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.
You are talking about voting. I’m talking about eligibility. Apples and oranges.
Don't you watch TV? :-)
"Probable Cause" is what police need in certain circumstances in order to gather evidence. It isn't what courts use to decide to have a trial.
"The primary case is that we have a constitutional requirement and it is clear from the failure of the parties, secretaries of state, congress and courts to do their duty to uphold the constitution that the issue needs to be addressed to ensure that the person in office actually meets the qualification."
That's not a legal argument, it's a political one. Again, don't expect the courts to address your concern.
There seems to be probable cause.
To many that maybe true. But so far the courts haven’t agreed that there is probable cause and neither has the Congress taken action via the impeachment route. Now maybe enough filings in each state to review the state certification maybe one route and if and when enough states found a lack of proper certification then there maybe standing at the Federal level. Who knows at this juncture.
Upholding the constitution should be sufficient enough, but I guiess that’s now illegal or technically impossible.
Quoting Robert Byrd is somehow making you look reasonable??? LOL!
He’s your hero, not mine. As the man said, “Hit Dog Hollers”. Keep on barking...
Nobody has established that a consitutional violation occured.
Actually I was showing two different ways he could be held to prove his qualifications. Upholding the constitution is not a legal issue, it's a political one? You truly are on the wrong side and are a part of the problem.
Since you're so interested in the truth, please post your letter to the WH asking him to open his records. Or are you just here to throw hurdles in our path toward finding the truth?
We did this dance before, much longer. If you don't believe in upholding the constitution or the courts, the secretaries of state, the congress responsibility to do so, I'm out, again. If you do believe it, you can think of more than one way for this to be resolved; as many of us have. Toodles, for now.
Can you point out the states and the applicable laws please?
You’re the one quoting, not me, and you will not assign my heros. I’m done with your idiocy. Good grief, you are a piece of birther work.
Evidence is usually required for such things.
"Upholding the constitution is not a legal issue, it's a political one? You truly are on the wrong side and are a part of the problem."
I didn't say "upholding the constitution" was not a legal issue but a political one. I said that about your allegation of, "...failure of the parties, secretaries of state, congress and courts to do their duty". The constitutionally prescribed procedures for electing a president were followed. If you believe these parties should have done something more, that's not a legal issue, no. It is a political one.
Telling the truth is never part of the problem. Trying to make up laws as you go in order to get a certain result, is.
It most certainly does matter, in the most.
Check with Barry, he admitted such on his campaign web site.
California has enforced the the consitutional age requirement for president at least twice and removed the candidates from the ballot. Didn’t I link you to that information last week or do you have a clone? You will do or say anything other than to hold the fraud suspect accountible.
MAKING UP what is clearly stated in the constution and the oaths of office of elected officials. You are a real piece of work. And now, I will do as I said. We’re done for the day, I can’t run around in your circle any more tonight.
In fact, maybe they don’t need to tell us their names, or anything! Just candidates “X,Y and Z” and we get to be blindfolded, too!
Ask Elridge Cleaver
Only to those who hate America.
Funny how these “no controlling legal authority” scorners are happy that 0bama (according to them) cannot be removed from office. IMO they are purposely demorazlizing those who want to find the truth about his eligibility.
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.