I’m not sure how you can say those records have nothing to do with her defense. The judge specifically alleges that she brought this with knowledge it had no merit. That is a fact-rich posit and cannot reasonably be undone without reference to the underlying documentary evidence. There might be a toe-hold here. Might. Just sayin ...
BTW, full disclosure. I am a lawyer (not CA) and I am a birther agnostic. That is, I do see problems with Obama’s strenuous effort to inhibit discovery that McCain complied within less than 24 hours when posed with a similar challenge. But unlike birther “Kenyanists,” I make no claim to know. I can only see the public surface of this problem. I do not have access to the undisclosed facts (um, by definition). So I remain suspicious but agnostic.
However, the antibirthers should give birthers a tad more respect. The fact that a Hawaiian custodian of birth documents has made assertions of their own belief is meaningless. By contrast, the fact that under some interpretive scenarios Obama’s foreign parentage or other factors may cause him to fall short of in meeting the constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship is not to be taken lightly, especially when one cannot either access the facts that could restrict the possible scenarios or access the authority of the SC in determining how to apply the body of precedent law to the current situation.
Judge Land is certainly free to interpret his own version of how things should go under the law, but frankly so is Ms. Taitz. To launch from that to meritlessness however requires enormous confidence in one’s own opinion in an area with almost no guidance in precedent. While there may be courtroom behaviors Ms. Taitz could improve, the judge is obligated to separate his personal reaction to her from the legal issues she presents.
My own reaction to her? I have seen her in interviews. She does not handle stress well. That does not make her a bad attorney. You should see some of the basket cases who were my classmates at law school. They do fine once they find a niche that suits their personality. Ms. Taitz’s problem is not her intense belief that Obama is an illegitimate office holder and that a constitutional means MUST be found to address the novel situation. No, her problem is controlling the powerful, even overwhelming emotion that reasonably accompanies such belief in one who has only recently escaped a totalitarian regime. A good trial attorney may become emotionally invested in a case, but he or she must manage that emotion to precise effect, and Ms. Taitz may ultimately come to that place of greater self-control. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose to attack her personally. You try taking on the President in court sometime and see if you do any better.
The fine was for a frivolous motion, not for the entire case. The motion was her Motion to Reconsider, in which she made a lot of absurd accusations about the judge. Her defense might be to somehow prove her statements true (yeah right), but they have nothing to do with Obama.
very nice!
Liked your post.
Your post is well worth reading -- Thank You.
Excellent comments.
Of course, the 0bama suckups will pay them no heed or use them to hassle you.
Common Sense Springfield. Stand by for some uncommon sense rebuttal.
Thank you for your informational post, and for
backing it up by revealing you are an attorney,
with therefore some educational and experiential
knowledge of the judicial process.
"I’m not sure how you can say those records have nothing to do with her defense. The judge specifically alleges that she brought this with knowledge it had no merit. That is a fact-rich posit and cannot reasonably be undone without reference to the underlying documentary evidence. There might be a toe-hold here. Might. Just sayin ...
BTW, full disclosure. I am a lawyer (not CA) and I am a birther agnostic. That is, I do see problems with Obama’s strenuous effort to inhibit discovery that McCain complied within less than 24 hours when posed with a similar challenge. But unlike birther “Kenyanists,” I make no claim to know. I can only see the public surface of this problem. I do not have access to the undisclosed facts (um, by definition). So I remain suspicious but agnostic.
However, the antibirthers should give birthers a tad more respect. The fact that a Hawaiian custodian of birth documents has made assertions of their own belief is meaningless. By contrast, the fact that under some interpretive scenarios Obama’s foreign parentage or other factors may cause him to fall short of in meeting the constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship is not to be taken lightly, especially when one cannot either access the facts that could restrict the possible scenarios or access the authority of the SC in determining how to apply the body of precedent law to the current situation.
Judge Land is certainly free to interpret his own version of how things should go under the law, but frankly so is Ms. Taitz. To launch from that to meritlessness however requires enormous confidence in one’s own opinion in an area with almost no guidance in precedent. While there may be courtroom behaviors Ms. Taitz could improve, the judge is obligated to separate his personal reaction to her from the legal issues she presents.
My own reaction to her? I have seen her in interviews. She does not handle stress well. That does not make her a bad attorney. You should see some of the basket cases who were my classmates at law school. They do fine once they find a niche that suits their personality. Ms. Taitz’s problem is not her intense belief that Obama is an illegitimate office holder and that a constitutional means MUST be found to address the novel situation. No, her problem is controlling the powerful, even overwhelming emotion that reasonably accompanies such belief in one who has only recently escaped a totalitarian regime. A good trial attorney may become emotionally invested in a case, but he or she must manage that emotion to precise effect, and Ms. Taitz may ultimately come to that place of greater self-control. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose to attack her personally. You try taking on the President in court sometime and see if you do any better."
Your comments were so well written and reasonable that I am repeating them above so they have a chance to be seen by those who may not have time to read this whole discussion.