Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Okay, I'm now convinced that Orly Taitz is doing this all just to get on my good side. Just when you think she's hit bottom, she keeps on digging. It's all heroically absurd. The latest news is that she has filed a motion to have Judge Clay Land, the Bush-appointed federal judge who threatened her with sanctions, recuse himself from a case that she's already been thrown off from.
After the plaintiff, Connie Rhodes, wrote that letter to the judge saying that Taitz had filed motions without her consent and that she intended to file a grievance with the bar association, Taitz then made a motion to withdraw as Rhodes' attorney. Last week, Judge Land granted that request, but with a couple of exceptions:
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted with the following conditions. Counsel remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court's show cause sanctions order and related proceedings, and Plaintiff remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court's previous order casting the court costs upon Plaintiff.
In other words, you can leave but I can still sanction you if you don't give me a damn good reason not to. And by the way, Taitz also screwed up the motion to withdraw by turning it in without a signed certificate of service and then had to resubmit the motion. And she never had responded to the judge's demand that she show cause why he should not sanction her for continually filing frivolous lawsuits.
So on Friday, she files a motion to have Judge Land recuse himself for a couple of very amusing reasons. Here's reason #1:
First, there is some circumstantial evidence that Judge Clay D. Land may have had extrajudicial and ex-parte contacts with the Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder (See Affidavit, Exhibit A).
And oh boy, wait till you see Exhibit A. That "circumstantial evidence" she refers to is an affidavit from one Robert D. Douglas of Columbus, Georgia. He isn't referred to in the document by Cooter, but I'm gonna call him that anyway. So Cooter says that on the day of an earlier trial in another birther suit filed by Taitz, he and his wife, his wife's sister and her husband all saw Attorney General Eric Holder in a coffee shop.
He's sure it was Holder because of his (no, I'm not making this up) "well know TV displayed distinguishing features." And therefore he "new instantly" that it was Holder. And he pointed it out to Bo and Daisy and Roscoe P. Coltrane too and they all "new" it was him too.
Now folks, ask yourself this question: Is it more likely that this guy just saw someone who looked like Eric Holder, or is it more likely that the actual Attorney General of the United States walked into a coffee shop, all by himself, in the middle of Georgia rather than, say, picking up the phone and calling the judge if he wanted to talk to him? I think the answer is rather obvious.
And here's reason #2:
Second, a preliminary review of the results of the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land's public disclosures concerning his investments, it also appears to the undersigned that Judge Land may be disqualified because he has equity ownership of certain securities (e.g. Microsoft and Comcast) which are aligned both politically and economically with a key Defendant in this case, namely the de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in such a direct and personal way that it could be said that this Judge has a financial stake in the outcome of the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes' original case-in-chief.
How exactly is Obama so intimately tied to Microsoft and Comcast that a judge who owns stock in those companies has to recuse themselves from any case involving him? Apparently Taitz hasn't bothered to invent a delusional argument for that because she doesn't bother to make one, just makes the bare assertion of such an alignment.
This is absolutely absurd. Does she really believe that any judge who owns stock in a company can't hear a case involving not the company itself, but any politician to whom that company might have "ties" like campaign contributions? If so, we'd have 4 judges in the whole country who could hear cases involving pretty much any major corporation.
Not only is the case frivolous, not only did she file motions without the permission of her own client who dumped her and is filing a grievance against her, not only did she fail to explain why she shouldn't be sanctioned for all of that, but now she's filed a laughable and frivolous motion for recusal. Judge Land needs to hammer her hard, very hard. Forget $10,000, make it big.
Politics
Comments
Apparently, Ms. Taitz' unfriend Gary Kreep isn't doing much better. Based on the judges' attitude during a court hearing yesterday, Mr. Kreep chances are slim and none and slim is already on the bus headed out of town.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m10d5-No-dicision-for-birthers-on-proof-of-Obamas-citizenship
Posted by: SLC | October 6, 2009 9:17 AM
Orly Taitz is going to be the first person in history to get the death penalty for contempt of court.
Posted by: steve s | October 6, 2009 9:20 AM
I'm betting Robert D. Douglas, alias Cooter, is a birther. He's so happy to help this loon that I wish there were some way Judge Land could sanction his sorry ass too.
Orly Taitz has dug a hole so deep it ought to be getting warm down there.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 9:23 AM
Eric Holder was in Los Angeles that day giving a speech, which is something Orly should have checked, since she lives there. Yes, Ed, she should get much more than a $10,000 fine. Her behavior is beyond the merely frivolous and is approaching criminal, in that bshe suborns perjury and the willful filing of false documents with the court.
