September 16, 2009
NOTE: This case was dismissed solely and primarily because the “Court is not authorized to interfere with deployment orders” and NOT because of “an examination of whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim“.
It had nothing to do with standing.
Even had Capt Rhodes had standing and barry’s duly certified long form birth certificate in her hand, the Court is not authorized — as does not have the ability – to interfere with Capt Rhodes deployment, which is all she sought.
The case should have never been brought to hearing – let alone three.
Judge Land went ahead anyway.
This is significant because he ruled that the Plaintiff – an Army physician – must pay the defendant’s court expenses.
Court expenses he and he alone caused to be amassed.
If you’re just here for a copy of the decision – here’s just the Scribd copy.
If you’re interested in the specifics and breakdown of his decision – read on.
[Emphasis & CAPS added]
Judge Land denies the TRO for Capt Rhodes because it’s frivolous and if Orly Taitz files more such frivolities she shall be subject to sanctions.
After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
Furthermore, 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.
He doesn’t mention the real reason why the case was dismissed because he knows 99% of folks aren’t going to read past the above and they will believe Capt Rhodes TRO was denied because it was frivolous.
His own words reveal how much he does not know. But it is the tone of his words and the frequent use of “birther claims”, “birther movement”, “birther agenda” and “her followers” that reveals his own prejudice and unprofessionalism.
Plaintiffs counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as the “birther movement”.
This present action is the second such action filed in this court in which the counsel purses her “birther claims”.
When did the Unites States Constitution become equated with “birther claims”?
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.
“Does not appear”? Doesn’t he know? Is he referring to the open case with Judge Carter in California?
And folks will believe that she hasn’t prevailed because the issue is frivolous and this case like all the others prove that judges have ruled barry was born in the US – when the issue has never once been heard on the merits and no discovery has ever been allowed.
[I don't think things will be any different in Judge Carter's court -- there is no way around standing -- but he will have gone into it with an open mind and with an ex-Marines concern's for the troops and understanding of the gravity of the Military Oath.]
And then Judge Land uses BIRTH CERTIFICATE but prefaces it with “short form”
Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
It is not “publicly available” or I would have a copy of it. It is publicly displayed – from only one full side.
And what is the word “indicates” doing in a decision in a court of law? Where is “evidence” or “proof”?
And he brings in the amount of money spent, which has no bearing on anything. He neglects to include the amount of money barry’s spent trying to make sure no one is ever successful in challenging him nor does he include the amount of money barry has had to return to foreign sources or that the FEC has declined to investigate.
The court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million.
…Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President.
It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought.
Where is the evidence that supports barry’s contention that he IS ELIGIBLE for the office he sought? It more than appears – it is fact – that he has had more than ample opportunity to produce it but he refuses to do so.
Here is the crux of the matter and what could open the door for discovery.
1-Did ample opportunity exist?
Next post. Suffice it to say that the answer is NO. And it does not hinge on what the meaning of “ample” is.
2-Has barry proven he IS ELIGIBLE to be president?
Another post. Suffice it to say there is no definitive physical chain of evidence proof that he is and there are more than ample inconsistencies that would support the contention that barry has NOT PROVEN he IS ELIGIBLE for the office he sought.
3-It comes down to burden of proof.
Another post. Suffice it to say that one cannot prove something does not exist if it has never been proven to exist.
4-And that obviates the need for standing.
Anyway. Back to the ruling.
Judge Land brings up the absence of impeachment proceedings – a fact that is so bizarre when you realize why he dismissed the case. And he uses as his corollary that worthless Abercrombie resolution celebrating Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary and oh by the way barry was born there dontcha know. A District Court judge is referencing something that has absolutely no legal worth.
Furthermore Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”)
How did voting for something with absolutely no legal worth “reject the suggestion” that barry “is not eligible”?
Just for argument’s sake: How did a declarative statement (not substantiated by evidence contained or referenced in the resolution) that barry was born in Hawaii translate into he meets the Constitutional requirements for presidency? The resolution did not state that barry became the 44th president because he was born in Hawaii. His title and his birth place were named without causality.
