Obots in HISTORY! William Rawle (1759 – 1836)
William Rawle
Today I announce a new series of articles here at Obama Conspiracy Theories: Obots in HISTORY! The opening honors go to Dr. William Rawle, Lawyer, District Attorney, Judge, Legislator, Abolitionist, Historian, Federalist and Obot!
Rawle was a personal acquaintance and correspondent of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and other framers of our country. He was a founder and first president of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. This is from his biography from the University of Pennsylvania where he served as a trustee:
…He was admitted to the Philadelphia Bar soon after his arrival in 1783, and that same year married Sarah Coates Burge….
Young Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799. (more…)
Burden of proof (Vermont 1907)
It is an established principle that the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution lies on the prosecution. A defendant may remain silent and be acquitted if the case against him is insufficient.
There is something a reversal of burden, however, in a quo warranto case, one in which the government, after meeting a threshold of likelihood, challenges the right of someone to hold office; the burden of proof lies with the office holder. Courts have ruled, however, that only the government may bring a quo warranto suit, and those made by private individuals have been summarily rejected by the courts.
That said, should some part of the government bring a quo warranto action against President Obama, would he be obliged to prove his eligibility? Perhaps not. I refer here to a case of the State of Vermont v. S. Hollister Jackson from the Supreme Court of Vermont in 1907, where the eligibility of the states attorney of Washington County was challenged because, it was claimed, he was not a citizen at the time of his election to office.
This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto to test the right of the respondent to hold the office of state’s attorney of Washington county. As the case is presented, the only question for our determination is: Was Mr. Jackson a citizen of the United States at the time of his election to the office in 1904? It is said that we were not in harmony with the authorities when we held, in State ex rel. Danforth v. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594. that in these proceedings persons in possession of an office are presumed to be regularly elected and entitled to hold until the contrary appears; and that the true rule is that in such cases the burden is on the respondent to show legal title to the office [see source for citations]…
However this may be, we regard it of no importance in this case as the citizenship of the respondent is presumed. This presumption arises from the mere fact of his residence here [see source for citations]… It was this rule which Judge Redfield had in mind when he said in Blood v Crandall 28 Vt at page 400 that the general presumption is in favor of citizenship.
The details of the case (which was dismissed) are not of particular interest to the Obama question since Mr. Jackson was not born in the United States.
Orly gets a facelift
Orly Taitz
With a glitzy new blog theme featuring the Orly Taitz glamor shot [right] the American Flag, the Constitution, law books and a judges gavel, the Orly Taitz blog now has a pretty heading. Orly is clearly the focus of the graphic image of her new blog.
Formatting problems continue with the articles and lots of scrolling is still needed to navigate the home page. Now if Orly Taitz could just muster a little respect for the American Flag, the Constitution, the law and judges, we would have a substantive improvement in her blog’s content, for example this front-page item from one of her fans:
I wrote a scorcher today to Judge Land, with copies going out to some very sophisticated people. Just hang on. I may be jailed, but thousands of people will know Judge Land much better.
Jailed? I believe it is a crime to threaten a federal judge. I guess it depends on how scorching the letter was. Did Orly warn her supporters of this, I wonder?
Tell it to the judge
Justice
This article shares what some of the judges have had to say about the “birther” lawsuits.
Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so….
She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric…
After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
Federal judge Clay D. Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald.
Plaintiff’s complaint, at its core, is but another attempt to embroil a United States District Court in an ongoing controversy over whether Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States of America…. As in Hollister, “[t]he right thing to do is to bring [this case] to an early end.”
Federal Judge Richard Lazarra in Cook v. Simtech.
Lawyers who come to court to present grievances, however, are held to a higher standard than disadvantaged or unrepresented persons. For lawyers, there are rules…. John D. Hemenway is hereby reprimanded for his part in the preparation, prosecution and filing of a legally frivolous suit in this court.
Federal Judge James Robertson in Hollister v. Soetoro.
More to come, as opinions become available.
The tale of two judges (updated)
One could get dizzy from all the spin put on Judge Carter’s remarks in court yesterday and the subsequent orders in Barnett v Obama. I’m going to take the position that all federal judges basically follow the law, but they may vary in style. I thought Judge’s Carter’s style might be better understood by contrasting it with another Federal judge, presented with a similar case.
The case is Hollister v. Soetoro, the court District of Columbia District Court and the Judge, James Robertson. Hollister was Phil Berg’s case, the “interpleader” case in which he tried to force the court to decide who was really president, Obama or Biden, using a trick from contract law. Berg’s 1st Amended Complaint was filed February 11, 2009 and the same day Judge Robertson issued an order “that defendants need not respond to the amended complaint and that plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due 2/13/09″. A few motions went back and forth, but the result is that on March 5, less than one month after the amended complaint was filed, the judge dismissed the case.
Judge Robinson declared that the “interpleader” case was “frivolous”. He said:
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of the books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end. [Emphasis added.]
Judge Robinson, it seems, is unwilling to waste the court’s time on frivolous lawsuits.
In contrast, Judge David O. Carter seems a more patient sort. He is giving Orly Taitz explanations as to what she does wrong, and even tried to assist her in accomplishing service. He is going through all the forms including scheduling a trial date, even though there may be no trial. Whatever his personal view of the merits of the lawsuit, he is acting in a very measured and objective fashion. On the one hand he promises not to summarily dismiss the case on a technicality (giving glee to the Orly tribe) but on the other hand suggesting that there will be no discovery until the motion to dismiss is dealt with, and leaving a none-too-subtle hint to the US Attorneys that a motion to stay discovery might be in order. [I think part of the confusion here is on the definition of technicality. I suppose failure to meet a deadline for service is technical for one side, and not having standing is considered technical by the other.]
Carter’s even-handed language may lead those of us itching for resolution (either trial or dismissal) to read too much into his statements. In the end, I am confident that he will follow the law, and Orly, if she pays attention, might get a bit of a legal education in the process.
