Taitz Files Emergency Stay and Motion for Rehearing

CITES JUDGE LAND’S VIOLATION OF HIS OWN COURT’S RULES, GIVES POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL

by John Charlton

(Sept. 17, 2009) — Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D, filed today an Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment, pending the filing of a Motion for Re-Hearing, in the Case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.

Yesterday, Judge Clay D. Land garnered nationally notoriety for his rejection of Captain’s Rhodes’ case, with a severe ruling that was widely faulted by legal experts across the nation.

Attorney Taitz in today’s filings details the errors of Land’s ruling.  What follows is The Post & Email’s summary of Tatiz’s Motions, using a copy forwarded us, by Mr. Neil B. Turner.

First, Attorney Taitz alleges that Judge Land’s ruling “violates the 5th Amendment rights” of her client, “to due process of law, in particular, by” the 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.

In other words, Judge Land could not have given a final ruling, on the basis of the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss, without allowing Rhodes’ counsel to reply to that Motion, and that, after alloting 20 days for Dr. Tatiz to prepare and file it (October 1, 2009), which rule must be followed, if no notice from the Court is given, regarding the variation of observance of local rules.  Thus Land’s ruling was precipitous and surreptitious.

Dr. Taitz then charges Land with unethical behavior:

Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.  

Attorney Taitz therefore requests the Court to vacate (annul) its Sept. 16th Dismissal against Rhodes, and grant a stay of deployment to Rhodes, pending further hearing of the case.

Taitz then alleges that Rhodes and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the court, since Judge Land’s ruling never addresses the key issues raised in her complaint or TRO. Taitz cites the textual evidence, that Land’s ruling never cites anything in Rhodes’s complaint by page number, putting in doubt that his ruling had anything to do with the substance of her case.  Attorney Taitz enumerates these key points:

(1) a U.S. ARMY OFFICER’S OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC,

 

(2) the historical importance of an independent army corps to the constitutional balance of powers and Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the Constitution, and

(3) the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights in the people to question the legitimacy and eligibility of their elected officials when questions arise from time-to-time which were not contemplated by the Founding Fathers.

For this reason, Dr. Taitz requests a 10 day Stay of Redeployment to allow her time to file a Motion for Reconsideration, since Land’s ruling, Taitz alleges, 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.

Taitz then attacks the substance of Judge Land’s argument, saying:

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.

(Note that, sub iudice aliena is a legal term meaning “whose judgment pertains to another court.”)

Dr. Orly Taitz then points out that the evidence objected to by Land, concerning Social Security Numbers was gathered by a detective from Scotland Yard, and cannot be summarily dismissed without violating the very same standards Land appeals to in his ruling; and thus represents a third basis, for an appeal for reconsideration.

In summary, Taitz asks for “to vacate its own judgment of dismissal immediately and simultaneously grant this Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment. “

Noteworthy is the fact, that Rhodes’ counsel has filed this Emergency Stay request on the 222-nd anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.