Posted on 09/28/2009 10:15:01 AM PDT by vikk
Attorney Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement and lawyer for an Army captain who sought to stop her deployment to Iraq on arguments that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, has filed a motion to withdraw as the captain’s lawyer.
Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes, filed her latest motion Saturday. It cites two court documents as reasons for withdrawing from the case — a Sept. 18 order from U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land threatening $10,000 in sanctions against Taitz and a letter purportedly signed by Connie Rhodes, which asks for Taitz to be removed as her attorney.
“In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications,” Taitz states. “The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case.”
It appears, however, that Taitz didn’t sign her motion. Court records filed Monday state that the motion must be filed again because Taitz didn’t sign it.
Good question. Constantly flying all over the place isn't cheep.
Which, in CA, is no small measure. Perhaps she's "text book" smart...but not "street" smart.
Mine as well. Oh, and let's not forget Attorney Apuzzo's case that's still pending.
A Judge is threatening to fine her for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Is that what you mean by "this far"?
"Secondly, there is nothing on her site to this effect so we do not know what the official story is until she addresses it."
You have the newspaper article, you don't need her story, unless you prefer the comfort of sticking with unreality.
The constitution requires that a president BE certain things, but it doesn’t specify a procedure for proving those things, or establish penalties, or anything else.
Except, that it also establishes the procedure for electing the president, with roles for electors and the congress. So we can assume it is their job to make sure someone is eligible before electing them. But to do so, there’s no requirement that a candidate produce a birth certificate, or any other particular proof. If the electors and the congress decide the person is eligible, then that decision is all that’s needed.
To have a hope of a legal case, beyond the issues of standing, the birthers needed to cough up some proof that the facts really are contrary to the constitutional requirements. Not that they suspect it. Not that they aren’t satisfied. Proof that as a matter of *fact*, Obama was born somewhere else. Then it might be concievable that a court could hear and rule on the eligibility question.
Secretary of state isn’t required to make confirmation... ?
That would be very lame.
Depending on what Taitz had in mind when she filed her "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel". She (or whoever is filing these things while she flits around to media appearances/interviews) might have believed that "motion" was sufficient to answer Judge Land's order for her response "showing why this sanction should not be imposed."
Obviously, it wasn't. Orly now has 5 days to explain, coherently, why she shouldn't be fined $10,000, and Judge Land has made it clear that Captain Rhodes has nothing to do with Orly's sanction problem.
How about going to court with publicly admitted facts? Such as:
1)His father is a foreign national who was never permanently domiciled in the US.
and
2)His BIRTH was governed by a foreign government.
Bring a case, with supporting historical documents, alleging he can not be a Natural BORN citizen due to those two publicly admitted facts. It gets punted to SCOTUS. Let them either drop it, or address it.
The official “Declaration of Candidacy” that the candidate signs has to be verified. We aren’t suppose to just take the word of the candidate. Maybe the real defandants should be all of the secretary of states. :)
Nope.
That would be very lame.
It is what it is.
The conduct of the elections is up to the states. A state doesn't even have to hold an election for president. What is on a state's candidacy documents, and how that states verifies that information, is up to the state.
They should be the defendants.
At least it has the benefit of alleging facts instead of suspicions. But....
"1)His father is a foreign national who was never permanently domiciled in the US."
Doesn't matter in the least.
"2)His BIRTH was governed by a foreign government."
How is a birth "goverened by a foreign government"? You mean that he also had citizenship in another country by the terms of that country's laws?
Doesn't matter. Another country's laws don't govern us. No other country has the power to decide which American is or isn't "natural born".
So I have no doubt that any case that got beyond standing questions with only these factual assertions, would be dismissed without a trial.
Who is in charge of vetting the presidential candidates?
That is the major determination that needs to be defined imo. It isn’t defined in the Constitution or by federal statute to my knowledge. The Constitution leaves somethings vague or without detailed direction. It provides for the process of electing a President and the roles played by the states, the electoral college and congress but doesn’t provide specific direction as to determining how a candidate is vetted to meet the Constitutional requirements that you enumerated.
States could require specific infomation before approving a candidate’s position on the ballot, Congress could demand specific information before approving the Electoral College vote or the Constitution could be amended to provide a method of proof. But as you say who has the responsibilty today.
Who should? For what?
I'm especially interested in the supporting historical document outlining how a birth in Hawaii was governed by a foreign government.
After speaking with a sos office, I’ve decided they are the ones who should be the defendants. That’s why obama is getting away with this. He doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. The Secretary of States are the ones who take the declaration of candidacy. It’s not a federal declaration, it’s a state declaration. I would at least like to know what Alan Keyes has to say about that.
That'll be the hard part.
You hit the nail on the head...the constitution was written in vague terms, with no recourse, so the states will be given the control. (it does discuss consequences if federal crimes are committed by the president)
In my opinin, the secretary of states should be the defendants in this lawsuit. My apologies, I am multitasking.. :-p
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.