"Connie Rhodes "Birther" Challenge Thrown Out, Taitz Scolded"

The Link

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 files a similar "frivolous" lawsuit in his court.


"(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.'"

Maybe this will finally be put to rest. This time at least the issue was seen as a 'frivolous' suit as it has ZERO merit.

Did any such suit have any merit though?

I think not.

Enjoy.

Well, as this was the last appeal they could take, and the Case was Dismissed with Prejudice even before the Discovery Phase had completed and gone to a Scheduling Meeting, then this means that both the Plaintiffs and Taitz cannot attempt further legal action on this case in any court.

Likewise, with disbarment proceedings underway in the State of California against Taitz, this Dismissal with Prejudice could reflect poorly on her disbarment hearing.

So yes, it is "Officially" over, but I doubt it will be the last we hear of Taitz or the Birthers.

I can only laugh. I just read a thread an hour ago saying Taitz would have Obama out within 30 days.

Thank God this lawsuit isn't going anywhere. If Joe Biden bacame president I would have to move to Canada!

-E-

I find it somewhat amusing that anyone might have thought any other outcome was possible.

This issue will not be accepted for adjudication; merit notwithstanding.

Its a socio-political thing. Sort of along the same lines as the Prescott Bush Nazi connection in relation to Bush's presidency. No one would touch it, no matter who brought it up, or how the topic is approached.

This is not to equate our current president with the former. It's the nature of the presidency and how it is to be protected from such "distractions."

Of course, you may agree with the judge that this is a frivolous matter... but that is a matter of perspective. What we take for granted is that the judge can't be unbiased.

I've mentioned this once before, but doesn't it seem odd that woman's name is 'ORLY?'

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/232f24079755.jpg[/atsimg]

The case thrown out was Capt. Rhodes' refusal to deploy. Nothing else.

2nd line.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]

But wait!!!!
There's a thread, or two, still being discussed at length about how Obama MUST report to Orly's office to be deposed, and how she'll have him "out of office in 30 days"... LMFAO!!!!!

What saddens me is that people who hate Obama, for whatever reason, are willing to fall in line behind the most ridiculous attempts and idiotic "Movement leaders" in order to discredit the President.

C'mon already, if you don't like him, fine. If you don't like his policies, fine. But jumping on the bandwagon of any lunatic claiming to have the "goods" to oust him from office, well, that's just sad.

You're making yourselves look like fools.

Every time you get behind some fool, such as Taitz, Beck, Limbaugh, and other baseless, totally partisan fear mongering liars, you knock off another little piece of legitimate opposition you may have mad in the first place.

-Sad

reply to post by abecedarian

US District Court Judge Clay Land issued a written ruling Wednesday denying Captain Connie Rhodes‘ motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Rhodes, a military doctor, challenged deployment orders to Iraq, claiming the orders were unlawful because the Commander In Chief is not a legal citizen of the United States. Rhodes maintains that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

The Link

While this IS about the deployment orders it is based soully on the foundation of Obama's 'legitimacy'. Specifically on whether he was born in Hawai'i or Kenya.

This charge, brought by the questionable and so called' leader' of the birthers Mrs. (Dr?) Orly Taitz, and it's dismissal highlights the weakness of the charge all together.

reply to post by Animal
Taitz made a dumb move taking this case. The case was for a restraining order against the military to prevent Rhodes from being deployed due to his/her belief about Obama's eligibility to be the Commander in Chief. A couple things I note though- Obama likely did not specifically order Rhodes to Iraq and Rhodes was wrong to not accept deployment since the orders likely came from a superior officer and the judge could not rule in Rhodes favor in absence of proof that Obama is ineligible... and that proof in process in Supreme Court.

Having said that, the Supreme Court case is still in process, unless you have court dockets and such stating otherwise, and any allusion that Rhodes' case being dismissed affects any other case is little more than smoke and mirrors, distraction and intentional deception.

edit- to invoke gender neutrality.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]

Has anyone hear thought of the fact that the case became 'frivolous' when the military canceled his deployment orders?

As a result Taitz SHOULD have withdrawn the case for consideration as THERE WAS NO MORE CASE. That she didn't shows her PERSONAL political agenda.

The judge was right to rule as he did. The question of Obama's legitimacy was NOT a factor at all - it was rendered moot by the cancellation of the orders to deploy which was the casus belli of the suit. Without it there is no reason to present evidence.

While I don't expect the distinction to matter to the offended by the presumption of dissent. It is relevant from the point of view that it doesn't affect anything in terms of the legality of un-presented evidence.

Just sayin'. Try not to shoot the messenger. Unless of course you find some error in my reasoning.

reply to post by Maxmars
Good point but the orders were not rescinded in Rhodes' case, as pointed out in Animals post. Per the
link given:

According to testimony from Major Ausprung, an attorney representing the army, Rhodes will deploy to Iraq in about a week to provide medical assistance to the military in combat.

From the tail of the original article quoted:

Stefan Frederick Cook, a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour, argued that he should not have to go to Afghanistan for similar reasons to Rhodes. The army revoked his deployment orders.

However, Cook's case was based on being a reserve member who 'volunteered', not him being an active duty member of the Army. Thus making the revocation of deployment orders more of letting the volunteer change his/her mind than not following orders.

No, what is frivolous is this thread when people are not even talking about the same case. Connie Rhodes is a woman...and no she did not have her deployment cancelled.
The issue is not over as Orly still has her case active with Judge Carter...who hopefully has some sense.

reply to post by oneclickaway
Exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Gave you a star.

