Thursday, March 25, 2010

Birther news you missed & CIA Columbia Obama Treason Trial

On March 18th in the Cleveland Plain Dealer there was a small article that I am sure you missed. Again an article of importance is pushed to the middle pages, The title: 'Birther' proponent's sanctions upheld. I am going to paraphrase again. The article says that a California lawyer, Orly Taitz, must pay $20,000 in sanctions US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. In the two page decision the appeals court states that after considering Taitz arguments we find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the district courts sanctions. Taitz's appeal stems from Capt. Connie Rhodes who argued that Obama's presidency is not legitimate and that she shouldn't be deployed.

OK, do you see the red flag? The word is unpersuasive. The court found Taitz's arguments unpersuasive. Not lacking evidence, not because of faulty information, unpersuasive. This to me is worrisome. Could it be the court was biased? Why won't a court let this go to full trial???

Play this clip for the latest attempt to bring Obama's illegitimate presidency to trial.

Carey K Masci


Anonymous said...

You really should look into Mad Ole Orly's legal pleadings before accussing a panel of judges of bias.

This was an appeal to a case which was dismissed as having neither standing OR legal basis in fact.

When you appeal you are supposed to show cause, not, as Orly, did simply cut and paste the identical pleading and only add that the original court was staffed by traitors.

That was why her arguments were "unpersuasive", legal jargon for barking mad.

Carey K. Masci said...

thanks for the feedback. something i may have to look into.