Replies

It’s partially her own fault. She just couldn’t stay away from the “usurper” type comments and keep it strictly legal.

OTOH, I was hoping this issue would finally get its day in court to end it once and for all — either way. This judge looked like he was going that way, so maybe somebody got to him, “No higher bench for you, ever, if you don’t drop this now.”

I hope this is a slice of humble pie to Orly who was railing against Berg, Kreep, Phil from therightsideoflife.com and others just days ago, because she has decided that they are all secret Obama supporters and/or miserable failures at making any difference on this issue. She sees herself as the one great success story on this matter because she has pushed her cases into higher courts and farther along than anyone else had. I can’t help but think that the Bush appointed judge’s charge says a great deal negative about Orly’s tactics and competency when practicing law at this level.

I dislike always pointing out the problems with Taitz because she doubtless stands alone in terms of tenacity, enthusiasm, resourcefulness, personal investment and elbow grease. I do suppose that is why Alan Keyes retains her services and why she has gotten a tiny step farther than any other similar case by getting hearing tentatively on the schedule in California. (To those who say this in actually no farther than any other case: yes, I can see your point). Nevertheless, as good as a uniquely impassioned heart and a commitment to try one’s hardest are, they are not always enough.

I will grant her that she has likely fought harder for us than anyone else has and that no “more competent, professional” lawyers have stepped up to the plate as wholeheartedly as she has, but at the end of the day it looks as though we need something more than we have gotten from anyone so far. We need a lawyer or law firm that is both full of tenacity and thoroughly competent to present a tight case at in the higher courts.

This is terribly disappointing. To me, the logic dictates that Rhodes’s case should at least be on the border line of being considered a viable case. I wonder if it had been presented differently if the judge wouldn’t have been more open to it—-at least not placing counsel on notice.

Admittedly, I'm no lawyer, but I think the question that this case should be seeking to answer is whether Rhodes has just grounds to delay deployment in order to demand clarifying evidence that 0 is qualified to head the chain of command through which her orders come. It would seem to me that her counsel's arguments should not bear the burden of proving that Obama is ineligible, but instead proving just that his eligibility is unacceptably uncertain and that due diligence has yet to be performed or published to answer that question.

Whether the judge was biased or not or whether he had unfair expectations or not, it seems hard for me to believe that a more experienced, competent lawyer could not have made this case more palatable to him—again, at least enough so as to elude being served notice.

Counselor Taitz, I know you take this seriously, and I can imagine that you feel betrayed and attacked when you’re out there risking so much and working so hard only to see your methods criticized by me and some other would-be supporters who are acting like armchair attorneys. Nevertheless, the best vigilance includes an honest ability for one to recognize his or her limitations and to lean on the counsel and aid of others--sometimes admitting mistakes and sometimes passing the ball along to a teammate ready in the wings to proceed from here.

Unfortunately tenacious people can sometimes lean toward unwise stubbornness and narcissism. For the sake of doggedly proving themselves mighty before all who would criticize, they risk rendering as void all their own valiant, tireless advances.

Ms. Taitz, please, please keep this in mind as you proceed from here.

I know, I was afraid she was going to blow it. Glad we have someone so dedicated, but God she’s a loon.

OTOH, I was hoping this issue would finally get its day in court to end it once and for all — either way. This judge looked like he was going that way, so maybe somebody got to him

I think you are confounding the two cases. This judge had already heard and thrown out one of Taitz's cases.

It's judge Carter of the Central District of California that looked and looks promising.

I just noticed that Judge Land says in a footnote that Major Cook's case was dismissed for lack of standing. I though it was because the case had become moot due to the cancellation of his orders. Perhaps it was both?

It also seems Judge Land is taking an awful lot of "judicial notice" of things not presented in his court, much of it hardly common knowledge.