A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Orly, Alice in Wonderland, and AOL
“Man gives every reason for his conduct save one,
every excuse for his crimes save one,
every plea for his safety save one;
and that one is his cowardice."
- George Bernard Shaw
Irish literary Critic, Playwright, Essayist; 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature
1856-1950
The brave man inattentive to his duty,
is worth little more to his country
than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger.
- Andrew Jackson
Seventh President of the United States
1767-1845
To be afraid is the miserable condition of a coward.
To do wrong, or omit to do right from fear,
is to superadd delinquency to cowardice.
- David Dudley Field
American Jurist
1805 - 1894
Yesterday I read the decision in Rhodes v. McDonald, United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, Case No. 4:09-CV-00106(CDL).
Why read this 14 page Court Order from Georgia? The suggestion from a friend was that I read it because it was so very funny, a "hoot". And...oh, yes, it WAS. It really, really was.
What the heck is 4:09-CV-0016? It is one of the latest court decisions in the continuing 'adventure' those of us who are NOT birther fanatics find so inexplicable on the part of what is largely the extreme political right. In this case, it entertains, as it informs.
Plaintiff Army Captain Connie Rhodes tried to sue Colonel Thomas McDonald, the garrison commander of Fort Benning, et al, so that she could avoid being deployed to Iraq, citing as the grounds for her suit that President Obama is not properly the President. She claims those orders are unconstitutional, and sought a restraining order, a request which was dismissed and deemed frivolous.
What makes this so entertaining, although I assume that was unintentional, is the details, and ohhhh my, is there a devil in these details. This suit, one of many, was considered so exceedingly frivolous that the attorney - our Mrs. Doctor Orly Taitz, Esq., sometimes realtor - was addressed directly at the end of the very first paragraph of the order dismissing the suit thus, "Further, the plaintiff's counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c)".
The document goes on to elaborate that Taitz is the self-proclaimed leader of the birther movement, and then gets to this part,"Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deployment orders because President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President." So, the court identifies Orly Taitz as deliberately USING members of the United States military to serve her own political purposes. This is from the first paragraph on page 2 of the order. It gets better, it continues, "Although counsel has managed to fuel this "birther movement" with her litigation and press conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim." A footnote documents that this court had previously dismissed a similar claim, Cook v. Good that was brought on behalf of a reservist; the Court Order also indicates that the Rhodes case was first filed in Texas where it was no better received before trying it out in Georgia.
On page 3, the Court addresses the short form birth certificate provided by the President, and in a footnote at the bottom of page 3, the court addresses President Obama's Presidential campaign, information from the Federal Elections Commission, and the formal position of Congress on the status of the President of the United States as an eligible citizen for the office by virtue of being born in Hawaii. Page 3 goes on to elaborate how Captain Rhodes had a substantial part of her medical schooling paid for by the army, in exchange for her commitment to serve in that same army.
Page 4 goes on to elaborate that Captain Rhodes began her service in July 2008, and had no problem continuing that service under President Obama, right up until she received deployment orders in September 2009. The Court Order observes that she simply doesn't want to comply with orders sending her to Iraq or anywhere else that would put her in harm's way. She does not seek to leave the Army; she wants her conscientious objection simply to keep her on American soil.
The Court Order continues with the nuts and bolts of the legal matters, until we get to page 7 of 14, where it states, "First, Plaintiff's challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and 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." The court order continues further in the paragraph to state with what appeared, to me at least, to be blatant derision of Ms. Taitz by the court, where on page 8 it states, "Then, implying 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 the President." My favorite part of the 14 pages is mid-page 8, where the Court addresses an item brought by Ms. Taitz in support of her contentions on behalf of Captain Rhodes, where it states, "Moreover, as if 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 produced." I looked up that Poll, Ms. Taitz is dishonest and inaccurate; it was 58%, and is not considered in any way a scientific poll, not that those kinds of polls are something I would expect a court to consider anyway. Or a teacher, if I was writing an essay or a term paper; I'd expect a low grade, heck, I'd expect an 'F' for submitting that.
