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.)
But suppose that someone claims to have very large values of 2, then what do you do? Eh? Eh?
You adders can’t answer that, can you?
Very all what think Obama is NBC. They must be the clowns who think Obama's COLB is real and have not given this matter much thought. He knows Beck and bought his book! Wow! -- and so what. You mean the lawyers who fund the Demo Party and Obama LoL!
Lawyers are number 1 ! Go Lawyers Go Obama! See below:
The Obama campaign has received a total of $116,984,670 from such Corporations.
The top contributing industries, to Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign are: [source]
Top Industries
|
1 |
Lawyers/Law Firms |
$13,341,673 |
|
2 |
Misc Business |
$10,261,541 |
|
3 |
Retired |
$9,058,652 |
|
4 |
Securities & Investment |
$6,715,680 |
By sector:
Unclassified (corporate) $17,648,491
Misc Business $15,663,211
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $15,087,469
Lawyers & Lobbyists $13,456,386 [source]
34 % of Obama’s $117 corporate millions cannot be accounted for. Analysts can’t code their industry or sector. We’re talking $ 40 million we don’t know about.
http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=151
Please tell me your just having fun.
your=you’re
Back in #690 you wrote:
"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."
So in that post you claimed it was the mere fact of his dual citizenship that made him ineligible, without regard to his parents' citizenship. A mere fact that persons such as Bubba share, which would make them ineligible for the Presidency. In this post, and in others, you've claimed that it was his father's citizenship status that made him ineligible. That's a standard that would not make persons such as Bubba ineligible.
So are you simply saying now that #690 was just phrased poorly, that dual citizenship at birth doesn't matter at all by itself, and that it's only parental citizenship that matters (whether or not that parental citizenship imparts dual citizenships on the child)?
Well, trying to anyway....
Ever hear the bit that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, even for very large values of 2 or small values of 5?
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
A little integer joke.
OK......
My math humor reservoir appears to have run dry.
Time for bed.
Lets see Obama prove his duel allegiances/foreign citizenship at birth is really a natural born citizen in a court of law by going to trial, but we know he’s a chicken Bock bock bock.....
It’s so easy even a liberal shill can understand that.
There were scientist that knew Pluto existed but had no proof. That does not mean it didn't and does exist but without proof and the integrity of that being tested there was no proof.
Astronomer Lowell hypothesized there was a planet X. There was of course no proof and yet it does exist.
In 1930 Clyde Tombaugh in fact took pictures of what would be called Pluto and now something that many knew existed but had not empirical proof that was unassailable and the very same discovery process could be replicated by peers and achieve the same results.
Now documents are presented all the time that are not what they appear to be and I have seen peers fired for submitting what eventually proved to be an incomplete record or out right fraud.
Shouldn't we expect that we would have the opportunity to test Barry O. COLB for integrity?
He did after all provide it and yet we are unable to determine provenance, integrity of information contained in the document and what information was used and it's provenance to qualify it's placement on the COLB.
How is that we cannot by trial test and examine a document that Barry submitted?
I claim that it cannot be determined until SCOTUS colors in some of the voids and ambiguities left by current precedent. To do that, you need discovery. What I am even less sure of is what remedy may be available if he were to be found ineligible. The effect would more likely be a complete political debilitation until a subsequent election.
BTW, as a matter of full disclosure, my opinion on this is no better than my opinion on some esoteric tax law. It’s not an area in which I would claim any special proficiency. That’s why I just watch all the technical fighting with detached amusement. There is no easy answer, especially for amateurs like us. And there can be no answer for anyone at all without factual transparency.
BTW #2, I wouldn’t take apparent consistency among Con Law profs as proof of anything other than the monolithic dominance of postmodern constitutionalism in the academy. Arguments from authority are second-rate. Just because all the professors believe in a flat earth doesn’t make Galileo an idiot.
If you go back to where I first offered by LawProf bet to Red Steel, I said that I'd bet that every Constitutional Law professor I could ask would tell me that there is no 'two citizen parent' requirement. I similarly maintain that any lawyer I ask would answer the same, regardless of political persuasion.
Why would any professor or lawyer need any particular documentation on anyone to answer that question?
And in the specific case of Obama, why should any professor or lawyer have any doubt as to his Hawaiian birth when Janice Okubo has clearly and concisely stated that she has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii." Neither I nor any other legal professional will ever hold a physical document that has any more authority on the matter than that statement conveys. Nor will you, or anyone else here.
Some types can, but most cannot beyond the first generation. The very first immigration law, of 1790,
"Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"
Why would he do that? He's already been sworn into office by the chief justice of the highest court in the land.
Just because you Birthers think that "this is a gravely important constitutional question that must be settled" doesn't mean anyone else does.
Why we're at it, why don't we demand the Supreme Court settle once and for all whether the sky is blue or the sun rises in the east? The Constitution seems a bit vague on those issues.
Okay, then see my next post.
You ask your professor for his two-cent opinion and he should tell you he's only a citizen, and Obama being a natural born US citizen (if he was born in the US of A) is doubtful at best, which we really know he's not .
You posited the “Filed” is standard and that “Accepted” had been debunked.
It is accurate to say both exist for their reasons of qualifications.
Hi!
Thanks for the so-called help, but I’m pretty sure Subway skimped on the mayo.
Let see ...honesty, personal integrity, putting the issue to rest. Stop leaving the question open about him being an usurper. Being presidential, which is honesty and personal integrity.
Why we're at it, why don't we demand the Supreme Court settle once and for all whether the sky is blue or the sun rises in the east? The Constitution seems a bit vague on those issues.
The sky is blue or the sun rises in the East are not Constitutional questions, however, being a natural born citizen as a requirement to hold legitimate presidential office is one. No clause or phrase in the US Constitution is without effect.
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.