Wednesday, September 16, 2009


posted by Bill Arnett @ 2:32 PM Permalink

From the last case filed by Oily Tits [Orly Taitz] questioning President's Citizenship:
Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff's counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11©.
It has long been obvious that this crap of challenging the President's citizenship is naught but GOP bullsh*t, and IMO Oily Tits isn't fit to represent a frog claiming it is not amphibious (although maybe oily has failed to follow, or did not know of, my father's sage advice, "Never trust a man with a cane toad in his pocket." She obviously appears to have licked the toad's a$$ WAY too many times.)

She has been warned of being sanctioned only by this court, but I'm certain other, future courts, will follow suit. If she continues trying to baffle the courts with BS she will most likely, someday, be disbarred, and in my opinion it would be well-deserved.

NOTE: The link provided is to a pdf file, but it is very small and downloads quickly.

Labels: , , , ,


At 7:08 PM, Blogger The Sailor said...

Orally Taints?

At 9:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think perhaps this will -- in the future -- "poison the well" for any military member who attempts to challenge the President's unconstitutional use of authority regarding the criminal prosecution of an (one or more that is) undeclared war?

After all, even the top commander-in-chief legally cannot order any United States military member to participate in or otherwise commit a war crime, and that's what Obama's adopted "War-on-Terror (TM; BFEE)" really is, one gigantic and ongoing war-crime.

As far as it goes under the current circumstances, the simple act of willful participation In America's prevailing military debacles is -- within itself -- a Constitutionally prosecutable war crime.

I mean, it's right there in the Constitution ... America's President, the mostly Caucasian Obama, may only prosecute wars that have formally been declared by Congress AS SUCH, or in other words, a wholly unambiguous DECLARATION OF WAR. As it is, any military member who refuses to fight in this terror war-crime -- especially as prohibited by the Geneva Convention treaties -- for the above-mentioned reasons, has a wholly righteous reason to refuse service. By the same reasoning, it would also clearly be unconstitutional to punish any military member for such refusal.

At its foundations, the government already knows it can't win this particular pissing match honestly. I mean, the test case has already been conducted. Rather than allow a precedent to be produced for all disaffected service members, Lt. Watada was provided a double-jeapordy escape.


At 2:51 AM, Blogger Bill Arnett said...

This case represented a attempt to escape service in a combat zone (and a military action was approved by congress - in a bullshit way, of course). The defendant said she would have no problem serving in Iraq if gwb was still president, and had not expressed any difficulty with following Omama's previous orders as directed by the army until she received orders for a combat zone.

This despite the fact that the US taxpayer, via the army, paid for the last two years of her schooling and supported her through her two year internship in return for her promise to provide two years active duty service.

Please read the whole brief from the court and you will see that this was plainly grasping at straws to avoid serving as ordered by the President and had nothing to do (in reality) with any BS questioning of Obama's rightful election as president as Plaintiff had no problem following any other orders given while under Obama's lawfully authority, she was just seeking any way she could to avoid being assigned to a combat zone, which, IMHO makes her a coward and cheat and someone not willing to keep their promises, a slug of the highest order.

So: Her case was bullshit and frivolous.
She actively sought to break the contract with the Army to which she agreed to the conditions.
She was ordered there to serve in the capacity of a doctor, a non-combatant.
She did not protest the legality/illegality of the war and, in fact affirmed that if gwb was still president she would have willingly served and did not raise the issue of refusing to follow orders that would make her (allegedly) a war criminal by following the orders of a president she liked, she just doesn't want to serve that "uppity" Obama.

This is simply a case of a coward seeking to avoid holding up her end of the contract she entered with the army and not something so noble as claiming the war illegal that would make her a war criminal for serving there.

The court dealt with a very narrow issue: a crass attempt to escape performing her end of a contract, and there is nothing 'brave' or 'morally' relevant in her attempt to avoid an assignment to a 'hot zone.'

I agree, and always have, that w committed several war crimes, but Plaintiff did not raise the issue so it is no surprise that the court did not address it.

The attorney, oily tits, sought to manufacture a case that would force Obama to prove his innocence, completely turning the law back-assword and completely abdicating her responsibility to prove her case in accord with the long, long, long settled provisions of American jurisprudence and as preserved by countless cases.

She even went on record that she PAID BRIBES to her sources in Somalia to illegally obtain tainted evidence that should rightfully have been dismissed as the 'fruit of the poisoned tree.'

Also, a couple of times now you have used 'BFEE', a reference with which I am not familiar. Would you please explain this reference to me?

So to wrap this up, this was a contract matter with a cowardly Plaintiff attempting to escape performance of the contractual terms to which she willingly agree by speciously claiming Obama's citizenship (IMO a well-setteled issue) and nothing so noble as questioning the legality of the war.

A contractual obligation case and nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Iraq 'dispute.'

At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm sorry if I was being too obscure (kind of an occupational hazard with my style of writing). I do significantly agree with your assessment regarding this particular "non-service" perp.

But what I see is not so much a "coward" trying to do an end-around of a service obligation as a "politically motivated 5th columnist" who's actually trying to poison the chances of ALL service refusers regardless of the reasons for refusal being stated. Hell, this could even be a "deep-cover" Obamaniac.

From the getgo, we pretty-well know the advertised reason for refusing to serve is utter bullshit. Beyond any doubt of my own, this particular dog never will (and was never actually ment to) hunt.

But now, a couple of times at least, some high-profile, "birther" oriented service-refusers have been slapped down by the courts for their rather flagrantly obvious "cowardice" in uniform. If these people really had wanted not to have served, they actually would have used the Constitutional issue of war crimes just as Watada had ... and their cases would have been disposed of at least as disingenuously as Watada's had been.

NOW, if and when some future military member does attempt to peruse the wholly legitimate Constitutional issue, they may-well also summarily get slapped down (at least at the lower court levels) as just being nothing but a more clever coward.

As it is, since I was introduced to the Vidiot by way of, I have incorrectly presumed that all Vidiot surfers also visit Bartcop. As far as I know, Bartcop "invented" the BFEE reference (Bush Family Evil Empire).


At 2:39 PM, Blogger Bill Arnett said...

Thanks for the explanation of the BFEE reference. I like that.

"Bad cases make bad laws," someone wiser than me said, and this and the other cases like it will make it extremely difficulty to pursue future cases dealing with ANY constitutionally-based cases, one reasons I'm certain Oily Tits keeps bring frivolous cases for the GOP.

After all those years of rethug rule I'm not certain we have very many, if any, constitutional rights.


Post a Comment

<< Home