The document continues "Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that the Defendant has the burden to prove his "natural born" status." The final sentence of page 8, which continues on page 9, states in perhaps the most telling statement from the court about the values of the "birther movement", "Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order purportedly to "protect and preserve" those very principles." So much for the 'birthers' understanding our government, knowing our constitution, and espousing the values of this country.
I particularly enjoyed the sense of the Court's feeling expressed in a scathing opinion of Orly Taitz' arguements and proof, near the end of page 9, "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." I've always enjoyed Lewis Carroll's work.
The pages go on and on to delineate the failures of Ms. Taitz legal arguments and documents entered in support of those arguments, but one of the most interesting of those comments is the footnote at the bottom of page 10, which addresses again in quite scathing terms the observations on yet another of the bogus Kenyan birth certificates, at too great a length to quote here. There are still 4 more pages of the order, which includes a passing reference to the Terri Schiavo litigation.
I enjoyed the top of page 13, the first full sentence, "Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if President George W. Bush were still in office. 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." In other words, apparently the Court is not persuaded by Captain Rhodes' assertion that she is not, simply, a coward. To have allowed herself to be used by someone with the dubious competence and motives of Orly Taitz also suggests she is a fool. Such demonstrations of courage and patriotism, such devotion to the foundation principals on which our country was founded; those patriots on the right political fringe must be so very proud.
And then there is the end of page 13, following over into page 14, which we might term the beginning of the end of the Court Order, the end of this case, and the end of similar cases if we are lucky as a country, " A spurious claim questioning the President's constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court's placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest."
I was curious Ms. Taitz professional credentials. I looked it up; she was admitted to the bar in California, where one is not required as a condition of membership to the bar to have attended an accredited law school, and where one can do their law degree course work by correspondence school. I have checked where Taitz got her law education, it is from Taft Law School, and it is a correspondence school, although it has to have even so, an ethics class requirement. I'd like to suggest that Orly Taitz would even be an embarrassment to one of those correspondence schools that ask you to draw a turtle or a pirate, from the back of a matchbook cover or a glossy newspaper insert ad. I now know from having inquired, what the disbarment process is, in the state of California where she is licensed, where not one but two complaints have been filed - and I've read them both, cover to cover. I'd like to know why something so egregious has taken so long, and still has no conclusion. But then, I'd like to know what color the sky is on the planet she is from too.
And now, despite the warning to Ms. Taitz about sanctions should she persist with frivolous law suits in this court, yes, Orly Taitz has filed yet another one. And yes, this one is just as funny as the preceding filing. Undeterred, Ms. Taitz has recruited more of her 'clients' to provide her with fodder after this one is finally tossed out for good.
Labels:
Birthers,
Dog Gone,
Orly Taitz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ms. Taitz apparently filed a Motion for an Emergency Stay of Deployment on Friday. This document the Court took to be a motion for reconsideration, and treated it accordingly. The ersatz "Motion for Reconsideration" was denied in another order from Judge Land in which he proposes fining Ms. Taitz the sum of $10,000. He further gives her 14 days to provide a response to the court explaining why such sanction shouldn't be imposed. Unfortunately, I suspect that Ms. Taitz won't realize the trouble that she's in, and will continue her paranoid assertions about the US Judiciary and the other courts which have thrown out her cases. The opinion can be read at this link: http://thoughtsofeternity.angelfire.com/rhodes_mcdonald_order.pdf
ReplyDeleteAccording to a news report, Cpt. Rhodes, the plaintiff in this action, was unaware of the filing of the Motion for Emergency Stay, and wrote a letter to the judge asking that the motion be withdrawn. If authenticated, the letter claims she was decieved and will a complaint against Ms. Taitz with the California State Bar for incompetence.
