Tag Archives: Judicial misconduct

Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution, Citizen Wells open thread, August 30, 2010

 Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution

In response to Obama, the hustler, continuing to arrogantly defy presenting a legitimate birth certificate, an article from the Citizen Wells archives dated November 12, 2008 is presented.

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
Philip J Berg response to ruling:
“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:
“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”
“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”
“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”
Read more here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html
Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”
Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :
“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”
Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the complete article here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Read more:

 
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-tenth-amendment-bill-of-rights-us-supreme-court-federal-judges-state-judges-state-election-officials-electoral-college-electors-philip-j-berg-lawsuit-leo-c/

Leo Haffey, Nashville TN district attorney, Judicial misconduct, Judge Gloria Dumas, New bond hearing, Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, Joseph S. Daniels, Officers of court, Justice

I was encouraged to discover recently that a formal complaint was filed against Judge Gloria Dumas on September 21, 2009 by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. We will await the results and hope for justice in that matter. However, what is protecting defendants such as attorney Leo Haffey, from statements and rulings by Judge Dumas? I contacted the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary and spoke to Mr. Joseph S. Daniels about this problem. He informed me that it was not their duty. I spoke to a friendly press liason from the Nashville District Attorney’s office today. She was not aware of the complaint filed against Judge Dumas. Well, now they have no excuse. From the Nashville District Attorney’s office, headed by Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III.

 

Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III

District Attorney General

20th Judicial District

NashvilleDATorryJohnson

 

“He is to judge between THE PEOPLE and the government; he is to be THE SAFEGUARD of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, anymore than those who deserve prosecution to escape; HE IS TO PURSUE GUILT; he is to protect innocence; he is to judge the circumstances, and, according to their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safety of the citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the use of individual passions, and individual malevolence, when he cannot use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public justice, in sound discretion, requires it.”

Catherine Fout vs. State of Tennessee, 4 Tenn. 98 (1816)

http://da.nashville.gov/portal/page/portal/da/home/

The district attorneys and prosecutors are officers of the court and their duty and obligation is to seek justice.

From a legal dictionary:

“officer of the court n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.”

 

The Nashville District Attorney’s office is now aware of the formal complaint filed against Judge Gloria Dumas on September 21, 2009 by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. I notified them today, Friday, October 9, 2009. Joseph S. Daniels of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, is now aware that Judge Dumas presided over Leo Haffey’s hearing a few days before the complaint was filed. Once again, here is the handwritten motion written by Leo Haffey in jail.

LeoHaffeyJailMotion2

 
  

Here is the formal complaint filed by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against Judge Gloria Dumas for judicial misconduct.

 “1. Following a full investigation authorized under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated 9 17-5-304(b)(3), the three judge investigative panel composed of the Honorable Pamela Reeves, the Honorable Jean A. Stanley, and the Honorable Dwight E. Stokes found, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-304(d)(2)(A), that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Honorable Gloria Dumas has committed judicial offenses alleged herein in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-302, and directed disciplinary counsel to file formal charges pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 17 -5-304(d)(2) (A).”

Read the entire complaint

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/COJ/documents/DumasGloria%20Formal%20Charges.pdf

The more I read and experience the judicial system in Nashville and Tennessee, the more concerned I become for this nation and for citizens like Leo Haffey.

From the Chattanooga times Free Press, June 21, 2008:

“Study: State low in judge disciplineARTICLE TOOLS”
“Tennessee’s system of evaluating judicial misconduct is too secretive and does not include enough ordinary citizens in the process of disciplining judges, according to a new study by a legal watchdog group.

“Judges are being allowed to judge other judges in Tennessee when it comes to ethical breaches,” said attorney Suzanne M.

Blonder, senior counsel for Halt Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based, nonpartisan group that monitors accountability in the

judicial system. “That gives the appearance of impropriety and makes the system seem self-protective.

Tennessee’s commission responsible for overseeing judicial ethics is a 16-member panel called the Court of the Judiciary.

Halt’s 2008 judicial accountability report card, released this week, ranked the state’s procedures for disciplining

judges as 31st in the nation based on criteria such as public participation and transparency. Washington state’s system

of judicial oversight ranked first in the study, while those in Maine and Mississippi tied for last place.”

“Ms. Blonder said the problem with Tennessee’s private letters of reprimand is that “they’re so lenient that they do not

adequately deter judges from abusing their power on the bench.”

The most egregious actions, however, lead to public reprimands, Judge Daniel pointed out. In rare instances, a judge may

elect to go through a trial to dispute allegations of misconduct.”

Read more:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/21/study-state-low-judge-discipline/
The District Attorney of Nashville, TN has an obligation, as an officer of the court, to promote justice.

Once again, to quote the Nashville District Attorney’s office:

“He is to judge between THE PEOPLE and the government; he is to be THE SAFEGUARD of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, anymore than those who deserve prosecution to escape; HE IS TO PURSUE GUILT; he is to protect innocence; he is to judge the circumstances, and, according to their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safety of the citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the use of individual passions, and individual malevolence, when he cannot use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public justice, in sound discretion, requires it.”

The Nashville District Attorney’s office must immediately grant attorney Leo Haffey an emergency hearing to set bond and promote justice. Anything short of this is abject hypocrisy and dereliction of duty.

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/