Did judge Land hand me the discovery through the back door?
Posted on | September 21, 2009 | 21 Comments
| thistle thistle-159@hotmail.com 64.203.113.26 |
Submitted on 2009/09/21 at 5:37am
ORLY PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING COMMENT. IT WAS IN AMERICAN GRAND JURY SITE: IMPORTANT REGARDING JUDGE LAND AND YOUR CASE……………… Leon Brozyna Says: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Taitz: In perusing a number of web sites and commentary on the Rhodes case and the latest results, I find that the comments generally fall into two groups — *** 1 – the judge is terrible and the ruling is an injustice. I suggest that there is a third possibility that exists that no one seems to have publicly mentioned — that Judge Land is brilliant by handing down a deliberately inflammatory ruling bordering on judicial misconduct thereby inviting Rule 11 discovery. Just think about it for a minute. If Judge Land had granted the TRO, the case might have dragged on for months before getting to the discovery phase. On the other hand, the judge could have dispassionately denied the TRO by narrowly interpreting the law in favor of the defendants and Cpt Rhodes would have deployed to Iraq, making further motions moot. By ruling as he did, as though he was having a judicial melt-down, it seems he has practically handed you an engraved invitation to submit a motion for Rule 11 discovery. Did he do this deliberately in the hope that you would take this route? We’ll never know. Even if this case blows up in Obama’s face, Judge Land’s thought processes may remain forever hidden (unless he has his memoirs published after he retires or dies). The point is that you now have, in this case, the best possibility to go for discovery – perhaps even better than in the case pending before Judge Carter. Craft your arguments carefully – Obama’s defense team may come to really hate Judge Land for his seeming melt-down. Another thought – there was an earlier case in which the judge dismissed plaintiff’s motion and referred to blogs, the internet, twittering, etc. in his ruling. Made quite a splash when the ruling was handed down. I believe the case is still out on appeal – may have tried for rule 11 discovery based on judge’s conduct. Something else you may want to look into after you’ve responded to defendant’s motion before Judge Carter. Everything seems to be coming together. The next few weeks may just turn out to be the most important in our Republic’s history. Our prayers are with you. Leon Brozyna |
Comments
21 Responses to “Did judge Land hand me the discovery through the back door?”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 21st, 2009 @ 10:43 am
No doubt about it.
It is a golden goose handed to the Orly team on a legal silver platter.
What a great site.
The unification of fantastic minds pointed toward a common goal.
Awesome. Only in America…by outstanding Americans that drive this site.
Stay focused.
Best of Regards
F. A. Leonetti
September 21st, 2009 @ 11:23 am
I have to agree with Leon Brozyna. Good job. I myself heard that from another site. I think it makes sense and is constitutional. I have some paralegal experience and I beleive that this Judge made big time errors in accordance to the ruling. When I first read it I kept asking myself by what authority or previous judgement or discovery did he refer to when he seems to infer that the BC was posted on the internet. Anyways I think you must persist with this Judge and not only prepare yourself for the current arguments but to try and be prepared for anything else that can be thrown your way in this case. The Judge should have had the common decency to grant a temp. restraining order for her deployment until this case was / is properly adjudicated ! .. my thoughts..
September 21st, 2009 @ 11:24 am
ps….. I’m am from Worcester, Ma area, back in the 1700’s there was what was called the “shays rebellion” .. I think our courts are due for a shake up ! No more legislating from the bench.
September 21st, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.
I haven’t got a clue as to what this means but did find it here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
G B
September 21st, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I have said that Orly needs this kind of help she is spread thin but going strong. There are times we cannot see the Forest because of the Trees.
I cannot see any Judge being able to deny Obana’s Father is an alien so he has a the most two citizenships. This fact makes him inelligeble to serve as President of our Great Nation, and discovery is needed in order to prove he did not relinquish his American Citizenship when he was adopted by Sotertero.
September 21st, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
ALERT ALERT: Breaking technicality found.
