U.S. District Judge Clay Land, a George W. Bush appointee, threw out her latest suit and threatened her with sanctions if she tries it again:
Connie Rhodes “Birther” suit thrown out, Taitz Scolded
The opinion, 14 pages but well worth the read: Connie Rhodes, vs. Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel, Garrison Commander, Fort Benning; et al.
Some highlights from the opinion: “The Plaintiff has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her ‘conscientious objections’ to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil.”
And as for Orly, “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.”
For her part, Orly has both suggested that Judge Clay be tried for treason and asked him to reconsider his ruling.
The sad part is, these types of people still wont get it no matter how many lawsuits they bring are laughed out of court. I’m sure Orly thinks its all a big conspiracy anyway, and you cant prove conspiracists wrong (its just another conspiracy!)
Nice decision, and the proper holding, of course. Doubt it will change any birthers’ minds.
Yeah, I have no illusions it will dissuade or change the minds of Orly and the birthers in any way, but it’s still nice to see them get a dose of reality, even if they can’t taste it.
ETA: for those cruising through the thread, read the opinion, really. It’s a hoot.
I laughed out loud at this.
Lovely bit of snarkery there.
And to her I would say - “O RLY???”
I did. It is. Certainly not a bunch of dry legalese!
I just love note 3 in the opinion.
Man, that was one awesome legal opinion. It basically says “The court can’t rule on something like this, and even if it could the plaintiff wouldn’t be suffering any injury, and if that wasn’t true you have fuck-all for evidence. So leave and don’t come back. Idiot”
A Federal judge that can lay down the verbal bitch-slapping with the best of them.
“Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does
she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service
obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints
regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including
orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander
in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other
destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her
“conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in
Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to
remain on American soil.”
I liked :
“One piece 5 of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves
further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows
the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that
document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly
obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash
‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other
way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7,
Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original
certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly
has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the
alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly
authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”
You all are missing the most important thing! On page 12, the case references the precedent of Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo! This whole case relies on anti-life legal precedent, & is therefore invalid!
So, she doesn’t want to follow Obama’s orders, because he’s “not allowed” to be president. However:
Gotcha. A presidency which is invalid due to birth nation is bad, but a presidency which is invalid due to being in a third term is a-ok!
I haven’t read many legal opinions. Leagl Dopers - how hard of a smackdown is this? It look like a pretty thorough smackdown to my untrained eyes, but how unusual is this kind of opinion?
Yikes, if this(huffpost link to interview with Dylan Ratigan) is what the judge had to deal with, he was mighty patient.
Did anyone notice in the links from (I think) the Huffington page, where the “plaintiff” says she never asked Taitz to file such a case and has fired her?
My favorite bits are:
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.”
The Court cannot find from the present record that deployment to Iraq under the current administration will subject Plaintiff to any threat of harm that is different than the harm to which she would be exposed if another candidate had won the election.