Posted on 10/13/2009 7:45:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
-snip-
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
(Full Order at the link.)
And she appears to be trying her best to increase it's value to her every day. Now $20K, what will be the final total I wonder?
Charles Edward Lincoln, III her thrice disbarred felon law assistant was once hit with $150,000 in fines, wonder if she going for $200K
"There hasn't been any proof offered that a constitutional violation has occured."
"That's why we are working on this. We already know he was not vetted. We are after the proof, one way or another."
Great. When you get something, that's when you can consider the question of going to court. Not before. There would still be other hurdles, but only a crackpot lawyer would go to court with only speculation.
"Did they even have "birth certificates" back in the time of our founding? Mostly not. But today we do, so let's see it."
No they didn't. At least as a universal document that everyone gets, they are a relatively modern invention. My grandmother didn't have one.
The fact that they are common today doesn't mean the requirement suddenly pops into existence in the text of the constitution.
"The constitutional provisions regarding election of a president have been followed."
"Except for the part of requiring NBC status, it went off without a hitch (other than ACORN fraud)"
That's got nothing to do with the CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. Those procedures were followed. And again, there's no proof that Obama is not eligible.
So since you disagree with me, I take it that you're NOT satisfied with the evidence that Joe Biden is a natural born citizen, and thus qualified for his office?
You'd best start demanding his documentation too.
I support anyone who is pursuing Obama’s records. He’s a marxist and quite possibly, not an NBC.
Personally, the Federal Bar was an embarrassment to begin with, Standing issues only seem to come up when it is the Right that has a problem with it. I never hear about Standing being a problem when the Left goes to court. How rare is it when an Abortion, Environmental, or Civil Rights case is dismissed for Standing? It is amazing what a Lawyer can torture out of a very simple document and it has become a self-repeating process as those same lawyers become Judges or Senators.
Because I am not the issue and I won’t enable someone to make me the issue. If you have a legitimate reason for knowing I may answer.
Orly got a poorly presented case dismissed by a judge who told her so. Judges get to do that. Professionals don't respond with a hysterical screed accusing the judge of being a traitor. Lawyers that do respond that way can expect, and fully deserve, the treatment Dr. Taitz received.
Just because you support her position doesn't make it right or her behavior excusable. I would expect and deserve a serious smack down if I ever behaved that way to a court.
You have shown to have a command of the english language. I’m sure you already know what the requirements are for becoming a president. The vetting process will show whether a candidate OR an elected official is eligible per requirements for being a president.
There is little to argue about that. It’s all about vetting.
is it bigger than a bread box?
Thanks for the reminder. I’m frazzeled by a personal issue that just came up in email, and posted without researching adequately.
Emerging from lurkerdom to say that you are not wasting your time. As someone following this controversy who is not a lawyer, I'm grateful that those who are lawyers will clarify on these threads what the legal issues are.
I've been a bit frustrated reading these threads when I see misstatements posted by either side - "Pakistan had a travel ban on US citizens in 1961!" or "If Obama's mother was a citizen, that makes him natural born!"
I value the legal explanations, don't stop.
Going back to lurking...
The procedures may have been followed, but the procedures have been found to be lackadaisical and allowed an unvetted man to be on the ballot.
Therefore the remedy is to vet him now and to ensure that proper vetting takes place going forward. You have heartburn with the attempt to vet him now. The idea that the citizenry do not have standing to have proof of eligibility is a gross misreading of the law.
Gary! How the heck are ya? Hey — whatever became of Zippy the chimp?
But there are rumors! Lots of unsubstantiated rumors. Plus plenty of conjecture.
Publicity is a liars worst nightmare.
So does that mean you will be asking Joe Biden for his documents too? As you say, it's all about vetting, and he hasn't been vetted any more than Obama has.
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.