#Oily Tits sinks for third time
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
In a comprehensive, respectful but damning opinion, a federal court puts
an end to the Birthers' best hope
Alex Koppelman
Oct. 29, 2009 |
The Birthers' last, best hope -- a case brought by Orly Taitz on behalf
of Alan Keyes, among many others -- has failed. On Thursday, U.S.
District Judge David Carter issued a ruling in which he dismissed the
case, which had been ongoing since the day of President Obama's
inauguration.
The ruling, which can be read in PDF form here, is pretty striking.
Taitz's followers had always thought of Carter as the judge most
sympathetic to their claims, and though they'll undoubtedly turn on him
now, the Clinton appointee's order shows how important he thought it to
give the Birthers' claims a fair hearing -- not because he's anything
approaching a Birther himself, but because he takes his job seriously.
Though the opinion is ultimately devastating to Taitz's legal arguments,
and Carter did take the rather unusual step of directly addressing the
attorney's conduct, it's also respectful, thoughtful and serious.
If Taitz and the rest of the Birthers had any chance in court, it was
with this case, because of Keyes' inclusion, as well as the presence of
two other minor candidates from last fall. Not only did he run against
Obama in the Illinois Senate race of 2004, but he also mounted a third-
party presidential campaign last year. For this reason, he had an outside
shot at showing that he had been personally affected, a key issue in
proving standing, which is necessary for a court to take up a case. The
U.S. Attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Obama, had said that because
Keyes had no shot at victory, he couldn't prove standing. (This prompted
a moment of levity from Carter, who noted of those who'd voted for Keyes
and the other candidates, "The Court may have already met this entire
group of voters at the hearings on this matter.")
The judge was obviously disturbed by this defense, and he worried about a
slippery slope, asking if the argument would have applied to Ross Perot.
But, still, he did not find that Keyes and his fellow plaintiffs had
standing, because they could not prove "redressability" -- that is, they
couldn't show that the court had the power, under the Constitution, to do
anything about the wrongs they alleged. This led to one of the more
compelling parts of the opinion, an argument about the Constitution
itself, and what the Birthers fail to understand about it even as they
claim to be its only defenders:
The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an
orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can
continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep
away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a
pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state
of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers
that were developed by the founders ....
Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the
Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the
Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was
popularly elected by “We the People” -- over sixty-nine million of the
people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior
court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous
for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the
Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the
constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic.
Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that
constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
As I've noted before, no court decision like this will be enough to kill
the Birthers, or the myths about Obama's birthplace that they've been
spreading. No conspiracy theory dies that easily, and given that one
quarter of Republicans don't believe the president's even a U.S. citizen,
we should expect that the Birthers will rise from the dead in time for
the 2012 election.
But this may be the final blow that ends Taitz's leadership in the
movement. Other leaders had already grown disillusioned with her, and
skeptical of her prowess as a lawyer. The end of Carter's opinion won't
help her on that score:
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’
arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead,
Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions
and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer
seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the
Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation,
Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel ... to bring
serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give
Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of
counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of
Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.
This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case
being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint
upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would
not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While
the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009,
Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz
successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several
occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant
accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused
to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to
recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her
to comply with the Local Rules. Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of
her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with
their new counsel ....
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that
Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this
Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz
may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before
this Court.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
Phlip
> Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this
> Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz
> may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before
> this Court.
Bye-bye!
And please get some mental health treatment...
Catfish Hunter
wrote:
> Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit\
Don't worry, the bither movement lives on, the Democrats still have
Philip Berg in the bullpen.
Phlip
<workisafourletterw...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 9:54 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit\
>
> Don't worry, the bither movement lives on, the Democrats still have
> Philip Berg in the bullpen.
Absolutely. Anything to keep Obama's opposition reduced to the lowest
common denominator...
bvallely
wrote:
> Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit
Excuse me, shithead - despite 12 years of communication, you insisted
that, for some reason unknown to sane people, that I had taken over my
own idenity.
Or something. Whatever it was you claimed didn't make enough sense to
parody.
Now you're laughing at the birthers?
NOTHING they have said has been a thousands as idiotic as what you
wrote.
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 29, 9:54 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit\
>
> Don't worry, the bither movement lives on, the Democrats still have
> Philip Berg in the bullpen.
Is he the one that puts "various" words in "quotes" for no "apparent"
reason?
Pass the popcorn. This should be good.
liberal
> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>
So you think the "birthers" have a legitimate argument?
bvallely
> So you think the "birthers" have a legitimate argument?