I should have specified to which case I was commenting. Pardon the lapse.

reply to post by Maxmars
You didn't have to specify which case. If you were picking one case or the other, you wouldn't have included 'frivolous', which is what the judge called Rhodes' case, and then said the orders were rescinded, which was Cook's case. Associating the two as if they were one case was an error, hence why I quoted from both, and others pointed out.
But no harm, and no foul, as long as everyone understands the error and confusion was not due to some deliberate attempt to link two separate and unrelated instances as one.
... like the OP did trying to link this 'deployment' proceeding to the SC case re: OB's BC.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]

reply to post by abecedarian


curious, because i have not seen it, would you provide a link to the SC BC case? thanks.

reply to post by Animal
Not up to me. You're the one who stated:

Maybe this will finally be put to rest. This time at least the issue was seen as a 'frivolous' suit as it has ZERO merit.

Did any such suit have any merit though?

I think not.

In the case of Rhodes' law suit, yes that is true. However you said "Maybe this will finally be put to rest." and "Did any such suit have any merit though?" implying any suit challenging Obama's eligibility was "frivolous" and should likewise be dismissed. But that's not the case.
If you're going to imply something, it's your responsibility to substantiate your claims, not mine to refute.

reply to post by abecedarian


dude what are you talking about? i looked for the SC case and found a bunch of what appears t be dismissed cases. i asked in friendly manner for a link and as a response you choose to play games?

okay lets clarify what i have already brought to the table:

From my first post:

"(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.'"

The Link

NO RELIABLE or FACTUAL PROOF TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM. Seems pretty straight forward.

From my second post:

US District Court Judge Clay Land issued a written ruling Wednesday denying Captain Connie Rhodes‘ motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Rhodes, a military doctor, challenged deployment orders to Iraq, claiming the orders were unlawful because the Commander In Chief is not a legal citizen of the United States. Rhodes maintains that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

During Monday's hearing, Judge Land also refused to accept into evidence a document Rhodes' attorney, Orly Taitz says a person in her California office obtained from Kenya for a fee. Judge Land commented that the process sounded like bribery and therefore, could not justify the authentication of the birth certificate.

Her evidence that Obama was born in Kenya did not hold up because it was PAID for.

Now here I have provided clear evidence refuting the credibility of Mrs Taitz, if you have any form of proof that she should be listened to don't you think it is YOUR duty to present it.

Basically I think your argument is both weak and childish.

Based on the admittedly minor search I did for current SC cases on the issue there are NONE.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by abecedarian

 

dude what are you talking about? i looked for the SC case and found a bunch of what appears t be dismissed cases. i asked in friendly manner for a link and as a response you choose to play games?

okay lets clarify what i have already brought to the table:

From my first post:

"(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.'"

The Link

NO RELIABLE or FACTUAL PROOF TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM. Seems pretty straight forward.

Obviously, since the SC hearing has not determined that Obama is ineligible, your linking of the Rhodes case with the blanket Obama BC contesting eligibility is your burden to prove. And the "SHE" you are alluding to in your posts is Taitz, not Rhodes... Taitz being the attorney representing Rhodes... and who also happens to be a lawyer in an "otherwise separate" Obama Supreme Court (not district court) case.

What we have here, with Rhodes' case is conjecture based on a lack of evidence, which in court would typically would mean "innocent" as a verdict (O.J. anyone?). However, in this case, Obama is innocent having not as of yet been proven ineligible thus forcing Rhodes to comply with her assignment orders. But like I also said above, it's highly unlikely the orders for Rhodes to be deployed to Iraq came directly from Obama and the judge made the correct decision by dismissing the application for restraining order.
So, in this instance I am agreeing with you, and you somehow miss that?

From my second post:

US District Court Judge Clay Land issued a written ruling Wednesday denying Captain Connie Rhodes‘ motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Rhodes, a military doctor, challenged deployment orders to Iraq, claiming the orders were unlawful because the Commander In Chief is not a legal citizen of the United States. Rhodes maintains that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

During Monday's hearing, Judge Land also refused to accept into evidence a document Rhodes' attorney, Orly Taitz says a person in her California office obtained from Kenya for a fee. Judge Land commented that the process sounded like bribery and therefore, could not justify the authentication of the birth certificate.

Her evidence that Obama was born in Kenya did not hold up because it was PAID for.

AGAIN, evidence not available for submission to a legal proceeding because the proceedings to DETERMINE THAT EVIDENCE have not themselves been completed. And again, I am in agreement with you.

Now here I have provided clear evidence refuting the credibility of Mrs Taitz, if you have any form of proof that she should be listened to don't you think it is YOUR duty to present it.

Basically I think your argument is both weak and childish.

Based on the admittedly minor search I did for current SC cases on the issue there are NONE.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Animal]

No. All you've done is provide proof that Rhodes' hearing should have been dismissed. But in no way, shape nor form have you done anything to substantiate that the pending case in the Supreme Court with reference to Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the USA has been decided nor rendered null and void.

What you are doing is holding an apple tree next to a pear tree and saying that since the pear tree does not have the right to contest having its fruit pulled by something since that something has not been proven to be gravity, this apple tree must submit to the pull of that something and have its fruit removed too. But the apple and pear trees filed their complaints separately and as such, their complaints cannot be combined. Just so happens the pear tree got to court and lost to gravity before the apple tree even had its full argument heard. Had the apple tree got their first, the pear tree may have won its argument.

If you can't figure that out... sorry.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]