Interestingly enough, Judge Land had originally allowed Ms. Taitz to proceed in his Court even though she wasn't a member of the Georgia State Bar, and hence the bar of the federal courts in Georgia. The normal procedure would be to require her to have a Georgia attorney who was a member of the bar of that court sponsor her and to sign any filings she made. I suspect Judge Land now regrets that decision.
Rhodes certainly appears - should this letter be verified as from her - to not have authorized some of Ms. Taitz actions from the beginning. That she claims to have discovered the most recent one by watching the news which was covering the newest order from Land. THAT must have come as a shock.
ReplyDeleteIt would go some ways towards explaining why Rhodes missed a court date. Taitz gave the reason that Rhodes superiors wouldn't allow her to come to court to prevent her from participating in the legal action as more of the government conspiracy. The more die-hard birthers believed that without question. The defendants on the other hand asserted that Rhodes had never requested permission to attend the court that day...which makes a lot more sense now than it did then.
But for the birthers, it just provides more and more justification for their conspiracy theories. Proving how easy it is to believe what you want to believe - for some of us more than others, even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary.
The biggest problem I have with conspiracy theories is that it is pretty hard to get people to cooperate to do anything, even with some coercive powers available. It is even more difficult to keep people from blabbing. Conspiracy theories rely on both occurring, often for prolonged periods of time, which if you think about it, regardless of the premise of the conspiracy, just isn't likely.
Reading the filings as well as the orders is fun. Another 'highlight' besides the judge's inclusion of the occasional quote from sources as diverse as Alice in Wonderland and baseball's 'Yogi' Berra, was the little tidbit that the most recent order complains about Taitz not having all the time provided to her under law to complete something, where the judge points out that Taitz was the one requesting an expedited hearing, and that he had even held such a hearing over the lunch hour of another trial JUST TO ACCOMODATE TAITZ, so she had no grounds to object to the time frame since she herself requested it.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how long before Judge Land rescinds her status before the Georgia bar....and how much Taitz is willing to spend in sanctions.
If the past is anything to go by, Taitz won't stop even with the possible $10k sanction.
I wonder what happens if she is sanctioned and doesn't pay? I wonder if Taitz will try to organize one of those machine gun shoots where she goes to recruit new clients on the court house lawn next?
I'm wondering just how far Ms. Taitz Esq. will care to go to test Judge Land's resources - and I don't just mean his patience.
Failure to pay the ordered sanctions could result in jail for direct contempt of the Judge's order. She can appeal the sanctions ruling, but that would be foolish considering that she is 1) clearly in contempt and 2) clearly incompetent and 3) clearly without any basis for her "legal" arguments.
ReplyDeleteThoughtsOfEternity said...
ReplyDelete"Failure to pay the ordered sanctions could result in jail for direct contempt of the Judge's order. She can appeal the sanctions ruling, but that would be foolish considering that she is 1) clearly in contempt and 2) clearly incompetent and 3) clearly without any basis for her "legal" arguments."
ToE, there is NO indication that Taitz is anything but foolish, so I'm betting she will NOT answer the judge's show cause order with anything that satisfies the judge.
With responses that are subordinate to yet another platform for Taitz' birther cause, which a cynical person might see as exploiting conspiracy theories, yes. Good answers? No.
It would seem, based on previous performance (this not being an investment, LOL) that Taitz is most likely to try to use this to grandstand some more, for more attention, more money, and maybe to enlist more followers / supporters. Getting tossed in the slammer would be something Taitz could use for more sensationalism, more tv time.
I'd love to know what the financial background to all of this birther / Taitz movement is... I bet it would make accounting MUCH more interesting than usual.
I think this has been said, but in order to "Cut to brass tacks' as it were - I want to be clear about what this case is saying, both to the attorney involved, and to the larger crowd of people demanding various proof from the President.
ReplyDeleteThe President, to all necessary requirements, proved satisfactorily his citizenship. This included proving such to the Office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in order to be sworn in.