At one point, 33% of all Democrats believed that George W. Bush was
invovled in the 9/11 bombings. Howard Dean implied so on NPR.
A third of the Democrats actually believed that the President allowed
the murder of thousands of Americans.
Makes what the Birthers believe sound downright reasonable in
comparison.
bvallely
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:07:43 -0700, Catfish Hunter wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 9:54 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit\
>
> > Don't worry, the bither movement lives on, the Democrats still have
> > Philip Berg in the bullpen.
>
> Is he the one that puts "various" words in "quotes" for no "apparent"
> reason?
Tell me the story about the girl in the capsule that I supposedly
wrote.
Kevin Cunningham
> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>
Com on cum gums, lets see the evidence that should have mattered.
See, cum gums, you haven't been beaten once you have been beaten time
after time after time after time...........
And what does it show? That you are morons, absolute fools and
virulent racist.
And wait, there's more! You will get to see Counselor Taitz either
pay her contempt fine for the case she had in Georgia or be dragged to
jail.
Why do you racist creeps have a Russian national as counsel?
Kevin Cunningham
So if your opponent does something wrong then you get to do something
wrong. Wow, interesting defense. Gee, judge, he robbed a bank so I
robbed a day school. We're even.
Try that the next time your trying to explain your over time parking.
What Valley Girl can't understand is the birthers are racists. They
hate Obama for being black. They have no other facts, nothing. But
that doesn't mean a thing to racists, they want Obama out of office
but that ain't gonna' happen.
Phlip
> On Oct 30, 1:22 am, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit
>> And will, unexpectedly, be promoted to a high federal bench.
>
> Com on cum gums, lets see the evidence that should have mattered.
> See, cum gums, you haven't been beaten once you have been beaten time
> after time after time after time...........
>
> And what does it show? That you are morons, absolute fools and
> virulent racist.
In terms of talking big, even if Obama _were_ born in Kenya, the number one best
thing his entire administration could do about Orly & the Birthers is absolutely
nothing. Even a wingnut could see that - if one were rational. So, yes, I guess
that's impossible...
Dacato
So what you are really saying is that all this birther nonsense is
some sore of payback for the way Dems treated Bush?
Phlip
He's saying that people who think Bush was not surprised on 9/11 are just as
crazy as people who think Elvis helped Aliens wire the WTC towers for controlled
demolition...
...AND he's saying the Birthers have a right to be just as crazy.
bvallely
> On Oct 30, 12:21 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> So you think the "birthers" have a legitimate argument?
>
> > .
> > At one point, 33% of all Democrats believed that George W. Bush was
> > invovled in the 9/11 bombings. Howard Dean implied so on NPR.
.
> > A third of the Democrats actually believed that the President allowed
> > the murder of thousands of Americans.
> > Makes what the Birthers believe sound downright reasonable in
> > comparison.
.
> So what you are really saying is >
I've never once read a sentence written by a liberal which started
with those seven words where what followed wasn't a unqualified lie.
.
>....that all this birther nonsense is some sore of payback for the way Dems treated Bush?>
.
No, what I'm saying is that the possibility that Obama played some
fancy footwork to cover up some legal problems is a thousand fold more
likely than an statement of literal madness that one third the
Democrat Party took as a given.
bvallely
> He's saying that people who think Bush was not surprised on 9/11....>
.
Not surprised????? Really?
We're not talking "not surprised," but that one third of the Democrats
believe Bush knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it, or
was involved in the planning.
One out of three Democrats believe that the President of the United
States is a mass murderer.
That is literal madness.
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
It's a favorite tactic of fake Bill's: "Well, they're just as crazy as we
are!"
bvallely
wrote:
What do you know - an Atheist who's a lying sack of shit.
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
Certainly. Republicans have absolutely no control over their actions and
behavior. Democrats, though example, make them do everything.
Bill Clinton is the reason Steve Canyon became a child molester, you know.
GaryDeWaay
de...@dead.com 5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09 says...
If you are just making this up, its Vallely-sick territory.
--
--
Their entire focus (and appeal) lies in that less evolved part of the
brain that governs toddlers: the world revolves around you and you are
entitled to whatever you want. Everyone else should be scorned and
distrusted because they are trying to take what you want to have. That's
been the GOP's modus operandi since the beginning.
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
> In article <As2dnRHblpXODHbX...@posted.carinet>,
> de...@dead.com 5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09 says...
>
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:33:32 -0700, Dacato wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 12:21 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> .> So you think the "birthers" have a legitimate argument?
