Obots.org 2.0 » attorney http://www.obots.org Birthers need not apply Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:03:59 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Birthers think all blacks look alike http://www.obots.org/archives/93 http://www.obots.org/archives/93#comments Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:40:18 +0000 obot1 http://www.obots.org/?p=93 AG Holder

Eric Holder

In a remarkable legal brief, Attorney Taitz, included this affidavit:

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary, Lamar Rozier
on this 26th day of September, 2009, personally appeared Robert D. Douglas, known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly sown on his oath deposes and says:

On the day of he hearing for Major Stephan Cook before Federal Judge Clay D. Land, Columbus, Ga., my wife, my wife’s sister, her husband and I had entered the little coffee shop directly across from the Court House while waiting for the doors to open to the public. I was sitting in the small seating area, set aside for their customers, while facing and looking directly at the entrance to the shop. All persons entering had to pass withing 8-10 feet from where I was sitting.

NOT Eric Holder

NOT Eric Holder

I looked up and immediately recognized an individual entering and approaching the serving counter, due to his well known TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion. I knew instantly it was non[e] other than Eric Holder, the current Attorney General of the United States. I called this to the attention of those present and all agreed it appeared to be who I readily recognized. He entered unguarded, no accompanying entourage and probably thought he would not be recognized.

Not Eric Holder

Not Eric Holder either

Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet. Why does the Attorney General of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well of his beaten path? Could it possible be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little “whisper in the ear” to a Federal Judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the President’s agenda of obstruction?

Only Judge Clay D. Land can answer those question.

Robert D. Douglas

What’s the problem? The hearing in question was in Georgia on July 16th. Holder was in California on that day. I guess to birthers all blacks look alike.

]]> http://www.obots.org/archives/93/feed 0 Orly lies in court… http://www.obots.org/archives/75 http://www.obots.org/archives/75#comments Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:58:33 +0000 obot1 http://www.obots.org/?p=75 …and I don’t mean that she took a nap.

Y’all know that miz Orly has two o’dem law suits a’goin’ on. But she done file thangs in one dat don’ say whut it say in de udder. I give a big ole thank’e to PolitiJab.com wh’r I done stole dis.

In dis’un she be a’arguin’ dat the judge gib her standin’ and in de udder she say he didn’. Land o’ mercy. A Christian woman aughtn’t a’lie like dat.

Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing (and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)
Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standingof the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing(and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)
]]> http://www.obots.org/archives/75/feed 0 Phil did what???? http://www.obots.org/archives/52 http://www.obots.org/archives/52#comments Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:04:36 +0000 obot1 http://www.obots.org/?p=52 The nutty nobot blog, Repubx.com, reports an odd story. It says that Phil Berg has subpoenaed the Kenyan Ambassador for Obama’s birth certificate. Repubx even has pictures of the HANDWRITTEN subpoena. (What’s wrong Phil, you have to hock your typewriter?)

I’m not a lawyer (I did finally learn that there is no “u” in attorney), but I thought Berg’s cases were filed in Pennsylvania. So why is this subpoena coming out of California? Did the Third Circuit run out of blank subpoena forms? Given that Berg knows more lawyering than certain other nobot lawyers, maybe this is actually right.

But Phil, Phil, Phil. You can’t subpoena a foreign ambassador! It is just not done. Why didn’t you subpoena the North Koreans for their nuclear plans — get something USEFUL. It won’t work. You need one of those rogatory thingies.

So what’s going to happen (pick one)?

  1. The ambassador will ignore the subpoena (most likely)
  2. The ambassador’s legal counsel will ask the court to quash the subpoena (which they will)
  3. The ambassador will reply to the subpoena that President Obama was not born in Kenya and that there is no birth certificate, which will convince the birthers that Obama was born in Kenya–as evidenced by the coverup.

I wonder if this isn’t a hoax. It’s too nutty to be true. And who is this “Private Attorney General” clown Paul Mitchell?

]]> http://www.obots.org/archives/52/feed 2