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 ...
Yep........ but he didn’t fail to qualify did he under the existing rules/laws/statutes in force at the time of his filing. The states allowed him on the ballot, they didn’t get any proof that he qualified. The voters voted for him. The electoral college voted for him and Congress certified the election as valid. Never was he asked to provide the proof of his qualifications was he? Until that is put into either the US Constitution, Federal Law or State law we be electing Presidents that don’t have to show any proof.
I think that the twentieth amendment is "IN" the Constitution. We don't know the answer to whether or not his eligibility status was verified by Congress as per instructions to do so by section three of the twentieth amendment. That is why we have a problem.
That may be true, and there are legislative fixes available now, even on the state level. (A state could pass a law requiring presentation of a birth certificate to be placed on the ballot).
But, like many issues, the Constitution seems to have assumed that the remedy is in the political process. All it would have taken to get Obama's long-form BC released was one question by McCain in a debate, or by one of Obama's primary opponents in one of their numerous debates. The courts are taking the view that, if neither the candidates, the voting public, the electoral college or the Congress when it certified the election care about this, it is not the role of an unelected judge to throw out the results of an election.
It is my impression that the wording was very unprofessional.
The case was ONLY about the TRO, nothing else,
so that is ALL he could rule on. Oct 5 is still happening.
Unless you can prove that incorrect.
“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status,” Land states. “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.
“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,” Land says.
By his own words, Judge Land is saying that Obama should provide proof of his birth. Obama signed a sworn statement to the WV Secretary of State that he was constitutionally eligible to place his name on the ballot. Just because he made that statement doesn’t make it so according to Judge Land.
If it turns out that Obama was not born on US soil, then Judge Land should turn his office over to a middle school student.
I saw the first complaint in March, 2008. It got hot in June,2008 and has continued until present. That was well before the election but no one in the media or an authority position would touch it. WHY?????
Yes and I am so shocked that a Federal judge would write something meaningless, hypocritical and partisan in the notes of his ruling. /s
Easily. You're confusing two different cases. The Georgia case, Rhodes v. MacDonald, is the one before Judge Land. Judge Land denied the TRO and he did dismiss the case. It's all there in his ruling, the link to which I provided in my earlier post to you. But here it is again:
The October 5th date is the hearing on the defense's motion to dismiss in the case of Keyes v. Obama. That is in California, not Georgia. It is before Judge Carter, not Judge Land. And in that one the most recent action has been Judge Carter's order granting the defense motion to suspend discovery until after the Judge has ruled on the motion to dismiss.
I realize that with Orly Taitz is throwing out lawsuits like crazy, it's hard to keep up with her antics. Hope this helped.
Connie Rhoades is still part of Keyes v. Obama, correct?
I don't believe so. Two entirely different cases.
Now I understand the legal term ‘burden’ - it’s still a good thought, though, and I agree.
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.