The website https://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703 has a document, with Barack Obama’s signature on it, that purports to be a “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242. The significant thing about this is that it is completely invalid. The notarization of Obama’s signature was made by a Virginia notary and as such is subject to Va. Code 47.1-16 (effective July 1, 2007). The Virginia law requires that: “Every notarization shall include the date upon which the notarial act was performed, and the COUNTY or CITY IN WHICH it was performed.” Violation number two occurred when Ray Anderson, Notary failed to note when his own authority to notarize documents expired. The Virginia law requires that requires it with the word “shall” is stated here, “Upon every writing which is the subject of a notarial act, the notary shall, after his certificate, state the date of the expiration of his commission.” Obama may try to seek safe harbor from any criminal fraud allegation on account of “swearing that he is qualified to hold the office he sought” that such document was invalid and thus could not be used as evidence against him. This is just one piece of evidence applicable to the state of Arizona. Obama inc. may well have bungled the other 57 states requirements on candidate eligibility. In the worst case scenario for Obama, the invalid candidate attestation invalidates the amount of Arizona electoral college votes which in turn invalidates the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes.
This is a very technical application of the rules but we should not apologize for applying the law when Obama never apologized for his own hardball tactics where he used the rule book to win his first race for Illinois state Senate against Alice Palmer. See https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html . I also suggest that any discovery questions relating to this “notary issue” is fair game when standing is based upon 3 U.S.C. § 15. As has been said, possibly multiple provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Therefore, upon the Leo Donofrio, basis: since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should also demand discovery for any issue related to the invalidity of each individual state presidential eligibility documents. Apparently, the Arizona documents are invalid because they require a valid Notary endorsement, which Obama failed to provide.
(Note this argument fails if the Arizona document was merely cropped and the original actually contains the location of the notarial act and identifies the commission expiration date.)
September 21st, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Oh, Orly, please be careful. This usurper will show no mercy in unleashing his minions upon you.
September 21st, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Let’s cut to the chase. The fact that Obama has stood back and let public discord and confusion over his birth status persist so long is prima facie evidence of his mental incompetence. A reasonable and prudent person would have long ago produced a certified birth certificate to responsible government officials for inspection.
Therefore, the constitutional means of removing an incompetent sitting president should be invoked. If Obama is sane, he will either prove he is a natural born citizen or resign. Alternatively, he should be removed as mentally unfit for office.
September 21st, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Requests for Admissions
1. Admit that the “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242, is genuine, attached as Exhibit A.
2. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it does not comply with all the requirements of Va. Code 47.1-16.
3. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it fails to identify the location of the notarial act.
4. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it fails to identify the commission expiration date.
September 21st, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
The website https://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703 has a document, with Barack Obama’s signature on it, that purports to be a “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242. The significant thing about this is that it is completely invalid. The notarization of Obama’s signature was made by a Virginia notary and as such is subject to Va. Code 47.1-16 (effective July 1, 2007). The Virginia law requires that: “Every notarization shall include the date upon which the notarial act was performed, and the COUNTY or CITY IN WHICH it was performed.” Violation number two occurred when Ray Anderson, Notary failed to note when his own authority to notarize documents expired. The Virginia law requires that requires it with the word “shall” is stated here, “Upon every writing which is the subject of a notarial act, the notary shall, after his certificate, state the date of the expiration of his commission.” Obama may try to seek safe harbor from any criminal fraud allegation on account of “swearing that he is qualified to hold the office he sought” that such document was invalid and thus could not be used as evidence against him. This is just one piece of evidence applicable to the state of Arizona. Obama inc. may well have bungled the other 57 states requirements on candidate eligibility. In the worst case scenario for Obama, the invalid candidate attestation invalidates the amount of Arizona electoral college votes which in turn invalidates the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes.
This is a very technical application of the rules but we should not apologize for applying the law when Obama never apologized for his own hardball tactics where he used the rule book to win his first race for Illinois state Senate against Alice Palmer. See https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html . I also suggest that any discovery questions relating to this “notary issue” is fair game when standing is based upon 3 U.S.C. § 15. As has been said, possibly multiple provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Therefore, upon the Leo Donofrio, basis: since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should also demand discovery for any issue related to the invalidity of each individual state presidential eligibility documents. Apparently, the Arizona documents are invalid because they require a valid Notary endorsement, which Obama failed to provide.