In her case in California, the birthers have been harassing Judge Carter with continual phone calls and EMails, such that he has instructed his staff to delete them without hearing or reading them. An organized campaign to harass a Federal Judge is also criminal.
I want Orly in out of Orange County and in an orange jumpsuit, breaking rocks in the Mojave!
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 6, 2009 9:25 AM
It's really only tangential, (because the second step of Taitz's theory is insane) but stock ownership in a company can be a disqualifying factor for a Judge to hear cases regarding that actual company.
Here in Wal-Mart land we actually have a pretty well developed body of ethics law on that point, because back in the day Wal-Mart often paid it's lawyers (in part) with Wal-Mart stock. Many of these lawyers became quite wealthy and more than a few got to be judges.
The test in this state is "more than a de-minimus amount" of stock may be a disqualifying interest in a case. Don't know about other states, but from what I've read the standard isn't all that different.
On the other hand, most Federal judges avoid this problem by primarily investing in "blind" mutual funds. Their money is entrusted to a manager, but they deliberately don't know what it's being invested in, and therefore avoid conflicts.
Posted by: Ben P | October 6, 2009 9:25 AM
Oh come on, Ed! How can you not give us a link to such thigh-slapping hilarity?
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 9:26 AM
Is it possible for a judge to have someone detained and put under psychological observation against their will? I've been thinking that Taitz is -- what is the right word? -- unbalanced, and seeing how she's making a nuisance of herself I wonder there may be grounds here to have her, uh, looked after. I don't think just sanctions are going to do anyone any good.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 9:34 AM
That "circumstantial evidence" she refers to is an affidavit from one Robert D. Douglas of Columbus, Georgia.
Not Columbus. Robert D. Douglas is from Alma, Georgia. He drove 200 miles to see Orly's case in Columbus.
And I can't link to Orly's infected site directly, but yes, a "Robert Douglas" from southeast Georgia did in fact comment on her site at least once, in support of her efforts. So yeah, he's a Birther. A 70-something year old Birther.
Posted by: Loren | October 6, 2009 9:42 AM
...or is it more likely that the actual Attorney General of the United States walked into a coffee shop, all by himself, in the middle of Georgia...?
Maybe Holder was using teleportation technology that the Obama Mafia snuck out of Area 51 as protection money. To get a cup of coffee. Because none of the Starbucks in DC had the blend he wanted.
As for the stock ownership issue, Orly's probably pissed at Microsoft because the MS Office Wizard, a.k.a. "That Sodding Paper Clip," kept on telling her she wasn't doing the legal paperwork right. And, of course, SMIRKING at her conspiracy theories as she typed them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 9:45 AM
DaveL,
That's awesome.
Ed left out the best part of the affidavit.
The last part of the Affidavit is where the affiant gives his opinion that Holder is there to be the "whisper in the ear" of Judge Land.
Red Flags immidiately went up in my mind and questions remain as yet. Why does the attorney general of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well off the beaten path? Could it possibly be since holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little "whisper in the ear" of a federal judge to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the President's agenda of obstruction."
I think this tells you that Robert Douglas is not only a birther, but is probably a tax protester. The stilted language in part of the affidavit distinctly reminds me of some tax protester documents I've seen.
I also find it highly amusing that Holder is recognized basically as "having a mustache, being small, and having "general olive complexion."
Posted by: Ben P | October 6, 2009 9:52 AM
Err, formatting error above. The paragraph immidiately following the block quote is also from the affidavit and should be included in the block quote. Apparently hitting enter breaks the formatting.
Posted by: Ben P | October 6, 2009 9:54 AM
My favorite part occurs early in the document.
You don't need to tell us that the all caps bold italics comes from you and not the judge, Orly. We already know who's the crazy one here.
Posted by: Wes | October 6, 2009 9:59 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 10:01 AM
The conflict of interest thing is actually an interesting argument if you take it a little further... in a hypothetical alternate reality where Orly wins her case and has Obama declared not-president, the fallout from that would likely have a devastating effect on both the US and global economies. I mean, what do you think would happen if 1) we didn't know who the fucking president was, and 2) the reason we didn't know was because of some paranoid delusional Birther insanity? I, for one, would be preparing for the apocalypse. :D
So, in that respect, everyone -- or at least every American -- has a vested interest in seeing Orly lose this case. Every judge must recuse!
