Now you're questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Rules of Evidence? Oh brother. Every time I think I can't be shocked, anymore than I already am, I'm shocked.
Try out US Code, Title 28, PRT 5, CHPTRS 111-123 - or thereabouts. Let me know what you come up with.
Here's the best part of your post...
...They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
No where in Rule 81 does it say, "Hey, you can ignore all the aforementioned rules to get to that just, speedy and inexpensive determination, now does it?
Denying plaintiffs all access to the only things that would meet the standards of evidence and allow them to prove their case, can hardly be called "just".
The US justice system isn't - in any way - about the delivery of justice, it's about the application of US law - nothing more, nothing less.
As a law professor of mine once said, "If you want to pursue a search for truth, talk to your priest. If you want to understand the law, you've come to the right place."
OldDeckHand, Probonopublico and Lurking Libertarian,
THANK YOU for your informed posts. Like the 3 of you, I am also an attorney (20+ yrs) and although I have not been what you would call an active litigator, I am no stranger to the rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.
I agree 100% with all the points made by each of the three of you. I’ll probably catch fallout for this, as the last time I posted and raised same/similar issues of each of you are doing now, I got lambasted and accused of being a “plant” or “troll.” Although all I was doing was merely pointing out the unpleasant truths about the weakness of the cases, the problems of establishing standing and surpassing the bar for a “justiciable question” and the obvious lack of skill, knowledge and ability on the part of Ms. Taitz.
A few weeks back, I pointed out several of the flaws in Orly’s pending California case and noted mistakes that no self-respected 2L would make. (Didn’t even include her Bar # on her filings? Seriously, that’s beyond sloppy, it’s downright stupid.) I also noted, as one of you did, that I thought that Orly is in this for Orly and too many people have bought into her act using “X Files” reasoning. (I WANT to believe!)
I’m sorry, but I actually took the time to look up Orly Taitz record in Orange County and looked at every single litigation she had ever appeared in as Attorney, Plaintiff or Defendent. The common thread was this: She has never appeared as an attorney, representing ANYONE as Plaintiff or Defendant other than herself and/or her husband. In fact, the most common cases she was involved with appear to have been the half dozen or so malpractice claims filed against her as a Dentist.
I don’t want to be one of those people who will pop up later and say “I told you so.” So, I will go on record now and just warn those who still believe in Orly and the legitimacy of these cases, I’m really afraid you are going to be sorely disspointed. From a legal standpoint, once the Congress certified the election, the ability to challenge Obama as holding the office “legitimately” went out the window.
As OldDeckHand is trying to explain to folks, if the judge did what some of you want to do - it would be one of the biggest examples of “judicial activism” from the bench in quite some time. I also don’t want to live in a country where anyone can accuse anyone of anything without any real evidence and subject them to the scrutiny of the court and/or discovery by some stranger who has no real basis for seeing that information.
People, open your eyes here. There have been numerous attorneys who have shown up and tried to point out the “truth” about this matter and for some reason people have adopted a “shoot the messenger” attitude. Sorry, but these judges aren’t the ones who are failing to understand and comply with the law, it’s Orly Taitz.
Question to you 3 (and any other lawyers here) I am curious as to why Orly isn’t getting into trouble for filing complaints in states where she is not lawfully licensed to practice law? (In fact, I believe that in most of these states, she wouldn’t even be qualified to take the bar exam, given that she didn’t graduate from an accredited law school.) In the Florida case, she filed a motion for limited admission Pro Hoc Vice and she listed local counsel (who was supposedly “sponsoring” her as associated counsel in that jurisdiction) but her motion was not granted, from what I have been able to tell and the local counsel, while listed in the filings, NEVER SIGNED THEM! So far, I believe that she has filed in Ohio, Florida and Georgia and she’s certainly not licensed in any of those three states. Why do you think that she’s not stepping in deep doo-doo and getting smacked down by the judges on that basis alone?
I'm not challenging them, I'm saying they are rules, not statute law. I also said that the statute law authorizes the courts to make such rules, which also implies the power to change them.
Try out US Code, Title 28, PRT 5, CHPTRS 111-123 - or thereabouts. Let me know what you come up with.
I already cited 18 USC Chapter 131, which is the part of the statute law that gives the courts power to make the rules (§ 2071) and defines what the rules can and cannot cover.
No where in Rule 81 does it say, "Hey, you can ignore all the aforementioned rules to get to that just, speedy and inexpensive determination, now does it?
Why would it, Rule 1 already gives the rule about how the other rules are to be *construed* and administered. That would be redundant.
The US justice system isn't - in any way - about the delivery of justice, it's about the application of US law - nothing more, nothing less.
As a law professor of mine once said, "If you want to pursue a search for truth, talk to your priest. If you want to understand the law, you've come to the right place."
The Constitution is the law too, who is applying that?
I guess you and your law professor would agree that the US Justice System is misnamed?
But you make my earlier point much better than I could.