"Judge" Clay Land used his own prejudices, not rule of law to find CPT Rhoades'
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 17, 2009 3:01am CST
case "Frivolous".
I have said before that "Judge" Clay Land is an incompetent cancer on the judicial bench and a coward who hides behind a robe.
I took the liberty of reading the little pissants' "ruling", so I don't insult the jerk without merit.
"Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has
become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution 1
provides in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen
. . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The "judge" admits that he is prejudiced against CPT Rhoades' attorney, even using a derogatory euphamism against the her. If the "judge" was honest, ethical or even competent, he would have recused himself from the case, citing personal prejudices. But since he is neither, he simply threw the case out.
"This Court dismissed an earlier action filed by Plaintiff’s counsel 2
on behalf of a military reservist based upon that plaintiff’s lack of
standing."
If the most dishonorable cancer was honest, ethical or competent he would know that it is not legal for him to use the outcome of prior cases to determine a present case. The fact that earlier cases were dismissed has nothing to do with the merits of this case.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/165/story/841419.html?storylink=omni_popular
"Judge" Clay Land is no better than any other farcicle fool running a kangaroo court. His incompetence and lack of integrity makes him no better then those he has sent to prison.
~~~~~
Note: I do not respond in this way because I think Obama is ineligible. I lean toward believing he is. If the judge had of allowed the case to go forward and let the evidence lead to a conclusion, I would have resected the judge and the outcome. However, there is no reason to respect a judge who uses derogatory euphamisms against the plaintiff's attorney, then expects us to believe that he threw the case out for legitimate reasons.
He had a chance to settle order Prs. Obama to settle the matter once and for all.. but he was too spineless.
His court deserves nothing but contempt because he is not worthy of his office. Every dime he accepts in a paycheck for being a judge is stolen since he refuses to earn it honestly. He is a liar, a thief and a pox on the US Constitution.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
17 Sep 09
The question I can't help thinking of is by what criteria does a judge go by to determine a case is frivolous? Is it at his own discretion or does he have to follow a certain protocol?
I don't follow with the ideas of the birthers but I wonder if some who would find their argument frivolous might think so because they don't want the issue explored. Just saying.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Sep 09
There is criteria, but it is also pretty subjective. It really isn't as abused as it would seem though. My problem with this one is the "judge" obviously had a bias against the plaintiff and the attorney. "Birther" is a slurr and using it proved this "judge's" incompetence.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
17 Sep 09
ParaTed,
I would also present to you and other MyLotters the possibility (remember, just a possibility)of a conspiracy on a much grander scale than anyone could imagine. Why else would an honest judge not take the opportunity to once and for all clear this matter up? Just a thought!!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Sep 09
Because HE happens to think that Obama is eligible so nothing else matters. Like I said, he went solely on his own biases, without regard to the rule of law.
With "judges" like this, who needs trials?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Sep 09
"Like I said, he went solely on his own biases, without regard to the rule of law."
What rule of law are you referring to?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Sep 09
The rule of law that requires him to be an unbiased judge. Sorry but "Birthers" isn't an unbiased term. It is a slurr.

@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Sep 09
Two questions for you since I'm not an attorney.
If an attorney comes before a judge for the second time with the same exact case, yet with a different Plaintiff, is it your contention that the judge is not permitted to address this attorney specifically about these cases and to inform the attorney of the consequences of bringing yet another case before this judge, or is this particular court expected to be at the mercy of the whims of this...or any other attorney...in the future? IMO, if a case is denied by the court, any attorney who brings the exact same case before the same judge for a second time, yet with a different plaintiff, is abusing the system.
Second question:
"Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that the defendant has the burden to prove his 'natural born' status. Thus, plaintiff's counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the president of the United States, to 'prove his innocence' to 'charges' that are based upon conjecture and speculation. 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 serve' those very principles."
What is your view on the issue of the legal burden of proof? If I make an allegation against you in a court of law based on conjecture and speculation, should I be expected to provide facts and evidence to back up it up or should the standard be that you prove your innocence instead?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Sep 09
It wasn't the exact same case... the only thing they had in common was Obama's eligibility. The "judge" didn't care about the details of the case, it only cared about its own personal views of Obama.
It even went so far as name calling agianst the plaintiff and the attorney in open court.
The "judge" used the prior cases of this attorney against her. What would you say if a judge told an ACLU attorney that since he or she already brought a case to his court about (say) freedom of religion, it is somehow "frivolous" for them to bring another plaintiff with the same complaint about the same offending person?
The case has specifics that completely separate it from any case brought by this attorney in the past. It was incompetent and prejudicial for the "judge" to lump them together just because it didn't want to be bothered with doing its job.
It steals money every time it accepts a paycheck for "judging".. piss on it and throw it into the gutter with the trash it is.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Sep 09
Ok, so if you go to court and the judge calls you names, I'll just laugh in your face.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Sep 09
Ted, if I were the central figure in a legal battle that had been tagged with a nickname by the press, I would expect that nickname to be attached to me as it is the staff I carry.
The clearest indication that someone has nothing solid on which to make their stand is their refusal to address specific questions that have been asked...as you are continuing to do.





