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 cant legitimately hold office, has filed a motion to withdraw as the captains 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) clients most recently stated position in this case.
It appears, however, that Taitz didnt sign her motion. Court records filed Monday state that the motion must be filed again because Taitz didnt sign it.
All her previous experience was in defending herself in malpractice cases relating to her dental practice.
Mario Apuzzo is an ambulance chasing DWI layer with no constitutional law trial experience.
Certainly. Post the California law that said the Secretary of State was required to check the qualifications of all presidential candidates. That would do it, and would show that the law was violated. And I would certainly agree that some sort of legal action against the Secretary of State would be called for.
Do that and the facts are there for all to see. Even I couldn't spin out of that. Let me know when you're ready.
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.
And where have you proven me, or anyone else, wrong?
You know I answer your questions and prove you wrong, but you never acknowledge the answer or being wrong. You question me as if you think I'm a liar. It's because you seem to be in denial that you could be wrong.
The secretary of state’s staff in cal admitted they didn’t check his qualifications. They left it to Howard dean and Nancy Pelosi. Is MLO saying that they reviewed his father’s British citizenship and his BC and verified that he was “natural born?” Were’s the proof of that mlo?
Your last questions has been answered many times. I'm not going to dredge up every post I have made to you. You're welcome o do that for your own reminder. Your calling for that information is again indicative of your disengenuous posting practices.
Yeah. What I'm still waiting for is a quote from the actual law that they violated. As I've said half a dozen times.
As you know from being told many times there is a constitutional requirement that the candidate meet the qualifications of office. It is his responsibility to do so. Not mine to do an expensive investigation to prove he is not. Since no governmental entity required him to do so, citizens are now asking the court to have him do it. You see the burden of proof is on him. The requirement is on him and the information is in his control.
One has to ask, again, why you keep repeating these often answered questions and why are you trying to delay the search for truth and protect the fraud suspect.
The allegation is that he violated the law and they are negligent for not checking qualifications, as they have admitted. Did you read the links. They used to do it and last year they didn’t. Got it now? I cannot explain it at a more remedial level.
What is more amazing is that coinservatives are protecting the suspect instead of calling for the full disclosure and the truth.
“BTW, those factual legal cases consisted of the election officials checking the birth records, something they will be forced to do sooner or later.”
I thought the state of Hawaii had already officially confirmed that they have his original birth certificate on file and that he was born in Hawaii.
What other facts do you wish to be checked?
In two separate and distinct statements. And run through lawyers to not incriminate herself.
It proves nothing, but fortunately, the public is entitled to know what basis she made the limited claims she did. So the idiots may have shot themselves in the foot.
What makes you think she gave out false information?
I didn’t say she gave out false information. She gave out CYA lawyerese and withheld most of the information. But according to HI law, the public has a right to know the basis of her proclamations. So we’ll see how that suit goes.
What have you done lately? MilSpec? What is that? Some contractor govt worker?
So.... they do have his original birthcertificate and he was born in Hawaii. OK. What other information do you want to know?
Like I said. they were two distinct statements. They never said the BC said he was born in HI. In fact the purposely avoided saying that.
“Like I said. they were two distinct statements. They never said the BC said he was born in HI. In fact the purposely avoided saying that.”
Maybe they thought that the first statement would be enough to satisfy everyone?
If they have not made any false statements and they’ve said that they have his original birth certificate and they have also said that his records show that he was born in Hawaii then maybe you could paint me a possible scenario as to what you suspect may be being hidden from us?
I thought the state of Hawaii had already officially confirmed that they have his original birth certificate on file and that he was born in Hawaii.
What other facts do you wish to be checked?
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October, 2008 over eight months ago.
Was nice of the Dr. to include his legal opinion since place of birth is only one of the criteria.
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.