DR. TAITZ’S BRIEF EXPLAINS INJUSTICE OF CLAY D. LAND’S RULING
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 9, 2009) — On December 7, 2009, Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Major Stefan Cook, has filed an appeal to her case Cook v. Good with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. The briefs were received by the court today as posted on Dr. Taitz’s website, www.orlytaitzesq.com. Dr. Taitz had filed a notice with the Federal District Court in Columbus, Georgia, back on Sept. 15th. The Post & Email summarized the history of the case in its report on Sept. 15th.
The original case, Major Stephen Cook vs. Colonel Wanda Good et al., was dismissed on July 16, 2009, by Judge Clay D. Land. Taitz argues in her appellant brief, that the court did not provide sufficient time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and that the court erred by “disregarding most of the facts of the case.”
Taitz cites the loss of Cook’s $120,000 job at the defense contracting company, Simtech, as “the injury”which should have given Cook standing before the court, stating that Land’s “omitting the issue of pressure applied on the plaintiff’s employer to have him fired from his $120,000 a year job represents a clear error of material fact, which justifies reversal of the order to dismiss.”
Regarding the two other military officers who were also plaintiffs, Taitz states that “the court assumed facts not in evidence and ignored facts in evidence.”
The appellant brief filed by Attorney Taitz is the first step to obtaining a hearing with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That Court will now consider whether to grant such an appeal, and if so, to assign dates for the trial.
For more information about the persons involved in this case, click on the tags at the end of this article.
United States v Lee 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882): the Court stated: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” at 220
Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S.Ct. 249, 216 U.S. 462, 54 L.Ed. 569, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112 where court said: “The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government,” and United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S.Ct. 10, 263 U.S. 15, 68 L.Ed. 137. In Henkel, party conspired to use official government information in a scheme of fraud.
“Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.” Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374
“Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.” Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)