If you can't get enough Orly, here are links to the motion and events around the Connie Rhodes Application for a TRO.
May 2009
Complaint filed with the California State Bar anonymously to avoid retaliation.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15546236/Taitz-State-Bar-ComplaintAugust 28
Orly files for an application for a TRO for Captain Connie Rhodes in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19208941/RHODES-v-GATES-et-al-1-MOTION-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-by-Connie-RhodesAugust 28
Application for TRO denied the same day saying the “plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Judge Rodriguez also noted that the rules of civil procedure were not followed in that not one attorney or record signed the application.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19208941/RHODES-v-GATES-et-al-1-MOTION-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-by-Connie-RhodesSeptember 4
Orly files the same suit in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19208941/RHODES-v-GATES-et-al-1-MOTION-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-by-Connie-RhodesSeptember 16
Judge Land issues order to dismiss Connie Rhodes TRO to prevent her deployment to Iraq and calls out Orly as leader of the birthers. He also says “Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
O R D E R
Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. 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 (Doc. 3) 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire,
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15, 2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues her “birther claim.” 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. 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.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdfSeptember 17
Orly files motion for reconsideration of dismissal and let’s loose with a barrage of charges against Obama and Judge Land.
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPLOYMENT
PENDING MOTIONS FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE
7.6 and to AMEND and/or
ALTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e)
Plaintiff Connie Rhodes files this request for stay of Deployment pending Plaintiff’s Motions for Rehearing and to Amend and/or Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). By this Court’s summary grant (on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 16, 2009) of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Document #8, filed on Friday September 11, 2009), Plaintiff was denied her Fifth Amendment right to
due process of law, in particular, by this Court’s violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia, to wit:
7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent's counsel desiring to submit a response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the same within twenty (20) days after service of movant's motion and brief.
<snip>
The Court’s failure to address these three key issues again, standing alone, is suggestive that the executive branch is exercising control over the Court’s decision-making process, and is a sufficient ground, by itself, to justify this Court’s grant of an EMERGENCY STAY OF DEPLOYMENT for at least TEN DAYS until Plaintiff’s Counsel can exercise Plaintiff’s rights under Local Rule 7.6 of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to file her Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment a because it is “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Local Rule 7.6 and because the judgment entered September 16, 2009, is manifestly unjust and incorrect within the meaning of jurisprudence construing Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and will surely result in a VOID JUDGMENT for denial of due process within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4) by reason of the Court’s unexpected wild deviation from the 20 day response period provided by the Local Rules of this very Middle District of Georgia.
It is reasonably certain that the men who framed the Constitution did not anticipate the election of a man as a President who appears to have prevaricated about his place of birth and then ordered his loyal followers to ridicule all those who questioned the contradictions inherent in his own biography, such as the obvious fact that his Father was an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the British Crown when he was born, even though this fact alone would disqualify the President as a “natural born citizen”, regardless of his place of birth. This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for failure to present facts, and yet has ignored or disregarded the facts concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s birthplace sub iudice aliena which were submitted to the Court in the form of the 1961 Hospital Birth Certificate submitted in the Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (Document 10, entered September 11, 2009) in addition the consistent but later dated Certificate which was submitted as an Exhibit to the Complaint and original Application for Temporary Restraining Order. These documents are FACTS and they went unimpeached, unquestioned, and yet utterly unaddressed in this Court’s order of summary dismissal. The fact that the President has admitted his Father was not a citizen, but a British Subject, at the time of birth, is an incontrovertible fact, which supports Plaintiff’s charges that the President is an alien. The Court’s opinion ridicules this point, along with the evidence that “the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook,” (Document 13, Pages 7-8). But in so ruling, albeit in obiter dicta this Court ignores some of the soundest and most carefully researched and professionally assembled and presented evidence, collated and substantiated by a former agent of England’s Fabled “Scotland Yard”. By its contradictory and condescending tone, the Court thereby denigrates its own asserted standard of adherence to evidence as the primary arbiter of legitimacy of any position asserted in litigation.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.15.0.pdfSeptember 17
Subodh Chandra files complaint with California Bar against Orly
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/09/complaint-to-california-bar-re-orly-taitz-91709.php?page=1September 18
Connie Rhodes asks to withdraw her case and fires Orly
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-regarding-from-plaintiff-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180September 18
Judge Land issues order to show cause on why he should not impose a $10,000 fine on Orly for misconduct.
O R D E R
“It was deja vu all over again.”
In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Instead 2 of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-regarding-from-plaintiff-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180October 2
MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE
CLAY D. LAND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a)
The undersigned Orly Taitz, former counsel to Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes files this Motion to Recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a), in support of both theories of recusal. First, there is some circumstantial evidence that Judge Clay D. Land may have had extrajudicial and ex-parte contacts with the Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder (See Affidavit, Exhibit A). Second, a preliminary review of the results of the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land’s public disclosures concerning his investments, it also appears to the undersigned that Judge Land may be disqualified because he has equity ownership of certain securities (e.g. Microsoft and Comcast) which are aligned both politically and economically with a key Defendant in this case, namely the de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in such a direct and personal way that it could be said that this Judge has a financial stake in the outcome of the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes’ original case-in-chief.
October 11
Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages
Not Required in Public Sector Mail & Wire Political Corruption
Plaintiffs have, in the course of their investigations during the past year, accumulated a substantial amount of evidence concerning the Mr. Obama’s fraudulent manipulation of his own identity, and the legal identity of others. To this end Plaintiffs have previously submitted the Affidavit and Independent Investigative Report of Former Scotland Yard Inspector Neal Sankey and now submit the expanded Report of Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels. These two private investigation reports, although slightly duplicative, show beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of manipulation of Barack Hussein Obama’s identity, employment, and residence information.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20921150/Request-for-Judicial-Notice-11-Oct-2009October 13
Today's order:
CONCLUSION
The Court takes no joy in reaching the conclusions it has reached in today’s Order. As correctly observed by Judge William Schwarzer from the Northern District of California: Of all the duties of the judge, imposing sanctions on lawyers is perhaps the most unpleasant. A desire to avoid doing so is understandable. But if judges turn from Rule 11 and let it fall into disuse, the message to those inclined to abuse or misuse the litigation process will be clear. Misconduct, once tolerated, will breed more misconduct and those who might seek relief against abuse will instead resort to it in self-defense. While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice. As explained above, counsel’s Motion to Recuse (Doc. 24) and Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to the show cause order (Doc. 25) are denied. Counsel Orly Taitz is hereby ordered to pay $20,000.00 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of October, 2009.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