Posted by: James Sweet | October 6, 2009 10:16 AM
You have to hand it to Orly Taitz: accusing a judge of misconduct takes some serious stones. Accusing a judge of misconduct, while under order to show cause as to why you shouldn't yourself fined for misconduct, with no better evidence than the testimony of some Gomer who says he saw the USAG at a coffee shop outside the courthouse* takes pebbles rattling around in your head.
As soon as I can find this filing in .PDF format, it's going in my archive. This is great stuff:
You know, a mustache would be a much more distinguishing feature if it weren't on his upper lip. "Dude, what's that on your forehead? Are you growing a second unibrow or something?"
"Statute", in this case, referring of course to the Presidential Appointees Physical Characteristics Act of 1972, limiting the height and weight of future Attorneys General.
*I mean, seriously: If you're going to offer up a cock-and-bull story like that, you could at least have him say he saw him actually meet with the judge.
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 10:23 AM
Ben P-Doubtless Mr Douglas is a birther, tax-protester, and believer in the worldwide Islamic, Jewish, Communist, papist, atheist conspiracy. I suspect, though, that what really bothers him most is that gentlemen of "general olive complexion" are able to patronize the same Georgia lunch counter as fine upstanding folks like himself. He is likely old enough to remember "the good old days" when that wasn't the case.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 6, 2009 10:26 AM
...and Orly (as well as her entourarge) aint too big on the law either.
Ah Orly, the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Amadan | October 6, 2009 10:30 AM
I hate to do this, but the affidavit does actually say "stature."
However, the same paragraph also says "his well know TV displayed features" and "I new instantly it was none other than Eric Holder." The affiant also misspells the first name of the Major whose case he was there to see, and uses the word "withing."
And I still think the signature doesn't look much of anything like "Robert Douglas." I'm not willing to say that it's a forged signature, but it does do more to call into question Mr. Douglas' powers of observation if he thinks that signature looks like "Robert Douglas."
Posted by: Loren | October 6, 2009 10:50 AM
I can see the headline now:
"Okie recognises Hercule Poirot in java joint says Taitz." :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 10:51 AM
She's on a roll now, rolling right into more sanctions, more fines and some poor soul is about to get a whole bunch of unnecessary root canals to pay for her legal troubles. LOL!
Posted by: Mike | October 6, 2009 10:52 AM
For kicks, read the comments in the Columbus paper. The comments on the paper's website are typically right of Glen Beck. There are also a lot of racist trolls that hang out there as well. However, Columbus is a military town and they haven't taken kindly to the soldier who is trying to get out of deployment. That is probably why she broke off the suit. She wasn't faring too well in the community.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | October 6, 2009 10:55 AM
he and his wife, his wife's sister and her husband all saw Attorney General Eric Holder in a coffee shop.
Ouch, ouch, ouch, water through nose ... burns!
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 11:01 AM
So, we are to believe either Holder shook his security detail, or the Secret Service (I believe that is who guards the Attorney General; I know the position comes with a security detail of some kind) is complicit in the conspiracy. Sure.
But Ed misses the best part. Ms. Taitz is the subject of a story in today's Washington Post Style section. It gives a wealth of information, not the least is her reaction to Land's last order to her:
And the batsh*t insanity of the birther movement is quietly, but sarcastically, torn apart in the piece:
........
But the Post also makes it clear that Taitz' lunacy has some serious side effects:
Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819_3.html
Posted by: CPT_Doom | October 6, 2009 11:12 AM
Rats. I loved that joke.
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 11:17 AM
Sorry guys, but if the reprint pf the affidavit on TPM is accurate, it IS 'stature' not 'statute.' (Can't you see the papers that the litigious Ms. Taitz is filing right now? "The Defendant, Mr. Brayton, did deliberately and with malice afortethought, impugn the Plaintiff's legal knowledge by falsely claiming that the word 'statute' appeared..."
Actually, that's a case I'd actually emjoy seeing. Ed vs. the Volcano!
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | October 6, 2009 11:19 AM
The most unbelievable part to me: that a 70-something year-old kook from Georgia knows off-hand what Eric Holder looks like. Holder doesn't show up on the news all that frequently, really, and certainly doesn't have that memorable of a face (aside from his mustache).
Posted by: Awesome McCool | October 6, 2009 11:28 AM
In most jurisdictions the answer is yes, but only if the person is a threat to the safety of themselves or others. Simply being an annoying crackpot is rarely enough.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | October 6, 2009 11:32 AM
The most unbelievable part to me: that a 70-something year-old kook from Georgia knows off-hand what Eric Holder looks like. Holder doesn't show up on the news all that frequently, really, and certainly doesn't have that memorable of a face (aside from his mustache).