Then he states that Capt Rhodes “conscientious objections” can be accommodated as long as she is not deployed:
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.
What will be curious to see whether the Army deploys Capt Rhodes. Again, Taitz’s crazy claim of “victory” with Major Cook is coming back to haunt her. Maj Cook’s deployment could have been stopped by Maj Cook without a court case or anything else because he volunteered. And by the time the case got to court, the Army had withdrawn his deployment officially – nothing more than paperwork. There was no victory because there was no battle.
But in this case it would have meaning if the Army withdraws Capt Rhodes’ deployment. Her case been dismissed in two separate jurisdictions so no one can claim Judge Land was prejudicial because of Maj Cook’s case. According to the TX judge, Capt Rhodes had no chance of succeeding, but she re-filed anyway. So what would be the Army’s reason for not deploying Capt Rhodes when they’ve been backed up by two civil courts?
He brings up the issue of military matters in civil courts.
Moreover, mere allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command.
How was Capt Rhodes supposed to support the allegation of Constitutional violation if there was no discovery?
I found this interesting and wonder if in fact it is true within the military code:
In the present case, the defendants do not contend that the plaintiff was required to exhaust her intraservice administrative remedies, presumably because no procedure is in place for a soldier to contest the qualifications of the Commander in Chief.
And then this:
Even if a soldier had exhausted her intraservice administrative remedies, the COURT MUST DECLINE to review the military decision if the review would constitute an inappropriate intrusion into military matters.
Such as exposing a usurping Commander in Chief?
Here is the real reason this case was dismissed:
The COURT FINDS IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO INTERFERE WITH HER DEPLOYMENT ORDERS.
So if the Court is not authorized to interfere – it doesn’t matter what the premise of the case is or whether it is frivolous or meritorius. The rest of his ruling means nothing. But what are the chances the anti-birthers will even have read it?
This case was tossed out because of the Court not the plaintiff.
So whose fault is it that it was heard?
And why did he bother?
To further discourage military folks from coming forward? To further ridicule the “birthers”? Because he has an extreme dislike for Taitz and could get back at her for misrepresenting her “victory” last time?
1000 soldiers saying the same thing – it doesn’t matter what the court says – it will get press which is exactly what barry – or the military want. Unless, of course, it further deligitimizes the birthers.
First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment 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.
How can she present evidence when there is no discovery and she has no standing to get to the discover phase? And even if she did and had credible evidence, he just got done saying the Court could not interfere with her deployment orders no matter what.
Now that you know – from his own words – that this case had no chance and never should have been heard (and I argue was heard only to discredit Momma Taitz and the birthers) listen to his hypocritical words with a single nugget of truth:
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.” 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.” 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.”
Why does Taitz keep on with the madness of SSN and addresses?
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.”
What document is he referring to?
There has been no documents – they are digital images.
And it’s not that it cannot be verified as genuine – it cannot be verified at all because it cannot be obtained.
And because he won’t allow it to obtained to be verified as genuine – it most definitely should be presumed to be fraudulent.
Is there no sane, logical reasoning person around Taitz to stop her from entering language that includes “the rest of the world” and AOL polls??
And then he talks about burden of proof, which I believe can be reversed.
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.
When you apply for a job, is the burden of proof on your prospective employer to prove you are NOT ELGIBLE for the job?
Or are you, as a prospective employee, expected to provide proof that you ARE ELIGIBLE to meet the specific requirements of the job you are seeking?
Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to prove his innocence to charges that are based on 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.
Any middleschooler would readily recognize the irony of a judge making infantile “birther movement” remarks about “protecting and preserving” the principles upon which our country was founded (aka the Constitution), when the Commander in Chief has not provided definitive proof that he meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.
Again, the true reason for why the case was dismissed:
Although the Court has determined the appropriate analysis here involves the principles of abstention and NOT AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (a) 6, the Court does find Rule 12 (a) 6 analysis helpful in confirming the Court conclusion that the Plaintiff’s case has no merit.
