"Brithers" lose again in court. Judge: this is not "Alice in Wonderland"

[Pepsi]

• Tweet

Angry Judge Puts Birther Queen On Notice

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land delivered a stinging rebuke to unofficial Birther leader Orly Taitz in a tour de force order throwing out yet another of Taitz's lawsuits today. And he warned Taitz that she could face sanctions if she submits any "similarly frivolous" (read: birther-motivated) filing.

First, Plaintiff's challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She 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. 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 judge lambastes Taitz's logic, writing: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

He describes the complaint's assertion that Obama has the burden to prove his "natural born" status as "a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof." And he says even a middle schooler could see the irony here:

Thus, Plaintiff's counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to "prove his innocence" to "charges" that are based upon conjecture and speculation. 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.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/judge-puts-birther-orly-on-notice.php

[stacy adams]

The judge lambastes Taitz's logic, writing: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

He describes the complaint's assertion that Obama has the burden to prove his "natural born" status as "a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof." And he says even a middle schooler could see the irony here:

I love how the judge dismissed Taitz for doing the exact same thing Lightworker and Observer do:  She made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to shift the burden of proof to her opponent.

The judge is also right to suggest that even middle schoolers know better than to debate this way.

 

[Mornac]

She made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to shift the burden of proof to her opponent.

--Her claim was that Barrack Obama has not proven his eligibility to hold the office of president as a natural born citizen. The substance of the claim exists per se. The judge chose to ignore it.

[Pepsi]

[johnhp]

--Her claim was that Barrack Obama has not proven his eligibility to hold the office of president as a natural born citizen. The substance of the claim exists per se. The judge chose to ignore it.

Her claim is for a plaintiff in a legal case.  She has the obligation to make a prima facie case.  She clearly has not offered evidence sufficient to prove her particular proposition or fact.  That is her obligation as the attorney for a plaintiff.

However, if you think she has, feel free to post it here.

[johnhp]

you guys gotta get a load of this lady's blog and the posts she is getting.   She is one hell of an awesome businesswoman.   I have to think of ways to manipulate small minded morons and extract money from them like she does- brilliant!

Is it her "brilliance" or the birthers gullibility?

More importantly, would you by real estate this distance learning lawyer or, heaven forbid, let her extract your teeth?

[Michael]

So let's get this straight....

A person born outside the U.S. is inferior and unfit for U.S. leadership? 

Is it like....the soil makes people more retarded everywhere else?

Or is it some egotistical thing?  That the U.S. and "citizens" are somehow more superior than other "citizens" of the world?

Or is it a huge mar on the establishment of "citizenship" for the sake of justifying genocide against the First Nations?

It seems idiotic to me.  To regard anyone whose mother happened to be in another country when giving birth to them, as being unfit to have any intellectual or compassionate concern for the well-being of ANY country...let alone people of the world in general.  After all.... is this country supposed to be a "melting-pot" or what?  Some euro-americana prize?

I detect too much hypocrisy here...and too many petty laws to disguise it.

Not saying Obama was not born on a particular part of the globe....but even if he WAS born outside the U.S. (&/or Alaska/Hawaii - sheesh).........So what?

Why not exempt people from running for the office of president for jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk?  Aren't these more serious offenses than one's involuntary place of birth?

If "citizenship" is determined by birthplace... than the "founding fathers" were NOT naturalized "citizens" to begin with.  They were born on English Colonies.

Just food for thought regarding this hokey "birthplace determines personal human qualities" crap.

[johnhp]

Michael

we know what this birther bull is about.  You think that asshole Roy Blunt (R [what else could it be] - Missouri) would tell a parable about "monkeys" on a golf course for any other reason?

[johnhp]

One Birther gets smart: Tosses Orly Taitz under the bus.

"...please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009."

[Observer]

Michael

we know what this birther bull is about.  You think that asshole Roy Blunt (R [what else could it be] - Missouri) would tell a parable about "monkeys" on a golf course for any other reason?

What exactly, do monkeys on a golf course have to do with questioning Obama's eligibility for office?

[Michael]

What does 'where he was born' have to do with it?

[johnhp]

What exactly, do monkeys on a golf course have to do with questioning Obama's eligibility for office?

Oh, you are under the illusion that these lawsuits have anything to do with actual constitutional claims.  Sorry.

[Hollybaere]

So let's get this straight....

A person born outside the U.S. is inferior and unfit for U.S. leadership? 

Is it like....the soil makes people more retarded everywhere else?

Or is it some egotistical thing?  That the U.S. and "citizens" are somehow more superior than other "citizens" of the world?

Or is it a huge mar on the establishment of "citizenship" for the sake of justifying genocide against the First Nations?

It seems idiotic to me.  To regard anyone whose mother happened to be in another country when giving birth to them, as being unfit to have any intellectual or compassionate concern for the well-being of ANY country...let alone people of the world in general.  After all.... is this country supposed to be a "melting-pot" or what?  Some euro-americana prize?

I detect too much hypocrisy here...and too many petty laws to disguise it.

Not saying Obama was not born on a particular part of the globe....but even if he WAS born outside the U.S. (&/or Alaska/Hawaii - sheesh).........So what?

Why not exempt people from running for the office of president for jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk?  Aren't these more serious offenses than one's involuntary place of birth?

If "citizenship" is determined by birthplace... than the "founding fathers" were NOT naturalized "citizens" to begin with.  They were born on English Colonies.

Just food for thought regarding this hokey "birthplace determines personal human qualities" crap.

Micheal.....

The provision as to whom may be eligable to be President of the US is in the US Constitution. It was put there by our Founding Fathers for a specific reason.

It states in Article II:

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.

This is where it gets tricky:

In situations where only one parent is a United States citizen, he or she must have lived in the United States for at least five years at some point before the child's birth as a full American citizen, and at least two of these five years must have occurred after the parent's 14th birthday.

It is not clear whether Obama's Mother fullfilled this requirement either.

Even IF Obama was actually born in Hawaii, this requirement  could be a factor as to his actual, "Natural Born" status.

As to why this requirement was to be so strickly followed.....Would you really want someone who was born and loyal to another country for part of his/her life to be totally in charge of the United States of America. Aparently, our Founding Father's did not!

[johnhp]

Holly

Exactly how many cases that have been files have had any success in litigation?

[Hollybaere]

Holly

Exactly how many cases that have been files have had any success in litigation?

Are you another one of those people that only abide by Constitutional Law when it fits your need?

That is what the problem has been in the US recently. The Bush Regime got away with discarding the Constitution, so I guess that makes it OK for the Obama Regime to continue the practice.

Our Founding Father's were very specific and were very careful to provide these laws for a reason. And the job of the Congress, Judges, and any other US Official, according to the oath they took when they were sworn into their office, is to "protect and defend The United States Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and domestic".

This is not something to be brushed aside or ignored. Any Judge, when put to the task, is obligated to require proof to put this to rest. If he/she does not, then they should be removed from their office and tried for treason.

Just because it has never been carried out before, does not mean it can't ever happen.

Pitiful reasoning on your part, John. I suppose you are a lawyer?