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.)
It’s a 2007. The same border as Obama’s.
Huh? “look outside the law?”.
Those are coincidences. lol
Evidence, easily refutable by production of a certified copy of the long form, direct to the court, or even a real certified paper copy of the CoLB, but evidence none the less. It could also be refuted by the State department asking the Embassy in Kenya to verify it.
FWIW, I suspect this one is a forgery too, but if so it's a very good one, and it's hard to believe that someone who could manage that, would also mess up the format of the dates. But, stranger things have happenned.
No one has an intrinsic right to the court's time if they can't muddle together a passable representation of a case and can't behave like they have the slightest idea of their professional and ethical obligations as a lawyer.
Ping to post
Probably because it too is an abstract version. Does it have a seal and registrars signature? Is a real paper document. Or just a printout of an image they found online somewhere.
Point is, you know yours came from the state of Georgia, and if it is a real paper document, with raised seal and registrars signature stamp, then you are good to go.. probably, it depends on what is on it of course.
We don't know that the CoLB posted on KOS, Factcheck, Smears, etc, came from the state of Hawaii, nor has the state verified the information on it, other than to state that the original birth records they have on file also state that the birth was in Honolulu. We don't know, for instance, if the "birth record" shows a date filed just a few days after the date of birth, or much longer. We don't know if the DoB shown was really in 1961 or perhaps much earlier in '61 than shown. Lots of information not verified by the state, including his father's name and birthplace (the latter is not on the short form, but it is on the long form, and could be important).
We are in the US court system where it is more important for a judge to maintain power than to have the truth come out.
It is derivative for Obama.
Fun like a train wreck...
Libra.
Not yet.
Why. Is the some secret that other FR'ers should not know about?
You should. It explains a lot.
So, let's see it. :)
I read most of it, and page 27 blew my mind. Read this quote:
“Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.”
The footnote to this point:
“The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a ‘round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,’ asserted that the President is not human.”
Wow, wow, WOW!! Can you believe that?
True, perhaps, but the provisions of Hawaiian law are such that it is, or was in '61, ridiculously easy to get a Hawaiian BC saying you were born in Hawaii, when you weren't. And there would be enough motivation to do so, if not by Stanley Ann, by Grandma and Grandpa Dunham, but perhaps by SA as well.
Fair enough. I don’t know if it’s been debunked or not. It’s been a long day. I’ll do some more checking and get back to you if I find anything.
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.