan. Why are you waiting? Get the ball rolling!

---

I live in a state with an Obama-loving liberal Democrat as attorney general and my local district attorney is a liberal lesbian.
This needs to happen in Red State America. There are states (like Arizona) where Obama had to sign a statement testifying to the fact that he is a “natural born citizen” in order to get his name on the ballot. Those states would be a good place to start.
Here’s the text of the certifying document that Obama signed to get on the ballot in Arizona. It has his signature on the original.
“You are hereby notified that I, Barack Obama, am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the Democratic Party, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008. I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years”

[El Sordo]

“after the way 0bama dissed the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address, that more of these eligibility cases will creep up the docket, just as a form of “payback.” “

Thankfully, the USSC judges are mature enough not to get into pissing matches because they got “dissed”.

[tutstar]

bump

[tutstar]

He belongs in jail.

[Man50D]

I live in a state with an Obama-loving liberal Democrat as attorney general and my local district attorney is a liberal lesbian. This needs to happen in Red State America.

In other words you don't have the courage of your convictions to carry out your plan unlike Orly Taitz who has the courage to execute her plans despite the personal financial risk and sacrifice to her in a state that BO/BS carried by more than 3 million votes.

Here’s the text of the certifying document that Obama signed to get on the ballot in Arizona. It has his signature on the original.
“You are hereby notified that I, Barack Obama, am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the Democratic Party, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008. I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years”

Wrong! Below is the text for the two different versions of the nomination document. Note the first version includes the passage stating BO/BS is Constitutionally qualified that was sent only to the state of Hawaii.



However the Constitutional passage is omitted in the second version that was sent to the other 49 states.



Why not send the Hawaiian version to the other 49 states if BO/BS is a natural born citizen?

Your plan is obviously full of misinformation. It probably wouldn't get beyond the courtroom door or know how its effectiveness would compare to Taitz's effort since you are too busy making excuses why you can't execute your flawless plan. Fortunately for Americans you have chosen to sit on the side lines since your spineless body would have collapsed by just one look from one of BO's/BS's henchmen long before Taitz would have surrendered.

[tired_old_conservative]

I have wondered why Orly stirs such ire on FR. Obamabots who can only disparage her efforts. The trouble is with the courts, not Orly.

It's really not a mystery. If you understand what legal case documentation is and how to write it, you understand that her submittals to court are freakishly, insanely incompetent and have no chance of being taken seriously by any court.

Whatever you think of the issue she is trying to represent, her efforts are akin to someone with no taste buds and ingredients that include dirt and a motor oil vinaigrette preparing your next meal. It's simply awful.

[FreeStateYank]

I’ve read Judge Land’s opinion and that is just what it seems- an opinion without basis. I don’t see it tied to material fact and even the fudge words of ‘congress is APPARENTLY satisfied’. Of course, Cheney DIDN’T ask for objections, even though one person was waving their hand like Horshack on ‘Welcome Back Carter’. ‘APPARENTLY’ is quite disingenuously accurate.

Another fudgy phrase: ‘appearing ample time for discovery’ during the campaign. The Plaintiff had no means to ‘discover’ during the campaign and no call to do so as she hadn’t received orders for shipping overseas. That ‘appears’ to then put the onus on the candidates, a task for which they are neither responsible or qualified. It is the duty of the Parties and the Sec. of States. Furthermore, IIRC, the dodgy Sec State forms/Pelousi double signatures were presented as evidence of chicanery and were not addressed in the decision.

Land also deemed the Taitz’s questioning ‘spurious’. Well, since Obama never established his creds, it’s not spurious. And the fact that others were negligent in the performance of their job does not make a subsequent questioning of a plaintiff via their attorney ‘spurious’, quite the opposite.

Simply trotting out there were multiple cases [which were DIFFERENT cases with different plaintiffs] does not make a case for being spurious. His court was the first official bite of the apple on this particular case.

Land never once referred to the evidence to support his opinion, IIRC.

I’m no attorney, but I have read judicial decisions and they have all applied evidence for their decisions and often cite supporting case law. This reads like an exasperated rant.

Simply because Regan appointed this judge does not mean he is impartial, accurate, or just, ever or at all times.

I also read Judge Carter’s decision and found it also went off the rails and further, find the addition of a new clerk who worked for Obama’s attorney’s firm suspect, to say the least.

You quote: “Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.”

Very clearly, Taitz did not ask for Obama’s ouster as relief, as the aforementioned implies. She asked for discovery of documentation. Now...if that documentation was found to be bogus or disqualifying, then Congress or SCOTUS would have work to do, but not Judge Carter.

So his argument isn’t based on the mandates of the Constitution, otherwise, he would address the documentation status and why the query should fail. Instead, it is a general statement, followed by a blurb about ‘popular vote’

Popular vote does not obviate the obligation of several layers of officials to do their job- which they failed miserably. So if government is corrupt or a total f$#$up, then there is no recourse? If rampant vote fraud is discovered after levers are pulled and votes tallied and can be proven, is it too late, since it is a ‘popular’ vote? That is what his statement ‘appears’ to indicate.

