Archive

Posts Tagged ‘South Carolina’

Orly lies in court…

October 2nd, 2009 No comments

…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.)

Senator Graham calls birthers “crazy”

October 2nd, 2009 2 comments

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina and close adviser to John McCain during the 2008 election, came out and said that the birthers are “crazy” and urged other Republicans to follow suit. South Carolina, not a bastion of liberalism and home to Joe “you lie!” Wilson, proves that it has not gone totally down the toilet with Graham’s candid remarks.

Who knows. Perhaps Graham will run for President in 2016 following Obama’s 2nd term in office.

Read more at the Huffington Post.