(Note this argument fails if the Arizona document was merely cropped and the original actually contains the location of the notarial act and identifies the commission expiration date.)
September 21st, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Dear Orly:…the post today of the (going through the backdoor) to get the case for discovery sounds great! Please check into it. And will continue to write emails and check your site as often as possible. If I write from home, please post my comments, as it won’t work for me from my webtv! Thanks, and don’t Rat-man cause you any loosing sleep! He’s a jerk and so is anyone else that doesn’t want this thing solved!
You are right about this entire situation, Orly. HANG TOUGH! And don’t let these miscreants of society get to you! Take care and PLEASE…DO NOT QUIT!!!!!!!
Your loyal friend, Davey
September 21st, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:
In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.
As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.
With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11. When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:
Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding. The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:
“[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”
That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.
They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief. The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…
The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.
Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.
(See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)
The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case. In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.
This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made. But I see no official explanation available to the public.
Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.
Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:
1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.
NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My prayers are for you and Judge Carter’s continued strength and safety.
I pray Judge Carter and his family remain safe. IMO the future of this country may rest solely in his hands.
American Voter.
September 21st, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
https://www.scribd.com/doc/11594015/Kenya-Parliament-Minutes-5Nov08
Interesting comments regarding Obama being of Kenyan soil
September 21st, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Looks like obamas chickennnnnnns have come hoooooooome…….. to ROOST!!
September 21st, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
PLEASE NOTE/ For all those who wrote me such kind words…….
Read the article again….I did not write these thoughts. They were from the gentleman, LEON BROZYNA.
When it comes to Law, I am ignorant. I only copied his thoughts and placed them for Orly to look over to see if it is a possibility for her to use in her case. I also do not know Leon B. However, his post to Orly reminded me of another case regarding a Judge Robertson and Hemenway that was similar.
Thanks for your kind letters to my email, but I can’t take credit.
September 21st, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Dear Mrs. Taitz,
I am responding to CW2 Brozyna’s comments on your web site about a Rule Eleven Discovery tactic. The way I understand the Rule Eleven Discovery tactic is that if Judge Land sanctioned you after proving you were in violation of Rule Eleven (b), then it would open a path for you to press Rule Eleven Discovery based upon the fact that Judge Land is accusing you of violating Rule Eleven (b) in your representation(s) to the court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, III. Pleadings and Motions. Without an actual fine, does that bar you from Rule Eleven Discovery? Would a simple punishment such as verbal or written admonishment, rebuke or reprimand be grounds to press a Rule Eleven Discovery to show that court that you didn’t violate Rule Eleven (b)?
Before Judge Land sanctioned you, wouldn’t Judge Land (the court) have to prove that you and/or the other lawyers in the case or other cases that were sanctioned actually violated Section 11(b) Representations To The Court? For instance, wouldn’t Judge Land have to disprove one or more of the following?
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
If Judge Land states that he has proven that you violated one of those in (1) through (4) above, is it reasonable to believe that you can file for Rule Eleven Discovery in your defense at that point? If you disproved the Judge with the evidence, would the evidence by paramount enough for you to move forward with your case? So is CW2 Brozyna correct? Has one door shut and a window opened for you? when God shuts a door, another window is always opened.
Sincerely,
Phillip
https://www.freedomtroopers.org
———-
CW2 Brozyna wrote:
>>Another thought – there was an earlier case in which the judge dismissed plaintiff’s motion and referred to blogs, the internet, twittering, etc. in his ruling. Made quite a splash when the ruling was handed down. I believe the case is still out on appeal – may have tried for rule 11 discovery based on judge’s conduct. Something else you may want to look into after you’ve responded to defendant’s motion before Judge Carter.
Everything seems to be coming together. The next few weeks may just turn out to be the most important in our Republic’s history. Our prayers are with you.
Leon Brozyna
CW2, USA (Ret)<<
September 22nd, 2009 @ 9:51 am
To William Read Jr.USA, Ret.
