You can’t just appeal rulings to whichever court you want. Ultimately, this case would involve a federal question, but it wouldn’t go to federal court on an appeal. The appeals process is as I outlined above, and as EH notes the Georgia state courts shouldn’t have too much trouble knocking this one out.
Instead, Obama (more accurately, the GA Democratic Party) would be petitioning a federal court for an injunction or declaratory judgment forcing the Georgia Secretary of State to put him back on the ballot.
As a matter of policy, federal courts won’t intervene in matters which are pending in state courts, so that could take a while.
Actionable stupidity, or “abuse of the judicial process” and of her “privilege to practice law”. Technically, for repeated filing of frivolous actions with no reasonable basis.
[QUOTE=Judge Clay Land, MD Ga.]
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond herdissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses herprivilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
[/QUOTE]
You can read Judge Land’s whole order here. It’s an interesting read: a fairly restrained analysis of Taitz’ batshittery from the point of view of a conservative Republican appointee.
From the Jay Bookman blog… “You cannot refute air and sheer fantasy. How many times can an opposing lawyer say, in so many words, ‘Your honor, this is just really and truly stupid?’”
IANAL… I once got to witness someone doing exactly this. A local numb-nuts had sued the Catholic Diocese of San Diego for “Not teaching true Christianity.” This poor schlub was one of those jackknobs who believe that “Catholics aren’t Christians.” And he had the clever idea to use the courts.
This was my introduction to the “summary judgement” process. Yes, a defense lawyer actually had to go to the whole bother of writing and submitting a motion to dismiss. It was granted, of course. But that’s the point: Yes, you do have to refute air and sheer fantasy. You do have to say exactly that to the judge.
Refusing to dignify this nonsense with an answer is a good rhetorical defense, but not a good legal one.
It’s a PITA. But you have to dance the dance. The reason, of course, is that sometimes people file complaints that actually do have some basis in law, fact, and justice, and we can’t allow defendants to ignore them. If “Go away, boy, you bother me” actually worked, would (for example) British Petroleum ever have paid anything to the shrimp fishers?
Is there any flow chart that could get Malihi disbarred for this shit? I know that subpoenaing a sitting president is legal, but ‘subpoenaing a sitting president for something that has been proven numerous times to any reasonable person with more than 8 functioning neurons to be not only wholly without merit except as blatant partisan call to arms’ must surely violate some rule some where.
Santorum is crazy and Gingrich is slicker than owl shit and not even they are trying to play the birth certificate card. Well, at least not yet.
Went to the link and read all of it. Surprisingly, though I didn’t follow all the links, it was very readable and “I” understood it without all the cites and legalese.
I’m not really really smart, and I never slept in a Holiday Inn, I just subscribe to a reasonable dose of Common Sense.
I still think, upgrading to criminal and adding six months wouldn’t improve Orly’s Common Sense at all. Can’t improve what is essentially missing.
I think it’s way past time Orly gets disbarred. She’s an embarrassment to the profession. A complaint was filed before by a California state judge in 2009, but it appears to have gone nowhere. Unfortunately, the California bar has perhaps the lowest standards for professional conduct (or at least the weakest enforcement mechanism) among all the states.
Malihi’s not the one who subpoenaed Obama; he just refused to quash Taitz’ lawyer’s subpoena. He hasn’t done anything wrong, per se; while it’s obvious that the subpoena should be quashed, he doesn’t have to unless Obama’s attorney provides legal authority to do so.
Instead of doing that, he kind of threw a tantrum. None of this would have made the news if he had done his job.
Judges don’t really get disbarred. They’re subject to different codes of conduct from ordinary attorneys. Malihi could be removed from office by the GA Supreme Court, I suppose, but ALJs are usually appointed and disciplined by nominally independent commissions.
EXCEPT…
Has it ever been establish in court via a lawsuit that Obama is a NBC? We all know he is but has a judge ever ruled that:
The birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii
Even if he were not born in the US, his parents’ marriage was invalid due to his father already being married. Therefore his mother was unmarried and under the law at the time, he got her citizenship automatically.
In regards to #2 and being unmarried, the law was such that his mother did not need to be in the US for a required period of time.
Isn’t the constant dismissal of cases just creating more suits until it is settled?
No, because even if one district court in one state actually rules on the issue and finds in Obama’s favor, that ruling isn’t binding on any other state’s judicial system, nor is it binding on the original state’s appellate court or Supreme Court.
The only way of settling this entire thing in the judicial system once and for all is to have the Supreme Court of the United States hear this case. And that’s not going to happen.
It doesn’t really matter what the constant dismissal of suits is doing. Courts can’t hear claims when the petitioners lack standing, and it’s clear that none of the petitioners have had standing when their claims were filed.
In any event, even if a claimant with standing files suit, the courts are bound to dismiss the action as a nonjusticiable political question. See here, for example.
It doesn’t have to be “established in court”. He has a Hawaiian birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii, whose authenticity has been confirmed by the official responsible under Hawaiian law.
An evidentiary hearing isn’t required to establish things which are (1) common knowledge, or (2) can be proven by resort to universally recognized sources.
Judicial notice of the universally accepted fact that Hawaii recognizes Obama’s birth is sufficient.
isn’t that exactly what the full faith and credit clause is about? the government of Georgia doesn’t need an inquiry into the issue; the Hawaii gov’t has certified the birth certificate, and Georgia can give full faith and credit to that certification.
The court are obligated to accept as fact that what Obama’s certified Hawaiian birth certificate says. The courts that this issue has come before that thrown out the cases because Obama is on the face of the documents a NBC. QED. What more do you want?
I don’t know if any of them have been dismissed with prejudice but if they were then they were making a judgment on the merits when they dismissed the case as being too stupid to entertain.
The birthers lost again. A stunning reversal that nobody could have seen coming. The judge said that Obama is a natural born citizen, eligible to run for president, that their evidence was weak and their experts didn’t have any expertise. The state secretary of state will make the final determination about Obama’s status for the primary. I’m waiting anxiously to see how the Taints will spin this as another victory.
