well, he maintains he was 'legally qualified...'
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.
Which has what to do with what I said?
Excellent! I am trying to find similar for missouri.
See my #219 (for what it’s worth).. and pissant’s #211!
I agree. It seems to me, in this modern age when identity documents are universal and immigration is so common, that requiring a candidate to prove his eligibility is perfectly reasonable. I'm all for states enacting laws to do that.
We are there again. Every time you have been proven wrong, I leave when you change the subject. I really have a low tolerance for your failure to acknowledge you are wrong and to fight for the truth. Is is a dishonest form of discourse.
Good night!
I don’t think there are looppholes on this issue. Only gross negligence in the performance or duty and failure to uphold the constitution as they swore to do.
You said removing Obama is a political argument. It is a legal one.
They’re rooting for the other team.
well, he maintains he was 'legally qualified...'
Barry stated on his campaign web site, that his birth was governed by a foreign country. The US has no right to tell that foreign country, they have no right to their citizenship laws. Barry, therefore, alleges he was born a dual citizen (assuming HI birth). The question for SCOTUS, and the country remains. Can a dual citizen, at birth, be considered a NBC of the US.
Good find. Arizona didn't properly do their job.
In Cal, the Sof SD used to check the qualifications and birth certificate for age. Now they let the parties vett their own candidates. So, Pelosi and Dean said that OB was qualified. What a wonderful world!
b.t.w. the whole idea of “Natural” born citizenship, is that it isn’t predicated on “man’s” laws or statue which are subject to change on a whim. Rather, based on Laws of Nature.
Inconceivable that the founders wanted future sons of British citizens to be considered “natural born” citizens. Does any one believe they would have?
Looks like Indiana supposedly vets their condidates. Or at least has a method to do so...
Filings regarding candidacy
Sec. 2. (a) The commission, a county election board, or a town election board shall act if a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) has filed any of the following:
(1) A declaration of candidacy under IC 3-8-2 or IC 3-8-5.
(2) A request for ballot placement in a presidential primary under IC 3-8-3.
(3) A petition of nomination or candidate’s consent to nomination under IC 3-8-6.
(4) A certificate of nomination under IC 3-8-5, IC 3-8-7, IC 3-10-2-15, or IC 3-10-6-12.
(5) A certificate of candidate selection under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2.
(6) A declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate under IC 3-8-2-2.5.
(7) A contest to the denial of certification under IC 3-8-6-12.
(b) The commission has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection
(a) that was made with the election division. Except for a filing under the jurisdiction of a town election board, a county election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing described in subsection (a) that was made with the county election board, county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk. A town election board has jurisdiction to act under this section with regard to any filing that was made with the county election board, the county voter registration office, or the circuit court clerk for nomination or election to a town office.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (e), before the commission or election board acts under this section, a registered voter of the election district that a candidate seeks to represent must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) questioning the eligibility of a candidate to seek the office; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the voter concerning this question.
(d) The eligibility of a write-in candidate or a candidate nominated by a convention, petition, or primary may not be challenged under this section if the commission or board determines that all of the following occurred:
(1) The eligibility of the candidate was challenged under this section before the candidate was nominated.
(2) The commission or board conducted a hearing on the affidavit before the nomination.
(3) This challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the previous challenge to the candidate.
(e) Before the commission or election board can consider a contest to the denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12, a candidate (or a person acting on behalf of a candidate in accordance with state law) must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) stating specifically the basis for the contest; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the candidate supporting the basis for the contest.
(f) Upon the filing of a sworn statement under subsection (c) or (e), the commission or election board shall determine the validity of the questioned:
(1) declaration of candidacy;
(2) declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate;
(3) request for ballot placement under IC 3-8-3;
(4) petition of nomination;
(5) certificate of nomination;
(6) certificate of candidate selection issued under IC 3-13-1-15 or IC 3-13-2-8; or
(7) denial of a certification under IC 3-8-6-12.
(g) The commission or election board shall deny a filing if the commission or election board determines that the candidate has not complied with the applicable requirements for the candidate set forth in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or this title.
also, it specifcally States:
President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
(b) A candidate for the office of elector for President and Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.3-1987, SEC.83; P.L.3-1993, SEC.56.
I am glad you mentioned that - because it has been a thought in the very back of mind - for quite a long time. There is something strange about the way she operates, and also, I don’t like her antecedents - the way she just comes from nowhere, with no verifiable history ... a bit like Obama himself.
Your nose just grew five inches there, Pinnochio. You're gonna have some mighty big buggars to deal with.
The following may help in your search for vetting by states;
http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Vetting_Candidates
RS 18-41
§44. Contesting election; referral for prosecution
A. Whenever the board determines as a result of an investigation that violations of law, irregularities, error, or fraud have occurred in the conduct of an election which in the judgment of the board has resulted in the apparent qualification for the second party primary election or for the general election or the apparent election of a candidate not entitled to be so qualified or elected, the board, upon the favorable vote of three members, may institute suit to contest the election in order to protect the interest and rights of the state in fair and honest elections. In addition, for the same cause and upon the same vote, the board may intervene in any suit instituted by any other party to contest an election.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?folder=92
168.31 Secretary of state; duties as to elections; rules.
Sec. 31.
(1) The secretary of state shall do all of the following:
(h) Investigate, or cause to be investigated by local authorities, the administration of election laws, and report violations of the election laws and regulations to the attorney general or prosecuting attorney, or both, for prosecution.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vixrz555b0554lms3qrf0rb4))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-31
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.