Posted on 08/14/2009 4:20:53 PM PDT by South40
Orly Taitz, the Mission Viejo lawyer trying to get Barack Obama thrown out of office, says she's had enough of two of her clients in the case and will continue without them.
Whoa, say the two.
"This is our case," said Buena Park Pastor Wiley Drake, one of the two plaintiffs Taitz has unilaterally tried to have removed from the case.
The lawsuit challenges Obama's birthplace and his legitimacy as president. The latest chapter in the drama started when Drake and Markham G. Robinson notified Taitz that they were replacing her as counsel. Taitz continues to represent 40 other plaintiffs in the federal case filed in Santa Ana.
Drake complained that Taitz's paperwork errors have delayed proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Smart client! Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny. Ladies and Gggggggeeeentlmmmmmmennnn offffff ttttthhhhe ju ju juuuuuury.
parsy, who has been secretly laughing at what’s her name
Among omissions in the more recent document was such basic information as Taitz's bar number. In another recent filing by Taitz, her own name was misspelled as "Orley."
Oh great, now they are fighting each other. Orly has not persuaded me she has a great legal mind to say the least.
Yeah..., it did sorta look like it was starting to break down into a comedy of errors...
My guess is that She is going to end up getting sued for malpractice..
I saw a thread the other day about the fact that Obama admits his father was British born and therefore Obama does not meet the definition of Natural-Born. The thread questioned whether or not Orly is actually trying to win her cases, or discredit the question of Obama’s birth, as she has never broach that issue in her pleadings.
That's okay. Watch the Roe v Wade movie with Holly Hunter and see how brave, how important a woman Jane Roe was, and then ask her lawyer her opinion of her nowadays. She'll tell you that Norma wasn't important to the case at all.
Seperate attorneys, seperate clients, seperate cases-— Hey, why not? The more the marrier!
She’s not really a dingbat. She just plays one on eligibility cases.
I've been questioning this, since she first started gaining notoriety.
Something is very wrong, here.
Yeah, and that cheesy website of hers! The state run media labeling her “queen of the birthers” sure doesn’t help the cause...
“Something is very wrong, here.”
****************************
Sometimes, statistics can tell you a lot.
There’s about 800,000 lawyers in the U.S.
Assuming this is “the gravest constitutional crisis in our nation’s history” why are the only lawyers on this case people like:
1. Phil Berg, a 9-11 Troofer, previously sanctioned for a “laundry list of ethical violations”.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
2. Leo Donofrio, a non-practicing attorney who thinks black helicopters are hovering over his house, that FedEx, UPS, and DHL are part of the Vast Conspiracy, and that he’s being tailed by men in yellow suits and federal agents disguised as street bums.
3. Gary Kreep, who can’t figure out how to serve a subpoena in accordance with the California civil procedure code.
4. Orly. ‘nuff said.
Where are all the lawyers from the Federalist Society? Or from the Hudson Institute? Or the Pacific Legal Foundation?
Is every last one of them part of the Vast Conspiracy, along with every member of Congress, SCOTUS, Ex-Veep Cheney, and former S.o.S. Rice? Or is birtherism just a ridiculous snipe hunt?
______________________________________________
Both Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had one parent who was born in another country and was a citizen of that country. there are four other Presidents with foreign parents but I chose the two 20th Century examples. Your contention is wrong.
Do past oversights of the natural-born requirement absolve this one?
You know, I’d be prone to agreeing with you, since it’s been such an amateur night at the three ring circus.
But, there are the numerous attempts to alter or remove the natural born citizen clause in Congress, there is that ludicrous SR 511, there are the serious, lengthy articles upon the matter from noted, legitimate Constiutional scholars, all the while, when it was just John McCain, whose eligibility was at question,
But, then Barack Obama comes on the scene and wins the Democrat nomination, and ... crickets.
Yes, there is an embargo. Yes, there are serious Constitutional issues at hand, here.
People somehow assume that this is purely a Democrat - Republican thing, but it’s clearly not. Many of those bills I mentioned were sponsored or co-sponsored by Republicans.
There is an effort to undermine US sovreignty underway, and has been for a decade, at least. It’s coming to a head now, and all critics are being mocked and vilified. Competent legal representation is being denied. How that is, I can’t say. But, there it is.
If you genuinely are a political conservative, and I have my doubts having read your responses here, Redwood Bob, then I do not, absolutely do not, understand your dismissive attitude.
Unless, that is, you’re like those Republicans who favor a “Declaration Of Interdependence,” that have applauded breaking down national borders, and do not view our Constitution as anything but a piece of paper and an impediment, as George W. Bush notably said during his administratgion.
But, the Constitution does not lapse because of one instance of that Constitution not being followed. You'd have laws revoked whenever they're broken, if you believe that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.