Orly Taitz fined $20K for being an idiotFollow

Can you not be a ****** just once?



The case was nothing more than a front for her political agenda (to remove Obama from office or at the very least, attempt to invalidate his eligibility for such). The entire basis for the challenge of the deployment order is based on something that had already been proven a non-issue at several levels. It was an abuse of legal privlege and she got slapped on the proverbial hand for it. Any attempt to legitimize her case or that of her plaintiff is an undeniably invalid rationalization for what amounts to little more than "fear of the democratic black man", so to speak.

It does not matter why the case is being brought to the court. If every case in which the counsel had an ulterior political motive was dropped for that reason, there would be a hell of a lot of cases which would never have seen the light of day. That would include pretty much the entire civil rights movement, most environment cases, and a host of other landmark cases (including Roe v. Wade, which I already mentioned). Do you really want to go down this path when justifying the decision of this judge? Really?


The judge did not dismiss the case because the Plaintiff had a political agenda. Well, that might have been his personal reason, but that is not a legitimate judicial ruling for dismissal. He has to have a legitimate reason to dismiss, and he picked "lack of standing". Which, as I've already pointed out, is absurd.





It does not matter what you think of the issue, or what the judge thinks of the issue. The judge is not supposed to decide the case based on whether he personally agrees with either side. We don't have that system of law in our country (and it's a good thing). And he can't just dismiss a case because he thinks that the evidence wont be in the plaintiffs favor. See. In the US, we're supposed to actually go through the silly motions of proving something in court. The judge can't just decide by himself that even though he hasn't seen proof, he believes it must exist, so he'll just dismiss the case. He has to go through the steps.


Why this is getting so silly is that everyone knows that if any of these cases goes to actual trial, there must be a discovery phase, in which the defense must produce actual proof to the satisfaction of the court that Obama was born in Hawaii when and where he has said he was. That's really what this is about. And yes, you can say that it's all BS just to force that document to be reviewed, but I'm not sure why that's a problem.

More to the point, I believe that this should be the case for every candidate to hold the office. We've just never had a candidate for whom there was any question actually win the election. It's astounding to me that we have no mechanism for verifying a constitutionally required criteria for the highest office in the land. So yeah. I don't think that having a judge look over some documents is really an imposition on the President of the US. I think it should be a requirement of everyone seeking the office.


The question you really have to ask is: Why block this? Judges order documents like this to be delivered and examined all the time. In custody cases. In adoption cases. In marriage and divorce cases. Why is it suddenly such a hardship in this case? I get that the legal system has to run it's course, but these rulings aren't just being made on automatic. Obama has a legal team filing motion after motion in order to avoid showing the document in question. All at taxpayer expense of course. Why?

Your utter lack of understanding of the legal system is astounding.

He has verified that he meets the criteria. He has proven what you are asking him to prove.


Edited, Oct 14th 2009 10:41pm by Xsarus

I wonder if Obama has a passport.

Good news. Obama has a passport


Of course you are. I mean, you're not in the same way that Rep. Bachmann wasn't really implying that government thugs were going to come get you but that is to say that you are but you're just unwilling to admit to it.


Take it up with a judge. According to you previously, this should be hitting the SCotUS any day now, right?

So a conspiracy theory is enough now? Does that mean that the crazies out there can start suing Bush for 9/11?

Man, I can't believe you people haven't figured this out yet. gbaji is Orly Taitz.

Simply stating that a soldier has no standing to question a "legal order" is not really a sufficient argument for lack of standing.

The question is based on whether or not the order is legal. Now it's entirely possible given the apparent qualities of the counsel for the plaintiff that this wasn't made sufficiently clear to the judge in this case. But I'm not sure how one could fail to grasp that fact while retaining the ability to chew food on their own.

So yeah. The judge is an idiot. Actually, he's presumably hoping that a lot of people reading his ruling are idiots and is counting on most people missing the glaring hole in his ruling due to being so enthralled and amused by his clever attacks on the attorney. Which seems to accurately describe most of the posters so far in this thread.



None of which changes the fact that I am right. There is no doubt that a soldier who questions whether the sitting president of the US meets the Constitutional requirements for the office has standing to charge that he is being put in harms way in violation of his rights without sufficient verification that his chain of command is legitimate and the orders he is being given are therefore legal.


