Judge Clay Land shows pro-Obama bias in dismissing Orly Taitz "birther" suit

From this:

Judge Clay Land - the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook - has rejected another request for restraining order from a medical doctor and Army officer and threatened sanctions against attorney Orly Taitz if she files any future "frivolous" actions with his court.

Leaving aside all of the many other issues, Land appears to have clearly shown pro-Obama bias, or at least given him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't give to Taitz. While Obama supporters, the mainstream media, and some in the GOP will certainly disagree, if a judge is going to give the benefit of the doubt to one party, he should give the same benefit of the doubt to another, right?

[UPDATE ADDED BELOW]

OK, here's what the judge says about the picture of a COLB on Obama's site (PDF here), a picture that's never been authenticated by any government agency:

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.

Bearing in mind that the picture Land refers to has never been authenticated, here's what he says about the (almost assuredly bogus) Kenyan certificate that Taitz provided:

[The] “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. p 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 unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.

Does Land have "an original certificate of authentication" for the picture of a Hawaiian COLB? Has he authenticated that Hawaiian COLB? Is a picture of a document the same as the document itself? Apparently to Land it is. It's also apparent that - leaving all other issues aside - he's clearly shown that he wasn't willing to give Taitz a similar benefit of the doubt that he's willing to give to Obama.

UPDATE: First, the COLB picture that Land is referring to is the one from FightTheSmears.com. Since that site is or was offline and is not currently reachable, see a cached copy of the picture at the last link.

Second, the point is that the judge believes that an unauthenticated certificate is valid; the fact that it wasn't evidence provided by one of the parties is immaterial. The point is that the judge shows no skepticism whatsoever when it comes to the issue of whether Obama is eligible or not. The paragraph containing the quote above is this:

Plaintiff's counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President's alleged refusal to disclose publicly an "official birth certificate" that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce "satisfactory" proof that he was born in the United States. 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.

He obviously believes that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii; he expresses no doubts about the certificate despite the fact that it hasn't been authenticated. That paragraph at the end links to footnote #3. That footnote, after a brief summary of the election, says:

It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).

As far as I know, that wasn't a binding resolution; basically, it was just for show. And, the judge is relying on whatever attempts Hillary Clinton and John McCain conducted without - like the rest of us - knowing exactly what form those attempts took.

Wed, 09/16/2009 - 20:42 · · Importance: 4