>> >>
>> >> .
>> >> At one point, 33% of all Democrats believed that George W. Bush was
>> >> invovled in the 9/11 bombings. Howard Dean implied so on NPR.
>> >>
>> >> A third of the Democrats actually believed that the President
>> >> allowed the murder of thousands of Americans.
>> >>
>> >> Makes what the Birthers believe sound downright reasonable in
>> >> comparison.
>> >
>> > So what you are really saying is that all this birther nonsense is
>> > some sore of payback for the way Dems treated Bush?
>>
>> Certainly. Republicans have absolutely no control over their actions
>> and behavior. Democrats, though example, make them do everything.
>>
>> Bill Clinton is the reason Steve Canyon became a child molester, you
>> know.
>>
>>
>
> If you are just making this up, its Vallely-sick territory.
>
Well, I don't seriously believe Bill Clinton caused that.
As for Canyon, there is evidence that he is a convicted pedophile, and
that the reason he hangs around in the political groups is because it's
one area where he can still play his games, but not violate his parole to
avoid areas frequented by children.
Think about it: he knows nothing about politics. He clearly only wants
to manipulate and control people for his amusement. He spent quite a
while claiming to be rich and powerful in an increasingly obvious effort
to intimidate and dominate. Even though he was outed a long time ago, and
any normal troll would have gotten discouraged and moved on to other
pastures, he has no place to go. He can't survive on blogs, which are
moderated and where he can't play his games of stalking and personal
attack. He has to avoid other open areas, where there might be
children.
At least one other user has found a likely match for him, with a
surprisingly similar name, and a jail record that coincides fairly well
with "Steve" appearing on these groups.
Oh, and the Vallely is a fake, too. I doubt the real Bill Vallely has
posted here in at least six years.
GaryDeWaay
Well if there is actual evidence of this, alright. What a disgusting
moron. It still gives me the willy's to see this stuff thrown out...
even Stevie doesn't deserve it if not true. I prefer liberals err on the
side of caution here though.
>
> Think about it: he knows nothing about politics. He clearly only wants
> to manipulate and control people for his amusement. He spent quite a
> while claiming to be rich and powerful in an increasingly obvious effort
> to intimidate and dominate. Even though he was outed a long time ago, and
> any normal troll would have gotten discouraged and moved on to other
> pastures, he has no place to go. He can't survive on blogs, which are
> moderated and where he can't play his games of stalking and personal
> attack. He has to avoid other open areas, where there might be
> children.
>
> At least one other user has found a likely match for him, with a
> surprisingly similar name, and a jail record that coincides fairly well
> with "Steve" appearing on these groups.
>
> Oh, and the Vallely is a fake, too. I doubt the real Bill Vallely has
> posted here in at least six years.
>
Nope... its him. Like I said... he's a disgusting lying wingnut moron
that is also a gifted artist. Who gives a shit what he does for a
living?
I judge him by his words here, which are vile enough on their own.
5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09
Nah. I knew Vallely back about six years ago. Barring a complete mental
breakdown, this ain't him.
Dacato
What percentage of Republicans think Obama is a Marxist? Communist?
Socialist? Fascist? Racist?
Is that not literalk madness too?
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
Actually, Bush was a mass murderer.
Or perhaps the US really did have a legal rationale for bombing the shit
out of Baghdad, and Bush just forgot to tell us?
bvallely
Steve
Why would he tell you anything, Jamieson? You're permanently banned
from becoming a citizen.
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody
owes you anything.
bvallely
>
> > .> He's saying that people who think Bush was not surprised on 9/11....>
>
> > .
> > Not surprised????? Really?
>
> > We're not talking "not surprised," but that one third of the Democrats
> > believe Bush knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it, or
> > was involved in the planning.
>
> > One out of three Democrats believe that the President of the United
> > States is a mass murderer.
> > That is literal madness.
.
I don't know. If they do, they're probably been convinced by the
facts that he:
1. He admitted cosying up to the Communists in his autobiography.
2. He didn't do a thing to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the
fall of the Berlin Law.
3. He's cosying up to CURRENT Communists.
4. He appointed at least one out and out unapologetic communist as a
cabinet member.
5. The man who gave Obama his political start is an unrepentant
terrorist who wanted/wants to tear down capitalism.
.
> Racist?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo
http://www.forumeter.com/video/185352/Barack-Obama-The-Racist-In-His-Own-Words
.
> Is that not literalk madness too?>
.
Nope.