I had one Birther argue that Holder might not have been expected to be recognized, hence the casual trip to the coffee shop.
My response was that a federal courthouse is the FIRST place the Attorney General should expect to be recognized. The unbelievable notion here is that the 70-year-old Birther recognized Holder, when no one else at the federal courthouse did.
Posted by: Loren | October 6, 2009 12:10 PM
Re: statute/stature.
Sigh, why does the truth have to be so much less funny?
That's the last time I trust Ben P!
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 12:37 PM
The fine doesn't matter. Taitz will continue to do this. Not only that, if she's fined, she can claim Judge Land is trying to punish her for pursuing the issue and appeal for money on WND and related sites. She'd pay the fine without using her own money. The best punishment would be to let Taitz try to prosecute this case. Her disturbing paranoia aside, such a trial would be hilarious-it would probably be better than her MSNBC appearance.
Let's assume that it really was Holder they saw in that coffee shop. How could he go to Macon without anyone noticing? You'd think WND or another Birther site would make a headline out of the Attorney General visiting the site of a Birther suit. Alternatively, if the coffee shop where they saw "Holder" was in/near Columbus, why would Holder be there? It's nowhere near Macon, it's not the closest airport, it has nothing to do with Birther suits, Obama or the Department of Justice.
AFAIK, Taitz is only licensed in California. Once the litany of complaints, frivolous lawsuits + contempt of court charges is dealt with, there's a decent chance that she'll be disbarred there. If she's not admitted to the bar in any state, can she be admitted pro hac vice at all?
Posted by: Kwyjibo | October 6, 2009 12:43 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 12:48 PM
Apparently, she's as good a dentist as she is a lawyer.
http://orangecounty.citysearch.com/profile/map/623399/mission_viejo_ca/taitz_orly_dds_family_cosmestics_dentistry.html#profileTab-reviews
I had read about 4 more, all knocking her skillz, but can't find them anymore. Wonder if she has a "wiper"?
Posted by: mommybrain | October 6, 2009 12:51 PM
These people need a collective sanity hearing.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 6, 2009 1:50 PM
Rick Pikul, #27: In most jurisdictions the answer is yes, but only if the person is a threat to the safety of themselves or others.
I was wondering if there were something that could be used to prevent what might be an uncontrollable obsession from causing her to blow her entire material wealth on court fines and perhaps spend some time in jail.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 1:53 PM
mommybrain: as of just now, there's only ONE review of Taitz on that page:
I think she is overcharging based on her rates but who knows, and smells awful when up close. She's an uncaring doctor in my opinion and just not very personable.
How many were there originally?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 2:09 PM
Can someone ask Barry Arrington to invite Orly Taitz to write for Uncommon Descent?
Posted by: Bob O'H | October 6, 2009 3:18 PM
Question for the literate. There are now 2 birth certificates , each one different in form. Which one is the correct one?
And how to you know?
Do you really care?
Jack
Posted by: Jack | October 6, 2009 4:15 PM
How do you say "for comedic value only" in Latin?
Where's this second birth certificate?
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 4:27 PM
Where's this second birth certificate?
Well, there's the proven bogus Kenyan one that was adapted from an Australian birth certificate, and there's the presumably bogus Kenyan one that Lucas Smith claims he picked up on a trip to Kenya that he hasn't evidenced that he ever actually made.
Posted by: Loren | October 6, 2009 4:32 PM
Jack, #37: Do you really care?
I don't. Not at this point. Why? Is it important?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 4:40 PM
Jack-How about this? Obama is not President for life. His term is up in 2012. At that point, assuming he runs for re-election, all of this can be re-hashed again. You are certainly free to base your vote in 2012 on which birth certificate you believe. Sane people will vote based on his record in office.
Until then, issues pertaining to the 2008 election are moot.
Posted by: Justiceleague | October 6, 2009 4:52 PM
Loren, "presumably" bogus, is that meaning, it may not be bogus?
The person who swore that it was a true copy in court is in error, and you are willing to swear in court it is not a true copy?
Oh, you can do it here if you wish as it means nothing.
I do not know if it is a true copy, I do know that someone swore that it was under penaly to perjury, which I assume puts him at some risk if it is not!
I care less about the outcome, I just feel that it should be tested in court, after discovery, and before a jury.
If it is lie , jail the miscreant! If it is true, Lord help us!
Jack
Posted by: jack | October 6, 2009 4:58 PM
JusticeLeague, How true! But completely accurate? Maybe not.
