LOL!! ROFL!!!
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.)
NJ allowed Roger Calero on the bellot for president and he is not a NBC so no one checks. That does not make it right.
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...”
That is what’s telling.
``````
Hardly.
What’s telling is that answering that question
would certainly lend more confidence or not in
the multitudes of lawyerly comments you make every
day, day and night, on multitudes of threads
dealing with this issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:mlo/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
And yet you refuse to answer that last tidbit
that, if in the positive, would imbue your
comments with some level of respective expertise
and confidence that would achieve that.
Again, curious.
I understand that but that is also in the courts.
There are a number of high profile environut cases that were tossed by the Supreme Court based on standing.
When you say no law was violated, sounds to me like you believe the current prez what properly vetted by every sec of state. Dang, they could have save the tax payers millions of dollars by showing us their documentation.
Again, trying to make me the issue. You are free to disagree with anything I write. And you do. Argue the issues, not the freeper.
Each state has its own laws governing the SOS and the elections boards. Multiple states already have the language in their election laws that allow for them to check the eligibility. I pointed out those laws last week. And obviously, even those without specific vetting requirements have the luxury to vet if a question arises. And have done so on multiple occasions.
Regardless, that will be of import in 2012.
Right now, we will continue to vet your faux president for you. You’re welcome.
No. I’m advocating following the Constitutional requirement for age, years living here, and Natural Born status to the letter. No more, no less.
If "properly" means they followed the law, then yes. They did.
If "properly" means they demanded the proof you demand, then no, they didn't. But what you demand is not the law. That's the point.
LOL!! ROFL!!!
Do you have an example of a sec of state showing that the current prez is eligible? They can’t know if a candidate is eligible without vetting him first.
We're all trolls on this bus.
So showing a birth certificate would not be “to the letter” unless you are advocating a living Constitution.
For the most part, standing works as a key to the courthouse door to prevent interlopers from profiting from situations in which they have no personal stake in the outcome that is distinct from the public at large. Standing, however, is sometimes imperfectly applied; and in those cases when the district court judge makes a mistake, the appropriate response is not to call the judge a traitor or threaten more lawsuits, but to take an appeal.
FYI -- Environmental cases are rarely dismissed for lack of standing because Congress has written provisions into many of the environmental laws that grant standing to just about anyone to enforce the particular environmental law or regulation. Abortionists generally have standing to challenge laws that restrict abortion because they are in the business of performing abortions and have a direct stake in the outcome of the case. Civil Rights cases rely upon organizations like the ACLU that hunt for the perfect plaintiff that has a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the litigation.
If you want to give specific examples of cases where the court, in your opinion, improperly granted or denied standing, I will do my best to explain why. But discussing the concept of standing in the abstract is a losing battle.
Wait, to quote pissant to save time, “age, years living here, and Natural Born status to the letter. No more, no less.”, that’s not the law?
Are you crazy or new here? We are not the original birthers.
John McCain’s Natural Born Status was brought up way before Barry O. and the Senate passed a resolution recognizing his status.
He provided record after record and a Birth Certificiate.
Barry O. provides a Day pass to Disney Land with less information than your or my Birth Certificate and you want to give him a pass?
I mean really, it is an incomplete record and who names race as African? It is not a race nor is it a country.
How come his records and only his records, from kindergarten are missing? That would have a Birth Certificate, vaccinations, etc.
How come he didn’t produce the birth certificate he used to obtain his first passport and gain admission to college.
Any reason why he didn’t produce the one he found among his mother’s belongings upon her death? It seemed pretty important to him as he wrote specifically about in his book.
In regards to the other candidates, there is little doubt as to where they were born or their singular status of nationality.
With Barry O. we don’t know and only have his word to go on.
When people do things that just aren’t reality based and are shaded lies that is when the questioning begins.
He has three Birth Certificates in his possession and should have presented one of those and then we would have no choice but to accept it.
We wouldn’t be sitting here asking where is the record of this man.
I know the High School and College grades of each man you listed. Heck we have their transcripts.
Why has Barry O. decided his life is such a mystery and what is he hiding?
Free the Long Form! (as another Freeper says)
A secretary of state demanding proof of citizenship, age etc does not equate with living constitution.
That would be the most logical way and cheapest way. If the family recorded his birth in their Koran or the doctors/nurses/hospital who delivered him want to give sworn testimony, then that’s fine too.
Don’t forget the DOJ is paying folks to spread disinformation on the Internet regarding pending cases. Some of the folks posting pro-usurper comments to FR could actually be paid by DOJ disinfo operations.
Well Said
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.