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.)
this is but a battle in a war. All it takes is one judge in one case to allow discovery. Then she won’t looks so silly.
And FWIW, her disparaging rhetoric is ably matched by Judge Bland and in fact was initiated by the idiot, not her.
Did the attys you speak of actually get the confirmation from their sec of state(s)? What do they think of the fact that obama hired attorneys instead of asking sec of states to vouch for him?
Not my problem if you align yourself with democrat shills on here.
It is your problem if you align yourself with a nutcase, however. It's really hard to take you seriously when you go on about that damned fool Orly Taitz, like you're doing.
I don’t give a crap about Orly taitz and Judge Bland’s pissing match. All I know is we won’t rest until the marxist fraud is either disqualified or impeached.
bookmark
(I’m never going to catch up at this rate, LOL.)
Hey, someone who has made it past # 900, please FRmail me and let me know how this ends. (uhh, just new developements - don’t really care about the flame war, LOL.)
You've previously stated that you just wish to see the long form BC and if it proved the birthers wrong so be it.
So, which is it?
Shouldn't there be a requirement that your affidavit bear scrutiny of impeachability and it being unassailable?
Meant to include you on response to 805
Yes. But shouldn’t your fact have a requirement of proof and testing of the proof to ensure it’s integrity and means of operation as a fact.
Shouldn’t there be a requirement that your affidavit bear scrutiny of impeachability and it being unassailable?
If it proves him to be eligible, then so be it. Then it is impeaching the worthless commie bastard we will pursue.
In fact, Barry O. was born with a divided jurisdiction, allegiance and citizenship.
It is not whole, so how can something less than complete be NBC?
In fact, Barry O. was born with a divided jurisdiction, allegiance and citizenship.
It is not whole, so how can something less than complete be NBC?
I gave you plenty of evidence at post # 484 and the proof that Obama is not a NBC is very apparent that you avoid his Kenyan/British citizenship. Obama can prove it in court if he's so right about his NBC status. But he's chicken because he knows he doesn't have a case. Bock bock bock....
I’m wondering what’s up with that too.
A week seems like a long time for an experienced judge to get his ducks in a row and crank out a decision.
No, that's got nothing to do with it. I'm trying to establish a philosophical ground rule before going to the next step. I never imagined it would be this difficult.
The sole question at hand, all I'm asking for agreement on, is that a fact exists independent of a person confirming that fact. Whether anyone confirms a true fact, it's still true in and of itself.
2 + 2 does equal 4, even if nobody knew how to add. That's all. It shouldn't be this hard to agree on something so basic.
That's Two US parents and the child born on US soil is a natural born citizen. I've been consistent from the beginning.
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that I voted for Bob Barr. I had a campaign sign for him displayed on my house. I not only did not vote for Obama, I've *never* voted for a Democrat for President. And I'm pretty sure I haven't cited to MediaMatters for anything.
It's almost as if you insist on slapping false political labels on me as an ad hoc way of dismissing my observations and arguments. I point out that every lawyer and Constitutional law professor I know, of every political stripe, would agree with me that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and you respond not with claims that the legally educated would favor *you*, but rather with falsehoods about my political leanings.
They all agree Obama is a NBC though they’ve never seen anything other than the KOS/FactCheck COLB? I guess I was right about lawyers.
LOL!!
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.