People will not vote on the record in 2012, they will vote on what the media tells them the record is.
Did they vote on the record in 08? Or did they vote for some other reason?
You trust the electorate that much?
I think it is all following Plato's "The Republic" too closely for comfort!
Jack
Posted by: Jack | October 6, 2009 5:04 PM
I just feel that it should be tested in court, after discovery, and before a jury.
If that's how you feel, then by all means, file a criminal complaint, stating exactly who you wish to accuse of which exact criminal offense; and offering specific evidence to support your charges. Then we can see how a court rules.
Have you made any attempt to file a criminal complaint? Why not? Probably because you have no evidence, and probably not even a specific set of criminal charges. In other words, no case at all. And in order to get a court to rule, you have to have a case. Buh-bye.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 5:04 PM
You trust the electorate that much?
More than we trust blithering nobodies like you. but thanks for admitting your contempt for our democratic processes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 5:07 PM
Here's the other long-form birth certificate. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
ice
http://storyarc.squarespace.com/vault-copy-obama-long-form-bir/
Posted by: ice9 | October 6, 2009 5:10 PM
You're serious? The Lucas Smith document is your 2nd birth certificate? Even WorldNet Daily isn't buying his line, and they'll buy almost anything. They also claim that Smith has an extensive criminal record.
Let's see: crackpot with a criminal history trying to sell a birth certificate on E-bay vs. the government of Hawaii. Yeah, a real credible challenge that deserves our attention.
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 5:28 PM
But Ice9, that's just a "CERTIFCATE OF BIRTH" not a "bIRTH CERTIFCATE"!!!!11! When will you LIBERALS WAKE UP and relize that a crtificate of birth is not a BIRTH CRTIFICATE!!!!!11!
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 5:34 PM
If that's a genuine fabrication, ice9, then where's Obama's signature on it, huh??!?!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | October 6, 2009 5:38 PM
But Ice9, that's just a "CERTIFCATE OF BIRTH" not a "bIRTH CERTIFCATE"!!!!11! When will you LIBERALS WAKE UP and relize that a crtificate of birth is not a BIRTH CRTIFICATE!!!!!11!
Like Stephen Colbert said, the bills in my wallet all say "Federal Reserve Note." If they were real money, they'd say "Money." Ergo, they're obviously useless.
Posted by: Loren | October 6, 2009 5:42 PM
Posted by: XD | October 6, 2009 5:44 PM
Justiceleague, #41: Obama is not President for life. His term is up in 2012. At that point, assuming he runs for re-election, all of this can be re-hashed again.
Electing someone who is not a natural born citizen to be President will cause the country to slide into the sea before 2012. Why do you think people are paniced?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 5:45 PM
JusticeLeague, How true! But completely accurate? Maybe not. People will not vote on the record in 2012, they will vote on what the media tells them the record is.Did they vote on the record in 08? Or did they vote for some other reason?
ROFLMAO! Jack has just exposed himself as yet another disgruntled loser disappointed that his party lost the election.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 6, 2009 5:58 PM
Ed,
Regarding the following "... an affidavit from one Robert D. Douglas of Columbus, Georgia. He isn't referred to in the document by Cooter, but I'm gonna call him that anyway. So Cooter says..."
As a southern liberal I guess I'll have to say that I've finally reached my limit with you over this bias of yours. Those of us on the left down here feel like we're on the front lines and every f'in time it's (whatever it is) south of the Mason-Dixon you have to make some reference like this "Cooter" thing. Bachmann (and her constituents) are from MN, but do you call anyone defending her "Sven" or "Ole" or something? Nope, it's just those of us in the south. The fuckin' Discovery Institute is in SEATTLE, but apparently WE'RE still just a bunch of rednecks suitable only for derision. Ah... never mind.
So long as I'm whining on my way out the door let me add that a failure to appreciate Janis Joplin is a serious character flaw on your part (and probably is viewed as such to most of my generation) and... I find texas hold em to be the most boring variant of poker ever invented.
There, I feel better. Goodbye. Enjoyed reading your stuff for a while anyway.
Posted by: JB | October 6, 2009 6:11 PM
"You trust the electorate that much?"
So you want some unelected judge to pick the President? That was tried in 2000-didn't work too well. Besides, judges seem quite uninterested in getting involved. Now why do you think that is? Perhaps they watched the Inauguration and saw Chief Justice Roberts administer the oath (TWICE!) to Obama. Now answer me this, does Chief Justice Roberts seem like the kind of guy that would swear in someone whom he considered ineligiblle, particularly someone of the opposite party?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 6, 2009 6:13 PM
Re JB
I agree with Mr. JB. Real men only play 5 card stud or 5 card draw.
