Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land has thrown out a complaint questioning the president's birth from an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq and gave a warning to her lawyer, birther maven Orly Taitz.
"(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.'"
"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."
“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.
“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.
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.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)
She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is
“an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted
illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United
States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a
wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that
the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social
security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶
110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document
that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that
the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed
fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of
her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of
the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped
through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover,
as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not
enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL
poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be
vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.) 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. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) 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.
Unlike inAlice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily
against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would
authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim.
Well we are splitting hairs here and this doesn't really warrant a new thread and can just as easily be added and relevant to the other current thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
