Just a quick response now, on the more important points.
Did you not read the citations Orly gave, showing the precedent that somebody hit with large ($10,000 being the amount from the case cited) punitive fees is to be given all the protections of a criminal trial, including trial by jury? Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited? If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt, rather than allowing an impartial jury to decide whether Orly was guilty of “frivolous lawsuits” simply because she didn’t accept his political decisions.
Lamberth ruled that Astrue did not have to disclose the redacted SSN application form because it would violate the privacy of the applicant. But the only unredacted item requested for which there would be a privacy right is the SSN itself, and Obama published the SSN he used on his tax return already so there would no longer be a privacy interest in that piece of information IF THE APPLICATION FORM WAS OBAMA’S. By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.
And yes, if Lamberth was aware that Obama had committed social security fraud then he had a responsibility to report it to law enforcement, as far as I know. Are judges exempt from the misprision laws? Surely Astrue was not exempt.
butterdezillion wrote: “Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited?”
That’s over. The dispositive rebuttal was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11’th Circuit. Sanctions affirmed. Taitz then petitioned for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied.
butterdezillion wrote: “If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt”.
Land was the judge, not the defendant. Birther notions of how courts work are bizarre an hard to fathom. What kind of incompetent shyster makes the court into an adversary?
butterdezillion wrote: “By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.”
That’s your own crank theory, not Judge Lamberth’s. I quoted the judge on his actual opinion: “The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits.”
When Orly Taitz first filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she requested a particular judge by name. Unlike most litigants, she was lucky enough to get her choice of judge: Royce C. Lamberth.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7548
butterdezillion wrote: “Do you have a rebuttal for the precedents she cited?”
That’s over. The dispositive rebuttal was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11’th Circuit. Sanctions affirmed. Taitz then petitioned for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Denied.
butterdezillion wrote: “If those are indeed the precedents then Judge Land was indeed deciding his own innocence or guilt”.
Land was the judge, not the defendant. Birther notions of how courts work are bizarre an hard to fathom. What kind of incompetent shyster makes the court into an adversary?
butterdezillion wrote: “By agreeing that there was still a privacy interest for the applicant for that SSN, Lamberth indirectly admitted that Obama was not the applicant, since Obama had already waived any privacy rights by publishing his SSN.”
That’s your own crank theory, not Judge Lamberth’s. I quoted the judge on his actual opinion: “The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits.”
When Orly Taitz first filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she requested a particular judge by name. Unlike most litigants, she was lucky enough to get her choice of judge: Royce C. Lamberth.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7548