Posted by: SLC | October 6, 2009 6:17 PM
All of your "Presidents", birth certificates or not, from Washington to Obama are usurpers ruling land they stole from my people.
I'm just sayin'
Posted by: Sitting Bull | October 6, 2009 6:50 PM
Now you are pyschic and can tell how I voted in the voting booth. Hell, you don't even know how your voted was counted, do you?
Any one want to file a document with the court swearing and avering that the Kenya birth certificate is a fake!
I am sure that the government attorneys would love to have someone making that statement. This is your opportunity to expose the facts about the fake document.
Jack
Posted by: Jack | October 6, 2009 8:20 PM
Ah Jack - Not how it works mate.
birfers are making the positive claim*, therefore birfers have to show evidence to prove their assertions. The President is innocent of any wrong-doing, until charges are proven in the appropriate court of law^. - DJ
--------------
*That is: that President Obama is ineligible to serve, in this case, due to being foreign born. An assertion not supported in law, as I understand it.
^In fact the only court that can try him is, I believe, is a joint sitting of both houses, convened to form an impeachment hearing.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 8:32 PM
JusticeLeague:
"Sane people will vote based on his record in office."
I read that and thought; "Not all of them, what about the folks in the GOP?". Fortunately I realized my error. Sorry, my bad.
Jack:
"Any one want to file a document with the court swearing and avering that the Kenya birth certificate is a fake!
I am sure that the government attorneys would love to have someone making that statement. This is your opportunity to expose the facts about the fake document."
Jack:
Let me say this as gently as I can. You're a fucking moron. Sorry, Jack, all the gentle in my "firm but gentle" box (a humongous King Size box, it was!) has been used up by nitwits like you.
The "government attorneys" are not involved in the case, because the case has been shitcanned by the sitting judge. Trust me on this, Jack; they do not give a flying fuck what you and the rest of the logic challenged OT Brigade think.
Posted by: democommie | October 6, 2009 8:51 PM
democmommie, Gee, you are right? The judge heard it yesterday and has not ruled on it, has he?
Please link me to anything that says he has ruled on it?
Oh, by the way, Snopes doesn't have anything on the BC that was submitted to the court here in California,
Do you have anything more.
By the way, I am an old Navy veteran and obscene comments don't faze me in the slightest.
Jack
Posted by: jack | October 6, 2009 9:06 PM
Jack,
Judges have routinely held that Taitz and Berg and Kreep and Keyes are full of shit. They say it more formally but it amounts to the same thing. Taitz is about to be sanctioned for her hubris and stupidity. The only COLB that matters is the one certified by the state of Hawaii. End of story.
I can only hope that by the anniversary of Obama's inauguration, all of this crap will have been well and truly flushed. If you, like the other barely functioning ijits who will accept no proof, it matters little what we or anyone says. Obama is our president. I had to suck it up while frat boy fool of a Texan ran the country into the ground for 8 years, you can suck it up for now. I do hope your objections are not purely racial. That shit gets real old too.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 9:58 PM
Re Jack
Since Mr. Jack is obviously totally oblivious to reality, the judge in California has quite plainly telegraphed that he is going to dismiss the case because the judiciary has no jurisdiction here. If Mr. Jack would take the time to read Article 2 of the US Constitution, he would discover that the only body that has the authority to remove the president from office is the US Congress, by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 vote of the Senate. In no way, shape, form, or regard is there any authority in the Constitution for this judge or any court, including the Supreme Court, to effect such removal. Attorney Kreep will be informed that, if he thinks he has a case, he should hie himself over to Capitol Hill in Washington, D. C. and take it up with those folks, who are the only ones authorized to do anything about it.
As for the 2nd "birth certificate," it has been pointed out that the credibility of the individual who handed it to Ms. Taitz is suspect, to say the least as he is a convicted felon who previously tried to sell it on EBAY. The 2nd "birth certificate" is as phony as the first one because it gives the alleged birthplace of the president as Mombassa, in the Republic of Kenya. At the time of his birth, there was no such place. End of story.
Posted by: SLC | October 6, 2009 9:58 PM
That ain't nothin...me, mah wife, mah sis'ter, an' mah cuzzin uh-gree...we done both saw that Hol-dur guy walk inno a bar with that Judge Land feller!
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 6, 2009 11:44 PM
No no XD, it was Boss Hogg not Eric Holder.
