IMPOSES PENALTIES AGAINST HEROINE & THREATENS DR. TAITZ
by John Charlton
(Sept. 16, 2009) — In an outrageous miscarriage of justice, Federal Judge Clay D. Land ruled in favor of the defense’s Motion to Dismiss, in Rhodes vs. Mac Donald, ordering the heroine to pay all the legal costs of the defense’s lawyers.
With incendiary language and pharasaical reasoning, Judge Land dismissed the suit, claiming that Rhodes’ claims that Obama had not proven his eligibility, and that there was no recourse in the Army regs to question the lawfulness of orders, were “patently frivolous.” He also included in his official ruling, a threat of sanctions against Attorney Orly Taitz, if she should file any “similarly frivolous” actions before his court!
His ruling notable for its invective and ad hominem attacks, for example:
Plaintiffs’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become know as the “birther movement.” (p. 1)
Plaintiff’s complain is not plausible on its face . . . Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. (p. 9)
and is otherwise remarkable for its viciousness of argument; especially when Judge Land uses a double standard, in that he discounts the Kenyan BC produced by Dr. Taitz on the grounds that it has not been authenticated, but astoundingly admits the jpg image of the COLB of Obama which has never even been proved to exist, let alone be authenticated, is to be accepted as true and factual! (p. 10)
He also construes Attorney Taitz arguments as referring only to place of birth, and entirely ignores the requirements of Article II, Section 2, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, where it indicates “natural born” citizen, and not merely a “citizen”, which requirement Obama cannot fulfil due to being born of a British father (Specifically mentioned in Rhodes’ pleadings, on p. 37).
He then mocks Captain Rhodes for not refusing all commands, and thereby argues her motives are political.
Finally, he orders Rhodes to pay the costs of the government attorneys which defended the plaintiffs.
In summary, it appears that Judge Clay D. Land never had an intention to address the merits of the case, but merely sought to characterize Rhodes’ pleadings in the most negative light possible.