Once he had done so, any complaint asserting Mr. Obama either was not a citizen or demanding further proof thereof was just that, a complaint. It required and put the burden of proof upon the complainant - not upon Mr. Obama, or his office.
This is similar in nature to the complaint filed by Norm Colaman about supposed double counting of ballots, and received the same treatment - in short, "Prove it" was the reply from the Courts.
Mr. Coleman, as well as this vapid attorney were obligated to show evidence, they didn't and were therefore repudiated by the courts, uninimously, and unambigously. They were repudiated by Republican, Independent, and Democratic appointees alike. They were repudiated because, as part of the fundamental precepts of our nation, of our constitution, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, not the other way around - the claimant or the state are required to PROVE THEIR CASE - not the other way around. Failure to do so, meaning the alaimant's failure to do so, not only of course exhonorates the defendant, but as is the case here, and was similarly the case in the Colaman complaint, it may well result in the attorneys being repudiated and admonished by the courts, either in the decision, or in external action (as seems will happen here), following the decision.
In short, demands that Obama "stop arrogantly refusing to release his long form birth certificate" were the cries (and false crisis) only of the frivolous, and ill-educated (seemingly) attorneys and their equally ill-advised clients. The President certainly has better things to do than 're-prove' that which he adequately proved to the satisfaction of the law already - especially when it is so abundantly clear that whatever Mr. Obama provides, will never be enough, and further, that such a request is in direct contrast and contradiction to the very principal of liberty we hold dear, namely, that YOU (Ms. OPitz et.al.) have the responsibility to prove Mr. Obama isn't a citizen - he no longer has any obligation to prove he is, he has done so - nor does he have any obligation to continue with this farce of a complaint. In truth, in the interst of justice, he has an obligation to refuse so that the court's time is no longer taken up by this utterly frivolous idiocy.
She, and those who subscribe to this ugly foolishness, have rightly been taken to task - hopefully soon she will no longer be practicing law - so that this case may become the cautionary tale of how frivolous lawsuits should be handled (for which this case is a poster child).
Sorry, that's Taitz, not Opitz..you get over 40, your mind is a terrible thing to use....or whatever it was Dan Quayle said.
ReplyDelete"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, how true that is" - D. Quayle, VP United States 1989-1991, attempting to quote the slogan for the United Negro College fund - "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
First off I am not a birther, I think Obama is a citizen, but there is one point the truthers make that several people who disagree with them on everything else is true. In Hawaii you can obtain a short form birth certificate without being born in Hawaii so it really does not prove he is a citizen. Now the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper on Aug 5, 1961 should be enough, in 1961 it would have been almost impossible to have a child in Kenya and get the announcement in the Honolulu paper the next day. And I do have one question that I have never seen discussed in all this except in one of Pens comments is proving his citizenship to the Chief Justice before being sworn in. Do all president elects do that? Just wondering because it makes sense if the constitution requires you to be a natural born citizen that at some point you would have to prove it but I have never heard it before. I still think Dick Morris had the best arguement against the birthers. Hillary really, really, really wanted to be president and if there was any way to stab Obama in the back with the citizenship thing there would have been a knife in his back as soon as he won that first primary.
ReplyDeleteTTuck,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question. First, it is my understanding that the Chief Justice is under at least some obligation to check and confirm the validity of the person being sworn, but that's based on heresay. What my comment primarily stems from is that the Chief Justice is precluded under the rules of his office, from swearing in anyone he would have reason to believe is not legitimate. John Roberts is a conservative, I find it rather unlikely he'd agree to swear anyone in whom he had reason to believe was not qualified to hold the office.
Regardless, I encourage you to visit factcheck.org on this point - they have seen, touched, examined, photographed the short form. Is it POSSIBLE to have been forged, of course, but it's extremely unlikely. Equally, it's unlikely the birth announcemetn or hospital's records could have been forged.
