October 31, 2009
monetary penalty of $20K shall be imposed on counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court.
O’Reilly still doesn’t know what a “birther” is. Nor does his “legal analyst”.
I didn’t think this much ignorance still existed.
He defines a “birther” as someone who does not believe barry was born in the US.
Some birthers believe barry was birthed perfectly legally in the US.
For the record:
Birthers are folks who want barry to produce his long form birth certificate to prove his eligibility to hold office.
They wouldn’t even exist had barry done like he said he had and actually released his birth certificate.
And he can make them go away if he produced what Dr Fukino is vouching for. He has chosen not to. So they remain.
Super sharp, well-informed FOX legal analyst LIS WIEHL doesn’t seem to mind embarrassing herself. I don’t watch FOX so I don’t know if she is supposed to be a Republican.
WIEHL: It’s this whole movement that says, ‘Look, Obama was elected from a bad point of view – an unconstitutional point of view because he was not born in the United States.
That’s been litigated.
I’m not a legal person but to me “litigated” means there was a case that actually got to court and was acted on. Meaning discovery, discussion, deliberation and disposition – by judge, jury or plea. No case has made it to a court. Therefore nothing has been litigated.
Must have been in private, because all they have to show in public is a signed non-legally binding resolution marking Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary of Statehood. Aka it means nothing. Nada. A simple sentence was added:
Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;
That’s it. There was no “investigation”. They didn’t even hold a Senate hearing like they did for Senator John McCain.
His birth document from Hawaii was shown.
What can one say that hasn’t been said 20K times?
No DOCUMENT of any type of birth anything – Hawaiian, legal or otherwise – has been shown to any of the public or even to the judges ruling on the cases.
That alleged COLB on his website is a one-sided, uncertified, never been vouched for by Hawaii digital image. Period.
As is, it’s completely worthless as a legal “document”.
Ms WIEHL continues down her path of righteous ignorance, demonstrating she doesn’t know what Taitz’s case before Judge Land consisted of and why the sanction was meted out.
Twice [Taitz] took this case in front of the same judge.
Twice the judge dismissed it.
And folks wonder why birthers are angry?
Taitz did not bring any case – this or otherwise – twice before Judge Land.
Case One: Major Cook
Taitz brought Major Cook’s case (older, male, defense contractor, inactive military, voluntary deployment. Afghanistan) before Judge Land once and was not sanctioned in regards to it. Cook’s case was made moot before it ever got to the hearing because the Army released him from his deployment. No deployment = No TRO = No case.
Judge Land chose to hold the hearing anyway. All Major Cook sought was relief from his deployment and he had that before he walked into Judge Land’s courtroom. There wasn’t a thing for Land to rule on that had any legal bearing.
Case Two: Captain Rhodes
Taitz then brought Capt Rhodes’ case (younger, female, Army physician, active military, non-voluntary deployment, Iraq) before Judge Land requesting a TRO on similar grounds to Cook.
Problem being it had been dismissed by a Texas judge not long prior to Taitz going before Judge Land.
Fully aware of the dismissal, Land chose to hold hearings anyway…at considerable disruption to an ongoing trial he was already presiding over. He scheduled a hearing during a lunch break and when the Army wouldn’t let Capt Rhodes leave her post to go to the hearing – Judge Land continued the case so he could “talk” to Capt Rhodes.
Which meant two more hearings – both 100% unnecessary.
He knew what he was going to rule because of Major Cook’s case. He knew that it would be based on abstention – as in the Court SHALL NOT interfere with military deployment. He knew it didn’t matter what Capt Rhodes claimed or whether she had standing and he admitted that in his ruling.
But it didn’t stop him from labeling the case frivolous – when his ruling was completely independent of Plaintiff’s standing – as in, the Court SHALL NOT interfere – even if he wanted to.
He knew it with 100% certainty when he rearranged his trial schedule and when he delayed the hearing over the weekend so he could shame Capt Rhodes. And he did by questioning her Military Oath, which for her has double meaning because she is a physician. Then the sexist beast ordered Capt Rhodes to pay the defendants’ (represented by the Army and Department of Justice) court fees.
That, by far, is the most despicable thing Judge Land did.
And the FOX folks?
Not a peep.
Wiehl and O’Reilly are dumb and dumber without the Sharpies.