It is doubtful that Obama ever had U.S. Citizenship in the first place as his first citizenship in all probability was British (born in Kenya, or through his Father) Then came the Indonesian Citizenship. No record of him ever having American Citizenship. Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship. So either was, Obama would be a dual citizen which is not allowed, to be President, he is British, not allowed to be President, he is not a Natural Born Citizen no matter how you look at his birth, so this is no way he can be a legal President by Constitutional Standards.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Dear Orly,
Please let us know IF you intend to PUT into Judge Land’s FACE the unrefutable FACT that Barack Obama has admitted AGAINST HIS OWN INTEREST that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 making him a dual citizen at birth and by his own admission NOT Qualified for the OFFICE…….not to mention…
Judge Land’s obvious bias whereby he accepts Obama’s Colb as posted on te internet….yet refuses to give any credibility to the Kenyan certificate with at least an attached Declaration of its source..?????
Force his….Taking Judicial Notice of Obama’s statement re: BNA of 1948 is as factual and true as it gets….keep the obvious in front of their face….damn the rest!
September 22nd, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Orly, I apologize in advance if you have seen the following comment from Devvy Kidd’s article, “Line of Succession If Obama/Soetoro Removed From Office,” but it it very intriguing. Is there anyway to get in touch with this person? Posted at Repubx….
Steph
“I work for a major news company, however, I am unaware of the canadafreepress story that you refer to. I am forced to use masked, out of country, anonymous internet proxies just to post this blog. I don’t know whose lives are at risk, I don’t know the names of all of the lawmakers involved in the case. I have only been given vague information and that information has nervously come in bits and pieces from several credible sources and one lawmaker. I do know that, according to my sources that, the Barack Obama presidency is in serious question. My original source has become sources, and now more people are talking. Most of the insiders in Washington, California and Texas will shape how this will play out with Carter, Orly and Keyes. The Rhodes case is a last resort, a southern court, a southern judge, and a military officer refusing to deploy is a problem. But if Obama has any hand in dismissal, it will be known, and the bribed will be sought. Keyes vs. Obama will be the case I can most assure you. You have to understand that even though most of the concerned citizens want the story to come out now, there are federal agencies, and sectors within those agencies, who thankfully are currently disconnected from control and influence of the White House, who’s work is not finished. Most conservative and even liberal journalist alike are very desperate for the story, many of them want it to save their own careers which they know are now in question. I am getting hints that this all plays out in late Oct. I do however; expect to see more Obama documents released in the next 30 days.”
September 22nd, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
One must ask this simple question; in what way does Judge Land imply his position as a Judge, not only in this case, prior cases as well, which of course requires research?
Assumption of outcome without proper research and analysis is truly bias, misleading, misguiding and without doubt an offshoot. This analysis holds true in the Legal field or any other Business operating in this Country. The Case you are speaking of, is the Hollister Response, whereby Judge Robertson “Threatened” the Attorney John Hemenway with “sanctions” for filing what the Judge referred to as a “Frivolous” law suit. The fact of the point is that Hemenway “Welcomed” the sanctions, simply as it would allow Hemenway to file an appeals using Rule 11, which in short would grant him immediate discovery.
Hemenway mentioned this in his motion to Judge Robertson whereby Roberson “Immediately” Backed off with the sanctions and instead only issued a verbal warning to Hemenway, knowing that hemenway would in fact be granted discovery during his appeals using the Rule 11. If Orly is in fact “Sanctioned, even by 1 U.S. dollar, then she in fact can apply Rule 11 in the appeals and in fact, be granted discovery in order to defend herself from such sanctions. However, through my research, I personally doubt he Judge will Sanction her, like Judge Robertson, this Judge will soon be reminded Discovery would be inevitable in appeals, and I do not believe he would allow this. (He through his fit, he tossed his ideas, he threatened, and he will recant, with a verbal warning). Otherwise, Discovery is all for the Plaintiff….
Although I cannot post a link to Hemenway’s response, I will attempt to spell it out, (Rule 11 in its speciality can be found on page (19-21) as well as case law reinforcing past rulings pertaining to such discovery as applied to sanctions. I will break it up so that it is not a link……It can be found at:
https:// www. scribd. com /doc/13326739/ Hollister-Response-to-Show-Cause-Order-Rule-11-March-16-2009
October 2nd, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
all good things