Posted by: wobert | October 7, 2009 12:05 AM
"...we'd have 4 judges in the whole country who could hear cases involving pretty much any major corporation." - As long as they're hangin' judges. Also, does california's 3 strikes rule apply to contempt?
Posted by: eddie | October 7, 2009 1:02 AM
I filed a motion on InterNetzJudgez.com for Orly Taitz to recuse herself from talking smack on account of her being a dick. I followed all the directions, spellchecked, and used LegalLatin.org to make sure I had the INJ.com-required 5% Latin (that InstaInsert hyperlink feature is the balm.) Plus it tells her, and other people, to do what I want, which is of course the main ingrediment in any legal preceeding.
The funny thing is, as I was working on my brief (funny name!), my mind changed. At first I thought it was kind of a longshot, on account of being not like directly supported by any legal laws, or Constitutional articles like that knowy-showy SLC keeps posting. I knew it was right, of course, that Orly be humiliated, because of the dick thing but also because I feel in my bones that she's just plain wrong. But as I got into the reasoning and the claims and the ergos in my lawyering, and really got to writing about them and expressing them and putting them in clear language, I realized that my argument was sound, and that if anyone were to reject it that would simply be visible proof that that person was wrong, even if they were a Certified and Bonded Internet Judge. Those judges are good at giving legally-reasonable reasons why they reject, but those don't cover up fundamental rightness or wrongness, is what I mean.
Then I realized that it wasn't such a bad thing if they didn't accept my factualizations, because since I now knew that it was right, the Motion for Dick-Related Complaint and STFU was a righteous tool for ferreting out the weasels who infest our judicialy with their conspiratorial wrongness, of whom SLC I think is collusionizing, primal feces, also. That makes me the righteous tool for exposing the corruption in our judicial process, which again is self-evident by its visible wrongness in disagreeing with me, who is right. I got all that from reading my own brief. Law is cool.
So anyway I sadly do not expect much success from my filing, quid pro cum. But I've learned something about how little I need to learn, and how right we often are before we know it, in medias res so to speak. So Orly probably won't be shutting up any time soon, is my point, but there's a lingus argentum to this particular cloudum obscuram, if only we could see it because of the cloud being in the way.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | October 7, 2009 7:14 AM
Jack, Jack, Jack, my poor boy, let me try to sort out your problem here. There are 2 scenarios regarding the President's birth (if we leave out ones involvimg extraterrestrials:
Scenario 1-his mother gave birth to him in Hawaii where she and her parents lived.
Scenario 2-his mother got an emergency passport and spent a lot of money for an 18 year old student and spent days and several plane changes travelling to a 3rd world country with meager medical resources in the middle of an insurrection to give birth surrounded by people she had never met. Then she took the newborn baby and did the return trip. The baby had no passport (even babies need passports) so she would have had to smuggle him into the US as well as various countries en route (ever tried smuggling a baby under your clothes-they tend to cry at the worst possible times). Then she lied in order to get a birth certificate registered that showed him born in Hawaii so he could grow up to be President.
Let's go back to the 14th Century and consult with William of Occam, considered by many to be a founder of modern science (and a Franciscan friar). He said "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." In other words where you have 2 explanations, one simple and one inordinately complex, go with the simple one.
I hope that helps.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 7, 2009 7:41 AM
I think that the true reason for all the brilliantly misguided filings is that Ms. Orly Taitz is really just in it for the Lulz. She is a troll, a deep cover comedian that, like Andy Kaufman, really just wants to make us notice the frail and arbitrary opinions that constitute our national discourse. She is avant-garde, Dada and surreal. She is a performance artist with an eye on the politics and fear that run through Cooter's mind.
I say we get the NEA to grant her the money for the next lawsuit on the condition that she does it dressed in dentist scrubs, uses metaphors like 'remove the rotten nerve of corruption from the molar of American jurisprudence' or 'relieve the ache of uncertainty in the mouth of military men by filling the cavity of the usurper President with the gold standard of full disclosure' in her filings and makes an installation piece based on her experience to be displayed somewhere prominent.
Posted by: Pete | October 7, 2009 8:54 AM
Re JusticeLeague
In reading Mr. JusticeLeagues' comment @ #68, it occurred to me that the birthers who exclaim so loudly about the alleged birth of the president in Kenya have yet to produce a jot or a tittle of evidence that Ms. Dunham, the presidents mother, was ever in Kenya. It would seem that the birthers are putting the cart before the horse; first provide evidence that Ms. Dunham was ever in Kenya and then, perhaps, they might have some sort of argument to lean on.
