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.)
Thanks ... not on my local Fox channel.
Who says it's fake?
Sigh.
So you want an amendment describing exactly how prospective presidents should be vetted making sure they are natural born citizens, or citizens at all, or we just have to take their (lying) word for it?
You’re nothing if not inconsistent.
The statutory pattern, therefore, developed and expanded from (a) one, established in 1790 and enduring through the Revised Statutes and until 1934, where citizenship was specifically denied to the child born abroad of a father who never resided in the United States; to (b), in 1907, a governmental protection condition for the child born of an American citizen father and residing abroad, dependent upon a declaration of intent and the oath of allegiance at majority; to (c), in 1934, a condition, for the child born abroad of one United States citizen parent and one alien parent, of five years’ continuous residence in the United States before age 18 and the oath of allegiance within six months after majority; to (d), in 1940, a condition, for that child, of five years’ residence here, not necessarily continuous, between ages 13 and 21; to (e), in 1952, a condition, [401 U.S. 815, 826] for that child, of five years’ continuous residence here, with allowance, between ages 14 and 28.
And...you know it's altered how?
I’m sure there are some very wise janitors who can express their thoughts clearly.
rofl!
Which is precisely how everyone alleging that Obama was born in Kenya acted up through late October 2008. Months upon months of rumors and allegations, with ZERO evidence. And then, finally, with the Sarah Obama tape, someone manufactured a shred.
And you can't point to any evidence that actually supported the 'born in Kenya' theory during its first half-year in existence, because there wasn't any. For instance, one of the main arguments during those early months was that Obama's grandmother, half-brother, and half-sister had said they'd witnessed a Kenyan birth. Of course, no one could ever identify when they said this, or where, or to who, so it was eventually recognized as a fraudulent claim by most and forgotten.
These two points and topic sliding and a straw man argument - completely irrelevant...
You can poo poo it all you want, but the mere fact that Obama had a British/Kenyan citizenship at birth makes Obama not eligible to be president.
And side-stepping the lack of actual, substantive evidence supporting the 'born in Kenya' theory, in order to shift focus back to dual citizenship, isn't topic-shifting?
It's NOT a theory that being born to two US citizens and being born inside the United States makes the person a Natural Born Citizen. There is no question about this fact.
Tell ya what. I bet I could get several Constitutional law professors to say, clearly and concisely, that it's NOT a fact. That there is not two-citizen-parent requirement.
If I did that, and reposted their statements here, would you concede that they're right and that your definition is not the authoritative one?
If Obama thought he had a case, which he and you know and others he does not, would leave the pre-trial BS wrangling and let these cases go to trial on the merits.
Isn't the usual argument that Obama is wasting TOO MUCH money on these lawsuits? Having them go to trial would cost MORE!
As in NO duels citizens being NBC
So is the requirement 'two citizen parents' or 'no dual citizenships at birth'? They aren't the same thing, after all. Someone could fail to satisfy only one, or both. For instance, Bubba Ho-Tep stated earlier in this thread he was born a dual citizen, and he was assured that he was still as NBC because both his parents were citizens.
If I'm going to ask my professors for clarification on the definition, I need to know which definition you're alleging is the true one.
10. We are asked to believe that it's okay to use government lawyers to defend someone for a possible crime he committed before he was elected to office.
11. We are asked to believe that it is ethical for an incoming office holder to sign an order forbidding the relase of any of their documents. 12. We are being asked to believe it is better to look good in the eyes of name callers, liberal shills, and the media rather than pursue the truth.
And if you were to do that then you'd drown.
No he/she’s a newbie!! lol I did it again...
No, a simple law would do. Whaddya got?
oh stop..snort!! LOL
The only way to read a two-citizen-parent requirement into SR511 is if you also read it to mean that natural born citizens must be born on military bases.
Are you saying that natural born citizens must be born on military bases?
But you did produce a "short form" certificate, did you not? With seal and signature. (I've produced my long form, since the last time I needed to do that, my birth state did not use a short form). BHO has not done even that. Only an image of one, which has "issues". Even aside from the "forensic" ones of image analysis, original lack of seal, etc. But also ones involving the "date filed" and "file number", when compared to those of twin girls born in what as far as anyone knows is the same hospital, 19 or so hours after the COLB says he was born.
BTW, have you gotten a passport? Several sources, sites that will handle the paperwork for you, say that Texas "abstract"/"short form" BCs are not accepted for US passports. (Here and here) although the State of Texas says they are, but that the Passport Agency may require additional information, up to and including the long form. They also indicate that the short form is only acceptable for persons born after 1963 in a hospital.
Pre-election there is vetting by voters in the prelims and the general. Each state can have laws controlling ballot access. Candidates may have standing to challenge misapplication of the qualification process.
Post election, we have the electoral college and Congressional certification.
Post inauguration, we have impeachment/removal, re-election, and term limits.
What we don’t have, based on the standing doctrine favored more strongly by the conservatives on the Supreme Court than the libs, is a trial lawyer/activist judge path.
If you do not like it, we have the Constitutional Amendment process, but likely applied prospectively, not retroactively.
Baloney -- read it again.
I’ve been reading all the various opinions by others on this post. I have come to an opinion of my own:
1. Dr. Taitz is not a very skilled attorney and she did go over the top on her rhetoric. However, I am convinced she is sincere and not a flim flam. Like many us, myself included, she needs to reign in her emotions and use more logic.
2. Judge Land is a tyrant that has abused his position. His snide remarks show, that in his own way, his decorum is no better than Dr. Taitz. I respect “law”, I’m really starting to disrepect the legal profession. You lawyers have produced a convoluted system solely for you own sustainment. Too much emphasis by attornies and judges is placed on proceedures and protocol and not enough on fulfilling the intent of law.
This whole mess about not being able to obtain birth documents on a POTUS or to get a court to give a definitive ruling on what NBC means is exasperating to the extreme.
Since you do not understand that SCOTUS does not MAKE LAW... this is the duty of Congress... then there is no hope for you.
What in Hades does this mean:
"Since there is no definition in the law of natural born citizen, the SCOTUS must look outside of the law for an answer. "???
Where should they look? Kenya? France? Britain? Inside your twisted brain?
You say you respect the law, but then think it's okay for an activist court to make the law from the bench?
I have not joined in most of these threads because it's easy to see that you and your posse troll them 24/7 and I frankly have to earn an honest living outside of following your so called "birther" threads. Your last line shows me just who and what you are - you deny that there is a problem with activist courts and you disparage any and all who would protest this activism that is tearing apart the fabric of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
You sir may not be the worst troll I've seen on FR, but troll you are and I am ashamed of those longtime Freepers who join you in attacks on those who feel strongly regarding the complete and total lack of documentation of this President's life. Those who feel it is not important to see these documents could argue their merits without the name calling, yet good little Alinsky-ites they have shown themselves to be!
We already covered that today, where ya been? start with secretary of states, (see previous posts), then see what to do when they fail oath of office (see previous posts), then ..well, we’re waiting what to see happens, if it’s proven that the secretary of states failed to do their jobs and soley relied on the dnc’s word. It’s all dependant upon state statutes on how sos’s are removed from office for failing to abide by their oath of office..the one that says they have to uphold and defend the constitution. Catch up! ((snort))
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.