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.)
Miss Tickly has been trying to get to the bottom of it, but the plucked hens and capons in the HI government are not answering her questions.
OMG. Could he/she/it be any more delusional? Not human?
There is evidence that some of the information is questionable at minimum. Specifcally the date filed and the file number. Plus the "African" for father's race.
Perhaps someone just couldn't force themselves to put down "negro" even though MLK was using the term about that same time.
How was it?
What is that? Sorry, I have been on this thread since it started and am getting punchy while trying to keep up.
Thanks.
I did see her on the Behar show. She came off looking pretty good. But then Behar is a very weak interviewer.
“No, actually. He says that the Judiciary “can participate,” but that would be only in the sense of (theoretically) finding that Obama fraudulently posed as a natural-born citizen.
“However, and this is a big however, such a ruling can ONLY be made in the context of a non-frivolous claim that Obama’s actions actually violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.”
r9etb:
You are correct about “participate in removal” as opposed to straight “removal” (a distinction without much difference if standing for discovery is granted Keyes and Obama is actually hiding something in HI) but you appear to be wrong about any need for Obama to have acted intentionally or fraudulently.
Land said:
“But it is clear that the Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate in the selection or removal of the President, unless an individual can clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
Land said “by the process” not by intentional fraud. The process could be a flawed vetting process that allowed either an innocent ineligible candidate or an intentionally deceptive candidate to become president. An individual's rights to a fair election could be constitutionally violated either way, apparently giving standing and justiciability according to Land.
I think Judge Land is giving a big message to Judge Carter here that if Carter is inclined to grant Keyes standing, Land was fine with that and Carter won't be out there alone. Land didn't need to make this comment on a hypothetical situation that was not before him in a sanctions order, but he went out of his way to make it.
Yes, she didn’t do nearly as badly as I expected her to do. She didn’t even do that shrill voice thing that she usually does. But, again, it was Behar doing the interviewing. Bwahahaha!
That is a vetter question and description than birther.
Thanks. I am co-opting vetter.
NS asked a question at #730....
I posted the link (scotus decision) that would show who wrote the following excerpt:
Excerpt from decision that NS quoted, and his reply.
“Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship.”
“Whoever wrote that obviously is not familiar with the Ark case and the Elg case. “
730 posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:04:08 PM by Non-Sequitur
One cannot impugn others sanity unless one doubts one’s own.Obama’s world is illusory. He connot hoodwink the American people by keeping information of record from them.That is the highest form of insanity and delusion.
This contest is a political one. Thats just a fact.Part of it is being played out in the court system. Orly is in the winning situation of informing the American people about the cover up. The more Obama fights in court, the more noise there is being made, and the more people begin understanding the Obama cover up. The more Orly is castigated, fined, even imprisoned, the more that Obama appears to be a tyrant. GOOD JOB OBAMA!
And the American people will soon know the truth about Obama’s history.It is in their inherent nature , which yearns for both truth and freedom. Its actually inevitable.
I just wanted to mention that I agree with what you wrote; the text you were responding to was actually written by the poster I was responding to, and accidentally didn’t get italicized along with the other quoted portions.
There is no explicit 'two parent definition' from the First Congress. There's certainly not one quoted in SR511.
:) Vetting is actually what this is. I figure the label birther is inaccurate in most cases. the majority of people want the prez VETTED via secretary of state and also from his personal documents...just to give us accurate history. Of course, knowledge is power, and maybe that’s just too much for him to give his subjects.
Should your fact still have a requirement of proof?
I think it is more apt to describe our desire to properly vet Barry O.. I also think it will lead to better questions.
Thanks. I see your point.
The more the vetter!
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.