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.
19:3-7. Office forfeited by nonfiling of statement or filing of false statement
If any candidate for nomination for or election to any public office or party position, or his campaign manager, shall fail to file any statement or oath required by this Title to be filed, at the time, place and in the manner required by this Title, and duly verified as herein required, or shall file any false statement, the nomination or election of such candidate, if nominated or elected at the primary or other election concerning which such statement shall have been filed, shall be null and void.
http://law.justia.com/newjersey/codes/8cf1/8d0d.html
§ 163-23. Powers of chairman in execution of Board duties.
In the performance of the duties enumerated in this Chapter, the chairman of the State Board of Elections shall have power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. Upon the written request or requests of two or more members of the State Board of Elections, he shall issue subpoenas for designated witnesses or identified papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any two members of the State Board of Elections may issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any member of the Board may administer oaths.
“She has repeatedly committed these clerical errors in her legal filings. She is just completely incompetent as an attorney.”
Perhaps she knew something like this might come up.
But that is why she has her Dental business, and her Real Estate business to fall back on.
How about the concept of mastering one thing?
An assertion with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Typical.
“A used car salesman would know not to leave signatures off of things (unless he jolly well wants to for some nefarious reason).”
Yeah...even a California real estate licensee (which she apparently is) knows this.
It is in Business Law 101.
Sign the contract or document, or there is no contract or filing.
“A used car salesman would know not to leave signatures off of things (unless he jolly well wants to for some nefarious reason).”
Yeah...even a California real estate licensee (which she apparently is) knows this.
It is in Business Law 101.
Sign the contract or document, or there is no contract or filing.
“A used car salesman would know not to leave signatures off of things (unless he jolly well wants to for some nefarious reason).”
Yeah...even a California real estate licensee (which she apparently is) knows this.
It is in Business Law 101.
Sign the contract or document, or there is no contract or filing.
Election and impeachment are political acts. The birthers don't have a legal case, that's the point I've been making.
It isn’t about impeachment or elections. It is about eligibility. Ask Elridge Cleaver and Roger Calero
As with most birthers, you fail to understand the principles invovled.
"Just as another country "has no right" to determine US citizenship "rules" or "laws"...the US has no right to determine the citizenship rules or laws of another country."
Never said they did. The birthers, on the other hand, disagree. They think other countries can determine the status of Americans born in America.
"Barry stated on his campaign web site, that his birth was governed by a foreign country."
You've already been asked twice to explain that phrase, "governed by a foreign country".
"The US has no right to tell that foreign country, they have no right to their citizenship laws."
Nobody is doing that. You are not understanding the principle.
The US isn't telling the other country anything. The US doesn't care who the other country claims as a citizen by birth. It doesn't affect the status of that person in American law. It's concerned with who is an American citizen in American law.
"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."
See, at the top here you already agreed that another country has no right to determine US citizenship rules, but now you are asserting they do. No, the law on this is clear. There is no legal question to be resolved.
There's no reason to think they didn't, if that son was born here. That's the only restriction they placed.
§ 24.2-1016. False statements; penalties.
Any willfully false material statement or entry made by any person in any statement, form, or report required by this title shall constitute the crime of election fraud and be punishable as a Class 5 felony. Any preprinted statement, form, or report shall include a statement of such unlawful conduct and the penalty provided in this section.
And again...There was a factual legal case in those instances. You don't have one with Obama.
That is what we have been working on, much to your chagrin. Sure lots of circumstantial evidence, along with Obama’s very strange behavior regarding the subject. We’ll get to the bottom of it, despite you Obama lovers here booing every step of the way.
BTW, those factual legal cases consisted of the election officials checking the birth records, something they will be forced to do sooner or later.
“Inconceivable that the founders wanted future sons of British citizens to be considered “natural born” citizens. Does any one believe they would have?”
I haven’t looked at the federalist papers in years..wouldn’t they have mentioned it? Or did they?
RCW 29A.84.311
Candidacy declarations, nominating petitions.
Every person who:
(1) Knowingly provides false information on his or her declaration of candidacy or petition of nomination; or
(2) Conceals or fraudulently defaces or destroys a certificate that has been filed with an elections officer under chapter 29A.20 RCW or a declaration of candidacy or petition of nomination that has been filed with an elections officer, or any part of such a certificate, declaration, or petition, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Twist, twist, twist. LOL. Barry says he was a dual citizen at birth, and you...the loyal OBOT questions his holiness? You best look into another refil of kool-aid.
One example, check out Jay’s (numerous) letter(s) on wanting to prevent foreign entanglements. His well know letter to (presiding over the Con Con) Washington immediately pre-dates the requirement showing up in their drafts.
Great job! It really sounds to me like the secretary of states are liable, and therefore they should be the target of the lawsuits. An official demand to the secretary of states to show why they are legally satisfied that the candidate meets the requirements as set forth by the consitution! I’m telling you, they should be the defendants.
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.