"Birther" case against Obama smacked down by US District Court

[BKsBimmer]

September 16, 2009

US (ChattahBox) - The case opened by US soldier Capt. Connie Rhodes has been thrown out by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land, and Rhodes and her attorney have been threatened with sanctions if refiled.

Judge Land made it clear that he will refuse all future ‘frivolous’ lawsuits in this matter, and has chastised both Rhodes and her attorney Orly Taitz, who is a leader within the much ridiculed ‘birthers movement’.

According to his case summary judgment:

“(Rhodes) 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, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

He also pointed out that in the various primaries, the campaign, and the final election there was plenty of time for people to come up with credible evidence against President Obama’s birthplace.

Rhodes has been accused in the past of using her case as a means of escaping her tour duties in Iraq, though this is doubtfully the actual reasons behind her lawsuit. However, the case is now over, and she faces legal consequences if she files within the same district again.

[radix]

Something really needs to be done about these activist judges. Kidding, I'm kidding!

[xbook]

Yeah, those activist judges appointed by Bush are the worst

[BKsBimmer]

Sane people -1

Crackpots - 0

[MP0WER]

I'm curious as to why a judge can throw this out of the courts, but the judge couldn't throw the "hot coffee" lawsuite against McDonald's out of the courts?

‘frivolous’ is frivolous right?

[scollins]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I'm curious as to why a judge can throw this out of the courts, but the judge couldn't throuw the "hot coffee" lawsuite against McDonald's out of the courts?

‘frivolous’ is frivolous right?

That's because the coffee lawsuit was the evil corporations, in their evil corporate headquarters, doing evil corporation-y things.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yeah, those activist judges appointed by Bush are the worst

[Spec 1]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Sane people -1

Crackpots - 0

+1 OMG these birther people are wack jobs. I thought I only said that about libs.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I'm curious as to why a judge can throw this out of the courts, but the judge couldn't throw the "hot coffee" lawsuite against McDonald's out of the courts?

‘frivolous’ is frivolous right?

Because the hot coffee didn't say 'hot' and then burned someone. Dumb, yea, but valid. This lawsuit was thrown out because of :

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 use[d] her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric

...which is a waste of the courts time.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Spec 1

+1 OMG these birther people are wack jobs. I thought I only said that about libs.


Because the hot coffee didn't say 'hot' and then burned someone. Dumb, yea, but valid. This lawsuit was thrown out because of :

...which is a waste of the courts time.

And this weak case apparently has no bearing on the October 5, 2009 case to be heard in California.

Or, if you have evidence that the case of Lucas Smith and the AIP to be heard against Mr. Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) are not going forward, then please share.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by Spec 1

+1 OMG these birther people are wack jobs. I thought I only said that about libs.


Because the hot coffee didn't say 'hot' and then burned someone. Dumb, yea, but valid. This lawsuit was thrown out because of :

...which is a waste of the courts time.

I guess the coffee is just a waste of money...

I just feel that if they have the power to do so; they should also have the responsibility to throw off ALL frivolous lawsuits.

[DaveO]

"facts". What are these "facts" you speak of? Neocons don't need "facts". They just know what the truth is and when they speak we have to listen to them. "facts". psssh.

Oh yea, stop that "thinking" thing you are doing. The Islamic terrorists win if we do that.

[radix]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yeah, those activist judges appointed by Bush are the worst

Haha... go back and quote my first post for a special surprise.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I'm curious as to why a judge can throw this out of the courts, but the judge couldn't throw the "hot coffee" lawsuite against McDonald's out of the courts?

‘frivolous’ is frivolous right?

I am not going to stand here and defend truly frivolous lawsuits, but that case invoving the old lady and the McDonalds coffee was not a frivolous case, in my opinion. The lady received 3rd degree burns from her coffee when she spilled it on herself. She had asked for $20k at first to cover her medical expenses, then MickyDs came back with a lowball offer. She was insulted and went out and grabbed an attorney that went for blood.

Personally I am a CLUTZ, and I spill coffee on myself from time to time. Ok, you caught me, almost daily ... If I had received 3rd degree burns on my hand because the starbucks @ work superheated their coffee, you bet I would sue them too.

Shouldn't you have the right to sue a company that provides consumable goods that will cause harm to people?

[Septro]

They offered her $800 bucks on her $11k of medical expenses which included skin grafts on her 3rd degree burns. Lowball isn't the word. She only originally asked for $20k. If you've seen pictures of her burns you'd be wondering why she didn't sue sooner.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by xbook

I am not going to stand here and defend truly frivolous lawsuits, but that case invoving the old lady and the McDonalds coffee was not a frivolous case, in my opinion. The lady received 3rd degree burns from her coffee when she spilled it on herself. She had asked for $20k at first to cover her medical expenses, then MickyDs came back with a lowball offer. She was insulted and went out and grabbed an attorney that went for blood.

Personally I am a CLUTZ, and I spill coffee on myself from time to time. Ok, you caught me, almost daily ... If I had received 3rd degree burns on my hand because the starbucks @ work superheated their coffee, you bet I would sue them too.

Shouldn't you have the right to sue a company that provides consumable goods that will cause harm to people?

Not when it's goods that you choose to consume on a regular basis. it's not like it was her first time purchasing coffee, she knew it was hot.

I own a floor covering store. Do you think it would be ok to sue me because your kid, running full speed falls and gets a nasty rug burn on his face causing a permeant scar? I only ask because you know that being burned by hot coffee is a much more common occurrence. yet i haven't been sued for carpet burn on faces... or knees for that matter.

Now i am not a coffee drinker, but on the rare morning that it gets below 60 in tampa, i stop and get a hot chocolate. Damn things burn my tongue every time. I figure that an experienced coffee drinker wouldn't. I'm sure that it's obvious that i didn't research the lawsuit. I didn't know that she asked for a small amount first and Micky D's should have had the foresight to see that was a cheap out and re-label their coffee cups. I'm glad to see that the judge reduced the award to around $600k from $2.9mil. And the actual settlement was not disclosed, but i'm assuming it was less than $600k. Even still, if every jack ass who burns themselves with MickyD's coffee sued, MickyD's would be no more at those rates.

Coffee is best brewed between 175 - 200 degrees F. According to the information below the average adult can receive 3rd degree burns from temperatures as low as 130 degrees when exposed to it for 30 sec.

Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degree water. Even if the temperature is 120 degrees, a five minute exposure could result in third-degree burns.