Editorial: Oct. 14, 2009 — Judge Clay D. Land’s Delirium

Posted on October 14th, 2009

The Post & Email published

October 14, 2009 by John Charlton

“Now being a person of integrity
means that you worry about dotting i’s and crossing t’s,
while the Federal government is overthrown
and the national treasure is ransacked by thieves.”
(How the Wise have become Foolish)

by John Charlton

There is no more blinding anger than that which rises in the mind of the self-righteous. How many disputes, vendetta’s, civil strifes, wars, and other mayhem have arisen because men judged themselves just, and convinced themselves that any excess in the pursuit of their cause was justified.

They became a law unto themselves, in the worship of their own presumption, and thus were struck blind by the delirium of their own arrogant pride.

Such is the sickness in spirit afflicting Judge Clay D. Land, of the Federal Bench, in Columbus Georgia.

It’s a diagnosis all too evident from the medical chart that hangs upon his bench this morning: that is the Sanction Order he issued yesterday against Attorney Orly Taitz for $20,000.

If you recall, Judge Land had threatened Taitz with a $10,000 sanction; but this is an unimportant detail for a man who finds satisfaction in persecuting those whom he considers a priori to be detestable.

Like countless generations of bigots who have gone before him, their pleasure is in madness, their consideration in malice, and their covetousness is for vendetta.

And that madness, malice and covetousness must be great to want to write 43 pages to justify oneself.

Judge Land evidently ascribes to the following dictum, which was enunciated in the philosophical sketch, entitled: How the Wise have become Foolish:

“Now being a person of integrity
means that you worry about dotting i’s and crossing t’s,
while the Federal government is overthrown
and the national treasure is ransacked by thieves.”

The madness of Land is most evident when he says that the Courts cannot intervene in Military Affairs when there is a question of the usurpation of the entire chain of command, by the entry into the office of President and Commander-in-Chief by an ineligible candidate. He advances this conclusion, miraculous for its self-contradiction, on p. 22 of his Sanctions Order:

Counsel here makes no coherent argument connecting the Constitution’s presidential citizenship requirement to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. Counsel here points to no legal authority—in the Constitution or elsewhere—that could be extended or expanded to create an exception to the well-established doctrine of abstention, which disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the military.

Evidently Judge Land does not comprehend; or rather refuses to admit, that the nature of a military chain of command is a moral and legal bond whereby the subject is obliged to obey the Commander-in-Chief; and that if there is no commander-in-chief, and the top brass give allegiance to an imposter, pretender or usurper; the entire chain of command becomes an unconstitutional bond. And that is what Attorney Taitz argued in her pleadings in the case.

What Land is involved in is specious argumentation: the Argument of Taitz could not be more coherent; since “coherent” means “to cleave to or bind fast”; and the chain of command causes the plaintiff to cleave in subject on to an imposter. Land is the worst kind of positivist: for him reality does not exist, unless he finds it written into some law.

Second, the usurpation of the Presidency is not an internal affair of the military; since the President is formally a civilian. Third, there is no lawful chain of command when that chain is subjected to an unlawful president. So in each case Land’s argument crumbles with simply, dispassionate logic.

Land’s denial of the factual evidence in the case, was quite indicative of his prejudice earlier; now his ought right denial of the legal facts and nature of military service, makes malice rather than prejudice the charge; since no Federal Judge has an excuse to act in this manner.

But Land is evidently unwilling to admit the legal and evidentiary facts of the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald because it convicts himself, who has so evidently aligned his identity and social status to the ruling status quo that he feels quite justified in persecuting those whom he considers are its enemies, as if a boisterous and violent bigotry merited membership into such a society. But seeing that such a society is that of thieves, liars, frauds and tyrants; perhaps on that score Judge Clay D. Land is correct.

One thing is for sure, Land is a Tory, an adherent to a British Tyrant, who imitates his master and tramples upon the U.S. Constitution, spitting invective, as he does, so boorishly into the face of Liberty, a liberty which he so evidently detests as much as he detests right reason and justice.

Dr. Orly Taitz had already filed a motion seeking the recusal of Judge Land, in which she detailed the reasons she considered evident for the Judge to voluntarily recuse himself.