butterdezillion wrote: “So every circuit makes their own rules on who gets what legal protections? The 11th Circuit could decide that criminals don’t get jury trials - just in their circuit? How is that equal protection and due process?”
So after the lies you told, now you want to pretend your issue is consistency of precedents across circuits? That wouldn’t help you either, because Orly Taitz petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for admission pro hac vice, whereby she agreed to follow the rules applicable to that court.
Judge Land later wrote that allowing Taitz to proceed without association of local counsel was a mistake, but that doesn’t excuse Taitz. She chose to put herself under the jurisdiction of the 11’th Circuit. No sense crying about how other circuits might have followed different procedures.
butterdezillion wrote: “Either Lamberth is too stupid to know the FOIA rules and thus gave a 100% wrong ruling, or else he just confirmed that the applicant for that SSN was not Obama. Which is the case, Blade Bryan?”
It’s that you lie, butterdezillion. And this is not just name-calling. I ask you again: How do take an order that cites precedent after precedent, then turn around and claim, “Judge Land was saying, ‘I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents’”? You claimed it. Here again is Land’s order imposing sanctions, in which — contrary to your reporting — he cites the applicable precedents.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996612/Rhodes-ORDER-Order-Imposing-Sanctions-10-13-2009-28
Just a quick response after having read Judge Land’s response to Taitz’ precedents.
His response was basically: Orly is different; she has no valid arguments so a hearing and protections afforded for punitive actions would be a waste of time; therefore it is due process even if we don’t give her the same protections as if it was a criminal charge.
(All this while claiming also that what ORly did was WORSE than criminal contempt, which has a maximum fine of $1,000 - but the $10,000 was justified even if the maximum is $1,000 because she might have also been given a maximum of 6 months jail time if she had been found guilty of criminal contempt, and lost wages for lawyering (never mind that she isn’t drawing a big lawyer’s wage for what she does so there aren’t lawyer’s fees that she would lose) would add up to more than $10,000 anyway)
He NEVER addressed the precedents she cited. At all. Not to say that they didn’t apply to this Circuit, or anything. He just totally ignored what she had said.
The judge relied on two ex parte items to conclude that Orly’s affidavit was bunk: his own claim that he had not met Holder, and a look at Holder’s schedule that didn’t include a specific time schedule showing that Holder could easily have been in GA at the time the affidavit claimed he was there. IOW, the judge relied on “personal knowledge” - which may work fine in Iran under the mullahs but which is highly suspect here in America.
I would have to see ORly’s particular pleadings to see whether she presented any of the arguments that would have showed standing for Cook and Rhodes. Judge Land obviously isn’t familiar with the 20th Amendment, in which a President-elect is kept from “acting as President” totally apart from any impeachment process by Congress (thus making the enforcement of the 20th Amendment a JUDICIAL issue and not a “political issue” as political is defined by the courts), nor the Third Article where the Constitution gives the courts the responsibility of deciding cases AND CONTROVERSIES arising out of the Constitution itself.
I’m way behind in my work since I took the time to read this at this point so this is not a well-written response and it is also a first-glance response, but it shows to anybody who reads this the kind of legal gymnastics Land employed, as well as his refusal to address what Orly actually cited. His use of precedents is accompanied by his reasons why ORLY’S CASE IS DIFFERENT SO THE PRECEDENTS DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO APPLY TO HER.
My reason to say he didn’t cite precedents was because I asked you for the rebuttal to Orly’s precedents and you gave me none. Now that I have read what Land actually wrote, including his rationalizations for why he could impose a $10,000 fine when the ACTUAL LAW regarding criminal contempt includes a maximum fine of $1,000, and his explanations of how the due process of having a hearing would be a waste of time in Orly’s case, etc (blah blah blah) I stand by the basic gist of what I said. He mentioned precedents and how the US code deals with punitive actions but then he explained why he didn’t necessarily HAVE to follow them in Orly’s case. His conclusion of it all is that Orly got due process because Judge Land thinks Orly got due process.
Land’s citations were mostly US code. I didn’t hear him claiming that Orly’s cited cases don’t apply to this court; he didn’t address her cited cases at all, although he alluded to the possibility that due process in punitive cases could require a trial by jury. So his argument was disjointed and did not answer what Orly had claimed.
Regarding Lamberth’s decision you did a complete duck on the issue. I asked you whether Lamberth didn’t know FOIA rules or whether his decision was wrong, and you changed the subject to me “lying” (when what I said was based on your refusal to tell me the rebuttal that Land gave for Orly’s cited precedents; it turns out that Land didn’t give ANY rebuttal to the precedents Orly cited. He ignored it altogether. So I was actually correct in saying that he didn’t rebut her precedents by showing other precedents that overruled what she had cited).
The point, however, is that Lamberth said Astrue properly denied Taitz access to the redacted application for that SSN because of privacy rights that applicant still has. Either Lamberth’s decision was wrong and the applicant is Obama and the application discloseable.... or the applicant was not Obama.
And you have still ignored the question as to which was the case. Was Lamberth right and that access was rightfully denied because the application belonged to somebody who hasn’t disclosed their SSN? Or was Lamberth wrong, and FOIA requires that application to be disclosed to Orly? Which is it?