Spread the love


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:

(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.
Attorney Taitz then demolishes Judge Land’s treatment of the evidence presented in the case:
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.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Orly Taitz speaks for me, just like Joe Wilson, Sheriff Arpaio, etc.

    By his own Admission Obama’ birth was Governed by British Law…his birth was governed by the British Monarchy. We have a Ponzi Prez who is British at birth which is the Main Reason why the Founders placed that Article II Sec 1 clause to PREVENT SUCH A THING. We can have a preisdent that BOWs to the QUEEN of England.
    Once a Brit always Brit.

    Get rid of the INSURGENCY PRESIDENCY and all the ACORN Pimps 7 prostitutes for Obama.

    Jambalaya, Jumboliar, Obamaliar

  2. I was in court with Orly on both occasions, and Land was very condescending!

    I am proud to be a Brave, Intelligent, Responsible, Thinker Heeding Eligibility Requirements (B.I.R.T.H.E.R.)

    Mr. Charlton replies: I added boldface and periods, to make the sense of this comment more apparent; I didn’t grasp what 12th gen was saying at first.

  3. I hope the plaintiffs get better treatment from Judge Carter than they got from judge Land. They deserve better. The condescending tone, of Land was right out of the Alinsky playbook. Land used so many of the Obot talking points that he got carried away, and clearly showed his bias on the matter. If he’s unable to be neutral and look at the evidence without bias then he should recuse himself, and allow justice to be done. When he called them “birthers” I immediately knew, this was the wrong judge for this case, and he was on the side of “The Government”.

    The government by the way, is an illegal government, with a usurper as president.

    But, according to Judge Land, ” it’s a frivolous matter”.

  4. Why isn’t a doctor listed on Obama’s Hawaiian COLB?

    Why is there no Hospital identified on his COLB?

    Why did the Democratic party remove the certification of electability check box on selected states eligibility forms which requested it?

    Does the footprint match?

    How did Obama travel to Pakistan during a time when it was on the US Restricted list?

    Why were there several news blackouts on Obama’s eligibility BEFORE the 2008 election?

  5. If somebody fraudlently steals a political office and are confronted, it is a political issue? I guess in the same way if a robber steels a television set, it is a media issue.

  6. Why would this provision have been placed in The Constitution, if the Founding Fathers had not foreseen the danger of a candidate trying to usurp authority of a free people ? As the situation has arisen, why are our Courts, our Judges, our Media hellbent on NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION as they have been since before Barack Hussein Obama was elected ? It was if Obama had to metamorph in front of a camera for the world to see, to prove he was from somewhere else. According to millions, I mean mult-millions of Americans who believe he had changed into something else, where is the Court in its protection of the Constitution ? Congress is impure and even the most conservative Senators push their heads into the sands (Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe said an investigation into Obama’s records would “take too long”), the courts are biased and we have, potentially, an usurper as President who just passed on updating the missile defense system for Europe. Talk about a formula for destruction of the world’s greatest Republic of all time….. are there ANY Patriots in the media to call this issue into question ? Where is a conservative team of reporters like Woodward and Bernstein ? Richard Nixon suffered such a treatment, it was investigated and we called it Watergate. Is this Obamagate ? Where is the simple implementation of the Freedom of Information Act ? Where is the Departmenet of Justice ? Please leave a message, America is out to lunch or on a long vacation.

  7. go orly

    she should have mentioned that obama was not a NBC because Obama admitted that his father was a Brittish subject and the judge did not address that issue. Again the age old definition of NBC requires both parents to be US citizens and in OBAMA’s case his mother wasn’t old enough by US law at the time to pass along citizenship and his father clearly wasn’t.


    Mr. Charlton replies: Dr. Taitz raised the issue in her original pleadings; in this new request for Emergency Stay she refers to it by saying his father is an alien.