Helpful in confirming – not determining.
The rest is not worth reading because he is trying to justify why he allowed the case to even be brought to hearing when he stated:
The Court finds it is not authorized to interfere with her deployment orders.
So he could justify these unprofessional puerile remarks:
Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.
What does that have to do with anything?
Page 10 – He weighs in on the eBay Kenyan Birth Certificate and makes the definitive point as to why it is a fraud: Taitz has done nothing other than talk to Lucas Smith. At the press conference she swore in Rep Cynthia Davis (who said states change birth certificates “all the time”) but when it came time (4:30) to do Smith she deferred. (He already swore out an affidavit.) The alleged hospital administrator’s name is right on there and she has not even emailed? Or has she and he denied it? Citizen Riggs could get to the bottom of it in a few hours.
Page 11 – Includes language directed at military who might be thinking the same thing and shames Capt Rhodes – remember, no matter if she walked in there with barry’s birth certifcate from his mother’s safety deposit box – THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RULE ON HER DEPLOYMENT, which was why she was there.
Page 12 – He goes into standing – which he has already unequivocally stated did not and could not factor into his decision because the Court “must not” interfere with military deployment orders – as in his decision was pre-ordained. Capt Rhodes’ case should never have made it past filing as in:
THE COURT’S REFUSAL TO INTERFERE with the plaintiff’s deployment…
And this is what makes Judge Land an absolute pig and is the reason he should be sanctioned for not summarily dismissing the case.
No non-military person can pass judgment on a military person’s conscience and allegiance to their Military Oath. There is nothing more sacred for an American servicemember than their oath to defend the Constitution, which, by the way, includes domestic enemies. It equates to their life. An officer’s oath supercedes allegiance to barry and sexist judges who have been bought and paid for and are using the “Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric”.
Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUSLY claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her duty.
You want disingenuous? How about his ruling that mentions “all these reasons” when only one mattered and it has absolutely nothing to do with Capt Rhodes?
For all these reasons, the Court finds the Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order should be dismissed.
And this last statement leaves no doubt as to why he should must be sanctioned:
Defendants shall recover their costs from the Plaintiff.
The only reason this case was heard was because Judge Land wanted it to be. He had no legitimate judicial reason to proceed to a hearing when it was pre-ordained:
The COURT FINDS IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO INTERFERE WITH HER DEPLOYMENT ORDERS.
He knew that from Maj Cook’s case and he knew it because he admitted he knew Capt Rhodes previous case in TX was dismissed.
And that the case does not involve:
AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM.
So the case has nothing to do with the Plaintiff’s claim, her lack of standing, her potential injury, her birtherness, her disingenuineness..and the court’s time and costs were incurred because he wanted to make a point. Because he wanted to shame the two women. Because he wanted to be included in the barry defenders. And because he wanted to make one more court ruling to discredit Taitz and “her followers” before the case goes before Judge Carter.
Instead of protracted appeals, Taitz should go directly to the people responsible for judicial reviews and make them investigate Judge Land as to why he heard the case at all.
Recall on Friday he delayed the case so he could “question” shame Capt Rhodes when he knew 100% that the “COURT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO INTERFERE WITH HER DEPLOYMENT ORDERS.”
There is no doubt about this. He heard Maj Cook’s case and he knew Capt Rhodes has the exact same case dismissed in Texas.
But he ordered a Monday hearing anyway, which then required a Wednesday hearing – neither of which were judicially necessary. And the reason Capt Rhodes was not there on Friday was because the Army wouldn’t let her. So the Plaintiff had nothing to do with the three hearings.
And what are the chances Taitz is going to do anything other than yell: treason! usurper! Kenyan birth certificate! ten thousand social security numbers! barry is arrogant! Gary Kreep is a saboteur! and solicit funds, fly all over making appearances and then misfile ranting motions that quote AOL polls?