Especially in Judge Carter’s case, the ‘tone’ of his writings changed throughout the course of the process, IMO, which I find interesting.

Yet, I think Land and Carter are patriots...

The last case w/ Lambeth does the same thing. It attacks the plaintiffs integrity and attempts to paint her as a quack, but never does it establish why, exactly, the case is without merit.

So now she’s on SCOTUS’s docket, challenging the 20k fine. Perhaps this is the only way to open the door.If the fine is found unjust, I’d be curious to the reasoning. If it is because the judges opinion was not sound, I’m thinking the original case might have justification for being reheard... or not, depending.

To me, it ‘appears’ it wasn’t the ‘time’ to have this case settled. If it had been, there would have been an uproar at a great cost to the Republic. At this point, Zero is tanking so much, he’s lost much of his agitprop base.

Timing can sometimes be everything.

Interesting the impact of the SCOTUS hearing as evidence in the Larkin case...and the timing for all seems to be in alignment. Perhaps it’s a judiciary checkmate on the machinations of the of the Executive Branch and their functioaries for the upcoming November elections: keep them clean or we’ll clean your clock.

Two Globe stories about Obama’s dubious documentation on checkout stands within the past month or so, which reaches a vast audience of all segments of the populace; coupled with CNN’s recent cover story of ‘loads of Presidents were thought ineligible’..looks like the public is being softened up for unexpected news which may or may not be sprung...

And this might just be a great outline for a fabulous fictitious story.

[FreeStateYank]

Grand juries, which are valid, have run into issues in some cases.

There is another way: the fourth court established by Regan located in NYC...

[FreeStateYank]

I’m in the happy non-Free State - ‘one of the most liberal states in the nation’. I’m out.

[jamese777]

“I’ve read Judge Land’s opinion and that is just what it seems- an opinion without basis. I don’t see it tied to material fact and even the fudge words of ‘congress is APPARENTLY satisfied’. Of course, Cheney DIDN’T ask for objections, even though one person was waving their hand like Horshack on ‘Welcome Back Carter’. ‘APPARENTLY’ is quite disingenuously accurate.”

---

Judge Land’s opinion stands unless and until it is overturned by an appeals court. As of today, it has not been overturned by a higher court, so it stands.

Anybody in the joint session of Congress waving their hand wildly can simply yell out “point of order” and that immediately suspends business as usual. No member of Congress asked for a point of order and if someone was waving their hand instead of informing the Vice President in advance that they wanted to be recognized is a really dumb member of Congress.
In 2004, a black congresswoman from Ohio, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones had an objection along with Senator Barbara Boxer. Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones let Vice President Cheney know that she was going to stand up to object to the certification of Ohio’s electoral votes and Cheney immediately recognized her when the count got to Ohio. Since all Congressmen and women are seated during the Joint Session, anyone who stands up gets recognized.
There is a youtube video available of Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones lodging her objection.

[Terabitten]

Taitz is, I’m sure, a fine woman.

However, she’s a lousy lawyer, given to bouts of hyperbole. Calling Judge Land a traitor in a brief addressed to him is just, well, stupid.

[Pilsner]

Why does nobody else step up? Because she’s poisoned the well.

I've been telling Birthers for a year, at least, that the theory that Orly Taitz is an agent provocateur, hired to flush them out, and make them look ridiculous, makes more sense than any of the "law suits" she has brought.

[Pilsner]

What would you do?

There is an election in 81 days. I think the filing deadlines are all passed, but donate money. Donate time. Block walk for Republican candidate. Volunteer for the sign committee, or get out the vote committee, or ballot security committee, and if there isn't one, organize it your self, and get volunteers to help you.

[Man50D]

There is an election in 81 days. I think the filing deadlines are all passed, but donate money. Donate time. Block walk for Republican candidate. Volunteer for the sign committee, or get out the vote committee, or ballot security committee, and if there isn't one, organize it your self, and get volunteers to help you.

Those are reasonable ideas but is doesn't address my question in post #31 what would that freeper do to prove BO/BS is ineligible. My thought is to constantly increase the pressure by using all methods concurrently. Eventually they will crack.

[shield]

bfl

[tired_old_conservative]

"There is an election in 81 days. I think the filing deadlines are all passed, but donate money. Donate time. Block walk for Republican candidate. Volunteer for the sign committee, or get out the vote committee, or ballot security committee, and if there isn't one, organize it your self, and get volunteers to help you."

"Those are reasonable ideas but is doesn't address my question in post #31 what would that freeper do to prove BO/BS is ineligible. My thought is to constantly increase the pressure by using all methods concurrently. Eventually they will crack."

No, they won't. Do what Pilsner said.

[Man50D]

No, they won't.

Yes they will. The socialists are feeling more heat everyday. There are far more people who believe in the Constitution than there are socialist. They can only try to put out fires so long before they wear down.

[barb-tex]

That may all be true. Since she is the only one with a bucket trying to put out the fire. She is the only one keeping the issue alive. Where are these super duper pooper scooper lawyers that know how to write a legal brief, besides the great legal eagles flaming her on FR. Like 99 44/100% of Lawyers, all Democrats barbra ann