Posted on 11/17/2009 12:06:33 PM PST by mnehring
Thanks, vikk.
Ping to an Orly Taitz whack-a-mole thread. She never fails to entertain, does she?
Standing? Well, Your Honor, I’m standing right here.
Bwahahahahahaha! I’m still chuckling.
She should take some notes.
LOTS of notes.
As already explained, this is not the current scenario. He hasn't sent lawyers after anybody. There isn't an employer asking for his information. It's not a matter of "asking simple questions".
Various lawyers have filed *lawsuits* in various courts. In that scenario, of course his lawyers are going to respond. Not only is that appropriate, it's necessary. You need to deal with the facts as they are.
Lots and lots and lots of notes.
Even then, she’ll misinterpret and confuse whatever her attorney files. Imagine trying to gag her as a a client. Good grief, Charlie Brown.
I predict that whatever defense her attorney uses, Orly will somehow, some way issue updates on her blog that lead her followers down the path of false hope. She has them by the nose.
A little optimistic today, are we? :)
Short version: Lincoln pays you some nominal fee for title to your soon-to-be-foreclosed house, then goes to court and file tons of frivolous paperwork to stall the creditors. Meanwhile, Lincoln is charging you, the original homeowner, rent, or he's living in your house rent-free, or renting it to someone else, and collecting the proceeds, all the while assuring you that he's fighting to keep your home. (While he's actually hoping that a creditor will buy him off with a cash settlement which you'll never see.)
Lincoln had dreams of setting of shop in California for multiple foreclosure "redemptions,", but the law requires a licensed attorney for a larger operation. Since he and Orly had a falling out, that dream is gone, gone, gone.
But he won't go down without a blaze of glory, so we have the tale of sexcapades between he and Orly in the Florida court, which boils down to a "he said/she said" tale told by idiots, on both sides.
I maintain my shared belief because only a criminal would go to the amazing lengths that Raila Odinga's favorite cousin is going to.
Obama is a pathological liar and a narcissist, and even YOU must admit that Obama's behavior surrounding his birth data is suspicious.
Uh, since when do US citizens/taxpayers not have the right to make sure the Constitution is followed?
We The People are Obama's employers.
Why aren't we allowed to verify if he has the right to hold office?
But it is.
If Obama produced valid proof that he has the Constitutional right to hold office as President, then all of this money/time/energy would not be wasted.
Even YOU must admit that.
1. Because we don't have standing as voters.
2. Because we entrusted that responsibility first to the State elections officers, second to the electors, and finally to the congress.
3. Because we have NO laws outlining the procedure by which he produce his qualifications.
Sweating bullets, she is checkmated.
2.) Ah, so what happens when the aforementioned state elections officers are corrupt and/or willing to overlook election laws?
3.) Granted, but do you find Obama's behavior suspicious when you know that he could save all of this time/energy/money by producing some simple documents?
Surely even you understand that this colossal waste of resources could be avoided if he coughed up a few simple documents. The fact that he and his army of lawyers are avoiding this simplicity at all costs certainly must make you wonder WHY he is acting the way he is.
I the 54 or so bither cases so far Obama has had his Attorneys represent him in a total of 3. Berg v. Obama et al, Hollister v. Soetoro, and Keyes v. Bowen.
Can the colossal waste of time/energy/money be avoided if he produces a few simple documents?
Why does he act so defiantly resistant to such simplicity?
Surely even YOU can understand that this whole mess can be dropped if valid proof that he is Constitutionally valid is presented.
I know where my birth certificate is, and I would show it if I were a candidate for any office.
Why does Obama refuse to do this?
I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Re: #1 - Yes, morally and ethically we have the right to question his eligibility. However, when Obama became the President-Elect, we no longer had access to the courts as a means to question his eligibility. (The POTUS doesn’t control our money, the Congress does.)
Re: #2 - You file suit in your home state outlining the corruption and or laws broken by those officials. (That’s where I am pursuing this issue. The Texas Democratic Party broke numerous laws in nominating Obama. I don’t expect a reversal of the 2008 nomination because it simply won’t happen. What I expect to accomplish is to force the legislature to mandate a process by which candidates must prove their constitutional eligibility and I expect to force the TX SOS to seek legal guidance from the SCOTUS regarding Obama’s eligibility since the definition of NBC is unclear and unresolved.)
Re: #3 - Yes and no. Since there are no laws establishing how he must prove his eligibility, I expect his defense team to do their jobs in disputing the validity of eligibility lawsuits. I would expect an eligible and honorable man to hand over proof without being sued, but clearly Obama is neither. He’s behaving like the thug he is. That in itself is not unexpected.
Besides the moral question, is there any legal implication with having an affair with a client?
I would imagine not strictly, but the fact that Taitz appears engaged in a quid pro quo agreement with Lincoln as her client and ghost writer that includes sex probably won’t please the California bar. But I have no idea if sexual relationships amongst lawyers and clients is even relavent.
BTW, according to Lincoln his friend the psychologist was copied on all communications between the Lincoln and Orly... Doesn’t this violate confientiality? Unless all the clients gave permission, I guess.
When you appeal, you still have to post the money somehow - with the court, or by bond. The appeal is no excuse not to pay. That is the rule.
When you appeal, you still have to post the money somehow - with the court, or by bond. The appeal is no excuse not to pay. That is the rule.
The subtle hostility to those of us who question the Constitutional validity of Raila Odinga's favorite cousin makes me even more curious. Especially when it comes from "Integrity touting Conservatives" here at Free Republic.
These folks dodge some of my direct questions, and instead choose to stonewall us and relegate us as "birthers" simply because we are asking WHY Raila Odinga's favorite cousin is behaving the way that he is.
The stonewallers still cannot answer my question of whether or not Obama's behavior is suspicious given the simplicity of what is being asked for.
Even they must have a tiny ounce of belief that this can all be dropped tomorrow if he mails in certifiable copies of his birth records from Hawaii.
The fact that the Governor of Hawaii has publicly stated that the birth certificate is "locked up" in some kind of "secret vault" makes me wonder why the heck that was necessary.
Watch the "Conservatives with Integrity" start their derision toward Joan Swirsky after reading this:
http://tmqblog.com/2008/10/26/joan-swirsky-my-mothers-birth-certificate-and-obamas/
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.