Posted on 01/04/2013 1:34:11 AM PST by ednoonan7
For Immediate Release Jan 3, 2013: Federal Judge England's "non-stop ridicule" of Attorney Orly Taitz offended Courtroom Visitors!
By Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan
There is only one term that can describe Sacramento’s Chief Federal Judge Morrison C. England Jr. And that term is a Cesspool bottom-feeder. I have nothing but contempt for this unprofessional pig.
I sat at the Plaintiff’s table with Orly Taitz and I was filled with outrage at the way this scum-bag was treating my attorney. And, of course, while he was ridiculing my attorney, he was likewise ridiculing me.
At the beginning, anyone with at least two brain cells in their head, could tell that England was bent on making the hearing a mockery of justice and had no impartiality in the matter before him...NONE! He declared that OBAMA WAS THE PRESIDENT AND THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE HAWAIIAN HEALTH DIRECTOR. Orly tried to tell him that this so-called "birth certificate" had been proven to be a forgery and Sheriff Apario had declared the document to be fraudulent, but England did not want any facts to be presented to him…he already had his mind made up.
He chided Orly for being sanctioned by other courts throughout the United States. He acted as if all of Orly's cases had been given a fair hearing and the cases were lost by poor evidence and poor witnesses. Orly told the scumbag judge that not a single judge in the United States had given her an honest chance for DISCOVERY and a fair hearing.
But at least it was easy to tell when England was lying! Whenever his lips moved and words came out of his mouth it was ANOTHER LIE! Not a single word he said had the slightest appearance of truth. For instance, he rebuked Orly for not giving the Federal government “proper service.” But Orly was slapped down when she attempted to testify that a private process service had provided the service (for $500). He did not want to hear any of our challenges concerning the illegal alien, SOETORO. It was his firm desire to ignore all the crimes concerning Soetoro’s bogus and felonious birth certificate, selective service registration and bogus social security number(s). England wanted to shut his eyes to these reports of crimes and refused hear any of Orly’s charges of these felonies being committed by the illegal alien scum-bag in the White House. England happily became a conspirator of the crimes of Soetoro and likewise became a collaborator in the felonys of the law-breaker-in-chief.
England offended me every time words came out of his lying mouth, and I continuously sat shaking my head directly at him showing him I did not agree with him. I was hoping he would address me so I could give him a piece of my mind but he was too much of a chicken poop to confront me as a plaintiff. The Federal Marshals were more concerned at my silent angry body-language as I glared at this ridiculing bozo on the bench.
The Sacramento Bee gave a somewhat accurate hearsay version of the court proceedings. You can read their leftist version at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/03/5091099/orly-taitzs-obama-birther-claims.html#storylink=cpy
The Bee version got it somewhat correct and that is concerning the dissatisfaction of most of the packed crowd in the courtroom. They report, "The reaction from courtroom watchers was unmistakable. "Mockery," one man shouted as he stormed out, followed by another who was holding his nose.
"That really stinks," he proclaimed.
The Federal Marshals were visibly concerned and scared of a possible riot of the crowd and quickly ordered all 70-80 of us out of the courtroom (after the cesspool judge denied the TRO.) So we all retired out into the hallway and then while we were clapping for Orly for the fantastic job she did in the slug fest with this corrupt Federal Judge, the Marshals ordered us out of the building. They said we were to remove ourselves to the outside of the building - - implying that we were not welcome in their FEDERAL COURT BUILDING.
I wonder what career promises were made to England in exchange for the circus he provided today? I am sure England’s bank account will soon show an increase and Soetoro (aka BHO) will forever be in his debt.
Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan Founder - National Committee Chairman American Resistance Party
Sacramento Bee photo
Some other LEFTIST 1/3/13 writeups:
http://www.lodinews.com/ap/state/article_49be0d7e-560a-11e2-914f-0017a4aa4fba.html
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral-count/
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral/?print=1
“Judge savagely ridicules Orly Taitz in Jan 3rd hearing.”
This will please a good number of “conservatives” here.
IF being an American means being a complete kook then she can have it.
When a US military vet can be arrested for having “unregistered” ammunition but David Gregory gets a pass for waiving a firearm accessory that is illegal in the same jurisdiction, we have proof we have moved from a nation of laws to a nation of power and influence.
We have the same parallel in the case of Joh Corzine’s missing client monies.
This has horrible implications for our liberties and prosperity. People will start to focus their energies on how to game the system to their advantage rather than how they can create value for others and how they must treat others.
If we lament this change in the US, Europe has always had this system. If I wanted to live under a European system, I would have moved there. Likewise, if I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. Now we get to live in EuroMex-America.
This will not end well.
She needed to be working with someone who could present her material more effectively.
Unfortunately, Larry Harmon died in 2008.
LLS
Look, Orly isn’t the best lawyer. She has brought more cases, spoken to (and given more documents to) more Supreme Court Justices than anyone else. She has gone on EVERY radio or TV show possible. NO ONE (by a MILE) has done more to keep this issue alive than Orly Taitz. Would I want the best lawyer, who doesn’t give a crap about my case or a dedicated, passionate, unflappable, never give up, lawyer like Orly Taitz? Orly wins hands down.
All of you that are attacking the messenger, are not being helpful. You all hail Joe Arpaio on discovering the BC made up of layers and a fabricated document. Well, Orly discovered this about FIVE YEARS AGO. Orly’s volume of work on the eligibility issue is voluminous! Is there a couple of errors in this body of work? Of course. Orly chases down EVERY lead.
So stop picking on a great American patriot, Orly Taitz. Switch your aim from the messenger to the real target, POTUS, “Poser Of The United States”.
Wouldn’t surprise me to see a few of the sitting supreme court justices (the conservatives ones) suddenly come up with a career ending problem, only to be immediately replaced by Odumbo worshipers like this judge. I put NOTHING, NOTHING agaisn’t Odumbo and his ilk.
If there were someone else... they would be with her... there is not... so I support her and for the reasons that I have stated in this thread.
LLS
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
M, I wanted to take the opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year in 2013!
I no longer wonder how Germany tolerated the rise of Hitler 80 years ago.
What is worse in our case, is the Germans had no Hitler example previously to learn from—so what is our excuse?
Hope all is well where you are.
Ref post #14.
You are correct.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
That is because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." The highest court to ever issue a ruling pertaining to this is the Indiana Court of Appeals which said that a "natural born citizen" is someone who was an American citizen at the time of their birth.
Your inability to understand how the SCOTUS works doesn't really change anything.
Valerie Jarrett has already stated that they have two Supreme Court justices ready to go.
And you know they will be a damn sight worse than Sotomayor or Kagan.
McConnell better find his testicles soon.
Harry Reid is going to go nuclear on him in order to get Obama’s agenda and nominees passed in the Senate with only 51 votes.
Things are about to get much worse quickly. Couple that with an economic collapse and you will not recognize your own country before 2016.
The lady, even though I wish she was more successful, has garnered a kook image by playing into the left’s game.
Forget what you or anyone thinks about her. The fact is she hasn’t been taken seriously in a court in quite some time. That and nothing else should matter. Having her present a case hurts it before she ever steps foot in court.
Any discussion about liking or not is unfortunately irrelevant.
+1
We aren’t dealing with ordinary political hacks here. These are thugs and thugs know how to intimidate.
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.