You don't need a freaking degree in law to understand this, and everyone who *does* have a degree in law should understand it. The principle of standing isn't that complicated. Do the conditions charged in the case represent a condition of harm or risk to the plaintiff? yes or no? When establishing standing, the judge does not determine if the conditions being charged are true or not, but merely whether the plaintiff would be negatively impacted if the charge is true.

If I claim that you left your water on and it flooded my home, I don't need to prove that you left the water on, or that it was your water. I only need to show that my home was flooded, that this caused me harm of some sort (financial in this case), and that if you had left your water on, it could have caused the flooding. Period. That's the extend of a finding of standing.


If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then any orders he gives down the chain of command are illegal orders. Any soldier following those orders could be subjected to any of a number of legal problems in that case, not to mention could be put into harms way without Constitutional authority. All a soldier has to do to show standing is show that he has been given any order which puts him bin harms way or subjects him to potential legal (or military) response.

Any deployment order falls into that category. There is simply no rational way to argue a lack of standing in this case. The judge is pretty obviously stretching the law in order to find the way he wants to instead of the way the law actually says he should find.




Yup. As I said, it's not "proof" that he's not a citizen, but the passport application information he filed from like 25 years ago would tell us what he listed as his citizenship, whether he filed with a birth certificate, or used some other form of ID. It's entirely possible, given that he spent the first 10 years of his life living in an foreign country, that he used a passport from that country as identification to get a passport here.

Or. He might have used his birth certificate. My point is that we have a Constitutional requirement in place. One side of this issue is just asking that available legal documents be reviewed to ensure that the requirement has been met, while the other side seems hell bent on hiding any documentation which might allow anyone to make this determination. While that doesn't prove any wrongdoing, it is incredibly suspicious...


I absolutely don't agree with the idea that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind your privacy being violated. But that's not the case here. He's the one who ran for office. He ought to be open and forthcoming with something as simple as his birth certificate. It literally takes ten freaking minutes to get. How many millions of dollars has he spent preventing anyone from viewing it? I'm still at a loss as to why.

And how is that relevant. Like I said, none of this changes the fact that the plaintiff did have standing in this case.


That is the *only* issue here. Everything else is theater.

Because I like to laugh at you when you follow conspiracy theories and then say "But I'm not really one of those people..."

It's funny to me. And I like being amused. So thank you.

The passport comment was more intended to point out that Obama has probably done a number of things throughout the course of his life where he had to disclose his citizenship status. I'm sure you could argue that he lied all along because no one had to fact check, but that's mostly nonsense.

I'd like to point out that the last time we had this discussion, gbaji said that he wouldn't really want Biden to be president. I'm certain someone asked what the hell the entire point of this is then. That question still stands.

Edited, Oct 15th 2009 12:40am by CBD

You're missing the point of all of the various judges' rulings on the various Orly cases, but that's par for the course for you in regards to most things partisan.

You see Gbaji, Obama proved he was eligible to be President to anyone whom matters years ago. Let me reiterate that: OBAMA PROVED HE WAS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT YEARS AGO.

The ONE thing birthers are holding onto is that somehow, someway, his "short form" birth certificate is some sort of forgery & only his "long form" birth certificate will quell their doubts.

Problems with this: There is no such thing as a "Long form" or "short form" birth certificate in Hawaii. If you request a copy of your birth certificate in Hawaii, they give you a copy of your "official certification of live birth" which birthers incorrectly refer to as the "short form".

Link



This "certification of live birth" is good enough for him to be President in the eyes of EVERYONE who matters, outside the birther movement, & the Hawaii Department of Health has even gone as far as to verify that they do have his original birth certificate.

I know, I know, you seem to think that JUST because Hawaii's DOH says they have the original doesn't mean they do. However, you & the birthers have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to see his original. That simple fact, coupled with the "certification of live birth", will trump any and all legal arguments the birthers think they have & no judge in this entire country is ever going to tell them that the "certification of live birth" does NOT prove he's a natural born citizen.

Good luck with your fake Kenyan birth certificates though.