My reply to birthers, whether open ones, or those like KR who denying being such, yet persist in making unreasonable 'demands' of the President - is really three-fold.
1. When it was reasonably obvious GWBush had his service record redacted in 1998 by the Texas Adjutant General - concealing his choice of duty and in part whether he fully completed his tour of duty successfully, people who complained were called 'Tin-hatters' and Dan Rather's career at CBS ended over the fact that someone forged a document to which he referred. We've seen dozens of forgeries so far, and folks on Fox News continue to give this nonsense airing. What does this make the 'birthers' and Fox?
2. Obama has proven his citizenship to the standards required by the State Department - I suspect this is what John Roberts relied upon - but regardless he has completed his lawful obligation. The burden of proof is on you, the birthers, not on Obama, that's the point of the court's reply to Ms. Taitz. If you suspect the President isn't a citizen, go prove it. It's not his problem, it's yours.
3. If you believe in the rule of law and the primary responsiblity of the government or the complainant to prove their case, rather requiring people to disprove negatives, in short, if you believe in the Constitution, you'd drop this drivel. I don't believe Obama providing his long-form Certificate, which might have information about his family he has NO obligation to release - will satisfy ANY of the birthers. AFter this, it will be further claims of forgery, or further claims of conspiracy, or worse. You all claimed Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, years ago you claimed fouridation of the water was a communist plot - you claimed Obama wants to kill seniors, NOTHING he does or provides will EVER satisfy your need to hate him, and to find reasons to want to repudiate even the fact of his holding office. This issue is the province of the insane, at least for those making any further demand of the President. Ms Taitz is going to lose her law license, just like the Intelligent Design folks were repudiated by the courts in the Dover ID trial - proof is required, not just speculation and boot-strapped illogic, real, hard proof, and when it comes down to it, you have nothing but conspiracy theory buloney.
While I think that Ms. Taitz has aptly demonstrated her incompetence, and I sincerely hope that she is disbarred for her actions, its not a foregone conclusion. The California Bar has a number of sanctions available, including public reprimand, public censure, suspension and disbarment. Given the degree of her incompetence, and the numerous charges against her, I think an indefinite suspension or disbarment is likely, but not an absolute.
ReplyDeleteActually the times I have seen people like O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on Fox talk about the birthers they were making fun of them as the wackos they are. The birthers, the people who supplied Dan Rather with the documents, the 9/11 truthers, the moon landing truthers are all cut from the same cloth. Some are right wing, some are left wing and most of the rest of us on either side try to push them away so we don't get guilt by association.
ReplyDeletettucker wrote:" In Hawaii you can obtain a short form birth certificate without being born in Hawaii so it really does not prove he is a citizen. "
ReplyDeletett - do you have proof of this? It does not track with what I have found in my research, but I am open to other sources of information, and would like to use it to verify what you are writing for myself. In any case, the long form original HAS been authenticated by individuals such as the Republican governor of Hawaii and others as being valid, accurate, and legitimate. No one is relying all that much on the birth announcements in the newspapers; that is just additional corroboration, not primary proof. This was further affirmed by the passage in Congress of the resolution (I think it was a resolution, will have to double check) commemorating Hawaii becoming a state, referenced by Judge Land specifically.
tt also writes: "The birthers, the people who supplied Dan Rather with the documents, the 9/11 truthers, the moon landing truthers are all cut from the same cloth. Some are right wing, some are left wing and most of the rest of us on either side try to push them away so we don't get guilt by association."
I couldn't agree with you more, tt. Well said! One of the pieces I am currently researching involves an interview with Jon Ronson, from the UK, who has written a very interesting book, The Men Who Stare at Goats. Ronson's areas of interest include conspiracy theory followers and extremists; I actually intend to take a look at as many of the books he has written as possible for something on that very subject.
I refer you to the newer article, Ronald Reagan, or Ray-gun above.