Posted on 09/16/2009 3:45:24 PM PDT by Hawk720
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tossed out on Wednesday a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.
Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever again files in his court a similar “frivolous” lawsuit — a document that at one point the judge states that a middle school student could find irony in.
“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”
Judge Land's court ruling Rhodes, who filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court, argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant.
“This plaintiff cannot in good conscience obey orders originating from a chain of command from this merely de facto president,” Rhodes’ complaint states. “This plaintiff cannot be lawfully compelled to obey this de facto president’s orders.”
In his order, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a “grueling” primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
the judge’s noise seems to be mainly attempt to forestall an appeal... orly filed a notice of appeal for the cook case a couple of days ago...
Quo warranto is common law, referenced in the 9th Amendment.
Unfortunately, the statutory administrative jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment is the sole jurisdiction that Federal courts (and derivative statutory State courts) agree to sit under these days.
So if you try to invoke a process outside of 14A statutory jurisdiction, even if it is a part of the Constitution, you are labelled "frivolous" and threatened with sanctions, as Orly Taitz just found out.
That's why, unless you can figure out how to force the courts to sit in common law (which they can, if they agree to), it's game over.
He tossed out the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order), not the case, the MTD (motion to dismiss) will be heard on Oct. 05 by another judge (Cook)
Hang in there....
I was speaking to a specific footnote in the judge’s order not the main ruling itself.
None of that ever happened. It was the district court for D.C., not the Second Circuit; Hemenway was sanctioned, although the sanction did not include monetary penalties; Hemenway could have appealed, but didn't. And no, even a monetary sanction would not have entitled him to "see the document for exoneration," because the case was found frivolous for other reasons (including that it was brought by a plaintiff without standing).
The Department of Justice, under the federal statute. Under the common law rule, it would be the person who would be entitled to the office if the writ were granted (which would be Joe Biden).
Who is Judge Land? Is he really a GWB appointee?
“plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status,”
Oh My God, the “burden to prove”, Mr.Obama had plenty of time during the elections to prove he was legal, don’t give me this crap that it’s a “burden” to unseal a document and prove that he’s a “natural born” citizen.
And some people don't understand why the judge ruled the motion frivolous and that defendants could recover their legal costs.
So unless a sitting administration asks for it for the new administration before they take office, it will never happen. Both of the ones with the right to request are the ones who would not do it (unless Biden gets the desire to make his boss mad).
It seems to me the Framers created the 18th century version of an MS Windows "security hole". I don't claim to know about Obama's BC, birth location, or eligibility. However, if he secretly isn't truly eligible, he pulled off the biggest con job in history, and he owns the keys preventing discovery to prove the case for the people.
“I don’t claim to know about Obama’s BC, birth location, or eligibility. However, if he secretly isn’t truly eligible, he pulled off the biggest con job in history, and he owns the keys preventing discovery to prove the case for the people.”
Exactly, now we have to lawfully force him to hand the keys over.
Yes he is. And by all accounts, the former Republican State Senator is a solid conservative.
And Orly Taitz is flippin' insane. Read Judge Land's 14 page ruling and you'll see exactly why.
Oh My God, the “burden to prove”, Mr.Obama had plenty of time during the elections to prove he was legal, don’t give me this crap that it’s a “burden” to unseal a document and prove that he’s a “natural born” citizen.
That to me is the nut of the entire case. No where to my knowledge is there in the US Constitution, Federal Law or State Law a provision specifying what proof/document is required and to whom shall it be provide [states, Electoral College or Congress when they certify the election results] as proof that a candidate is a Natural Born Citizen in order to run and be elected President of the USA.
To my thinking that needs to be corrected by Constitutional Amendment, Federal Law or individual state law in order to bring a halt to this type problem and require all candidates from this date forward to provide that proof/document.
Yup. Appointed in 2001.
The lesson the Clinton Crime family taught us again and again is that it's not what you know, but what you can prove...or more accurately, can prove in a court of law, if not in the court of public opinion. And what has obama proved?
So far, obama has shown us he is the single greatest legal mind in the country as no one, not one single person, can beat him in a court of law. His voters have made him invincible.
As Gibbs, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, and all the rest would tell us, there's nothing left for us to do but bow down to the master.
I don't know if I'd got quite that far but she does lack tact, decorum, etc in many areas I believe. It really struck my when she got the microphone in front of Chief Justice Roberts and some of the first words out of her mouth were about criminal activities going on in the Supreme Court of the US. That's his court, he's the top dog and you don't just tell him in so many words he's allowing or condoning criminal acts. Dumb, dumb, dumb, imo.
I'm sure he has. And I'm sure he's also aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that absent a change in the law only the United States can file such a writ in federal court, except the D.C. Court. This is central Georgia.
He did both; denied the TRO and threw out the case.
Actually, my friend, it's as plain as day right there in the twentieth amendment, section three:
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
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.