Tag Archives: 28 U.S.C.

Judge Clay D Land ruling, Judicial misconduct, Captain Connie Rhodes motion, September 16, 2009, Orly Taitz, Rules for judicial conduct, 28 U.S.C., Judge Land guilty of judicial misconduct

*** Update below September 17, 2009  5:30 PM  **

Despite the lack of respect for the US Constitution, the rule of law, concerned American citizens and not obeying their oaths of office by judges and state election officials over the past year, I, Citizen Wells, respect the office of the judiciary and do not take lightly charging a judge with judicial misconduct. However, due to the serious nature of the Captain Connie Rhodes’ motion, it’s consequences for the military and nation in general, and the non judicious attitude of Judge Land in dismissing the motion, I believe it is the lesser of evils, and certainly in the best interest of ongoing jurisprudence, to check this judicial abuse of power.

The Citizen Wells blog reported yesterday, Wednesday, September16, 2009, on the ruling by Judge Land.
Citizen Wells response to Judge Land ruling
For simplicity’s sake, we reported on the ruling by Judge Land. We will leave to others to debate the courtroom banter, motion word smithing and argument methodologies.

This is indeed a serious matter. At stake is the integrity of our judicial system, upholding the US Constitution and rule of law, insuring that we have a qualified president and supporting the military as they faithfully uphold the oath they have taken to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Judge Land, as a District Court Judge, is subject to the RULES FOR JUDICIAL-CONDUCT AND JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS.

“These Rules govern proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 (the Act), to determine whether a covered judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts or is unable to discharge the duties of office because of mental or physical disability.”

“these Rules provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of misconduct and disability proceedings under the Act.”

“(e) Disability. “Disability” is a temporary or permanent condition rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. Examples of disability include substance abuse, the inability to stay awake during court proceedings, or a severe impairment of cognitive abilities.”

Disability, such as “severe impairment of cognitive abilities”, will not be addressed, although after reading the ruling, that possibility did occur to me.

“(h) Misconduct. Cognizable misconduct:

6 (1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the  business of the courts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

(A) using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
(B) accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office;
(C) having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case;
(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner;
(E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements;
(F) soliciting funds for organizations; or
(G) violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure.”

First, note, “Misconduct includes, but is not limited to”

Judge Land is obvious guilty of two of the offenses above.

 

(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner

Egregious defined: “conspicuously bad : flagrant <egregious errors>”

(Note dictionary example – “egregious errors”)

This motion was filed by a captain in the US Military who was required to take an oath to defend the US Constitution. The following was also made clear to Captain Connie Rhodes:

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Land’s persistent reference to “birther” and “birther claim”, aside from having political connotations, is condescending  and demeaning. Judge Land is  both ignorant and misinformed regarding Obama’s eligibility.

“5 of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”

Judge Land dismisses an alleged birth certificate with an attached affidavit yet he quotes the COLB, Certification of Live Birth, a document with no affadavit of authenticity, which is not a birth certificate and refers to the presence of another document. Judge Land has requested no authenticating of the COLB.

“Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.”

Judge Land has made another demeaning statement. The irony of that statement is that any middle school student knows that the president must be a natural born citizen and that the judicial system is part of the checks and balances to prevent a usurper from taking office.

“Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.”

There is no reason to believe that Captain Rhodes was motivated politically. What is readily apparent is that Captain Rhodes takes her oath of office seriously.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

This clearly qualifies as an unwarranted and hostile attack upon the character of the plaintiff.

(E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements

“To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes.”

Judge Land’s repeated use of the term “birther”, a hallmark insult from the far left and Obama camp, reveals not only his political agenda but a disregard for the US Constitution, an officer in the US military, the plaintiff’s attorney and decent American citizens. That term has no place in the courtroom, especially being flung by a misinformed, biased judge.

“Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.“

“Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.”

Judge Land uses as the basis for part of his decision a politically motivated, display of an unsubstantiated COLB.

 

Summary
Judge Land, who is clearly misinformed and makes uninformed decisions that certainly appear to be politically motivated, should be brought before a judicial review board. And, if Judge Land believes that he is making well founded statements based on substantiated facts, then the spectre of his ability to sit judiciously on the bench arises.

It is hoped that one or both of two scenarios will occur.

1. Someone will file a complaint.

 
2. I believe it is in the best interest of the judiciary system to self police this matter. Confidence in the judiciary and other branches of government is at an all time low. The American citizens need a clear signal that they will get fair treatment in court and that the judicial branch of government will fulfill it’s crucial part in the checks and balances system of our government.

How to file a complaint:

http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jud_conduct_and_disability_308_app_B_rev.pdf

 

** Update **

“Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D, filed today an Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment, pending the filing of a Motion for Re-Hearing, in the Case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.

Yesterday, Judge Clay D. Land garnered nationally notoriety for his rejection of Captain’s Rhodes’ case, with a severe ruling that was widely faulted by legal experts across the nation.

Attorney Taitz in today’s filings details the errors of Land’s ruling.  What follows is The Post & Email’s summary of Tatiz’s Motions, using a copy forwarded us, by Mr. Neil B. Turner.

First, Attorney Taitz alleges that Judge Land’s ruling “violates the 5th Amendment rights” of her client, “to due process of law, in particular, by” the Court’s “violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia, to wit:”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/taitz-files-emergency-stay-and-motion-for-rehearing/