Posted by: SLC | October 7, 2009 9:23 AM
I've got a jot, and two tittles. Don't know what that has to do with birthers, though. Just thought I'd toss that in.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | October 7, 2009 10:41 AM
Pete @69,
Not sure what you do for a living but you are wasted on that I'm sure. I'd send a VC to SNL or The Daily Show ASAP.
'gold standard of full disclosure' indeed!
Posted by: MikeMa | October 7, 2009 10:41 AM
What the hell is this supposed to mean? In response, to what I can figure out from your babble. First, it doesn't take a psychic to get a good idea based on what you've said, so yeah, I'm pretty sure you voted for McCain, or perhaps someone else further to the right. I have yet to meet a birfer from the left. Second, if you mean how our election system works, yes, I am quite aware of the popular vote, electoral college, etc., if you're talking about some sort of bullshit conspiracy, let's hear it... I'm in the mood for a good laugh.
-----------
As has been pointed out, if you want to make a claim that contradicts the given record of the courts, etc., you have to provide evidence. We've seen a number of total garbage, bullshit phony "certificates." We've seen the quality of the arguments made by birfers. You have to actually prove something, something other than you're a bunch of morons.
----------
Why would I want to do anything that wastes more money on frivolous lawsuits that wouldn't change a damn thing even if the claims were true? The facts are simple:
Fact: Obama produced a valid viable document that attested his legitimate citizenship.
Fact: The state of Hawaii confirmed that the record produced is the one they utilize and matches the one in their database.
Fact: Neither the Clinton nor McCain campaigns adopted this idiotic argument during the election cycle. If there was ANY evidence to support this claim they would have pounced in a heartbeat.
Fact: Even IF Obama wasn't a US citizen, there are no provisions for removing a president from office by the courts. The only means is by impeachment, he has done nothing to warrant such a process.
So, what we have is a pipe dream put together by losers who can't get over the fact that the other guy won. For some on the right it is racism, plain and simple, for others it is anti-"liberal" or anti-"Democrat," but overall it is a bunch of idiots running around screaming like a bunch of school girls unable to accept the fact that their efforts to run the country into the ground have to be put on hold for a couple of years.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 7, 2009 11:18 AM
I think it's high time that we got a new T-shirt slogan. We could have this one:
"MORE "ALL CAPS"" being worn by (who else) Chris Walken.
Posted by: democommie | October 7, 2009 11:20 AM
Posted by: dean | October 7, 2009 2:09 PM
As per the earlier show-cause, she should be fined $10k for her prior screwups. The she should get a new show-cause, giving her the opportunity to respond as to why she should not be fined $100k for her current screwup in failing to answer the previous show cause order.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: abb3w | October 7, 2009 3:43 PM
abb3w- minor correction:
Blather, rinse, repeat.
Sorry, couldn't resist.:)
Posted by: Rick R | October 7, 2009 3:56 PM
By the way, I am an old Navy veteran
Gone looking for any mail buoys recently?
Posted by: Shay | October 7, 2009 11:06 PM
"I am an old Navy veteran
Shop there on a regular basis or only when they have sales?
Posted by: dean | October 8, 2009 3:53 PM
The Anti-gang meeting was at 7:30 pm PT 10:30 pm ET in Los Angelos
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS175936+14-Jul-2009+PRN20090714
Posted by: luckyinky | October 15, 2009 2:53 AM
Anyone with a working brain and intellectual integrity can see that "Obama" (or whatever his name really is) is gaming the citizens of America.
I am looking forward to the day that "Obama" The Usurper is hauled out of the White House in handcuffs by the FBI and/ot the U.S. Army.
Posted by: Sven | October 17, 2009 6:40 AM
Sven* - How about you seal your mouth and nose shut with superglue until your scenario unfolds... shouldn't be too long now. right? :) - DJ
--------
*If that is your real name. How about you post your 'Long' or 'vault' Birth Certificate, social security number, driver's license and all other identifying documents on the Internet. What have you got to hide?
(Unless you raped and murdered a 9 years old in 1980, not that I believe this, but I'm not seeing any creditable denials either).
Posted by: DingoJack | October 17, 2009 7:19 AM
I think it's pretty much a given that any politician in the U.S. is gaming the citizens of America. It's what politicians do, unfortunately. Obama's natural-born U.S. citizenship, however, is not a game. It's a fact. Live with it.
Posted by: DaveL | October 17, 2009 7:56 AM