Where does it say that? And what is your proof that it was altered?
Posted on 10/13/2009 7:45:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.
-snip-
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
(Full Order at the link.)
At this point you are perpetuating a lie by asking a false question for which you know the answer.
Say something non-repetitous and I may stay.
http://mrlk.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/onelovestory-old-testament/
This is the story as written by Lee – aka burnweed...I did not write ONELOVESTORY. The book came through me, transformed me, and now there is no me. I no longer consider myself to be of this world. I am now in Spirit, and Spirit is in me. I am whole...
I graduated law school in June 1990 and took a job at a law firm in New Jersey.
In addition to Burnweed's previous self-identification as "Lee D'Onofrio," Leo Donofrio graduated from St. John’s University, School of Law in 1990, and then practiced law in New Jersey.
Check his comment history. Speaks for itself.
A nation may make foolish laws and whimsy, there is a law of nations, an ideal beyond the faddish reach of such folly. Under that law, Obama is Kenyan. There are very fews birth fact we know for certain about Obama. He was born around 1961 give or take a year or so — that’s a certain fact confirmed by early photographs. His mother was Stanley Dunham — that’s a well attested biographical fact. “Well attested” meaning accepted by all parties, and long established as an attestment and documented attestments, see for example the student enrollment book from the Indonesian grammar school. His father was Barack Obama, the Kenyan. That is also a well-attested fact, although there is less attestment, and there is also a seed of doubt, due to the lack of some key papers — such as a marriage license, and the lack of eyewitnesses to the marriage and to the cohabitation of Stanley and Barack, and as well some questions as to where he and she lived just before and after Obama is said to have been born.
Three facts only. And the last mentioned one with a seed of doubt.
And as you say, that last fact means Barack Hussein Dunham-Sutoro-Obama or whatever alias he has taken on at times is not natural born in the sense of that term in the Constitutional qualifications for President.
FROM SCOTUS
Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.
2. Despite the recognition of the maternal root by the 1934 amendment, in effect at the time of plaintiff’s birth, and despite the continuing liberalization of the succeeding statutes, the plaintiff still would not be entitled to full citizenship because, although his mother met the condition for her residence in the United States, the plaintiff never did fulfill the residential condition imposed for him by any of the statutes.
3. This is so even though the liberalizing 1940 and 1952 statutes, enacted after the plaintiff’s birth, were applicable by their terms to one born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, the date of the 1934 Act, and were available to the plaintiff. See nn. 5 and 1, supra.
Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born. The plaintiff [401 U.S. 815, 827] nevertheless failed to satisfy any form of the condition.
from last link.
Where does it say that? And what is your proof that it was altered?
That's her theory, but she may be wrong. it may be that Hawaii changed the terminology on the COLB's issued after some date, sometime between 2003 and 2007. Or maybe not, but it'll only take a few examples, or just one, with a long form saying "accepted by" and the COLB saying "filed by" for the same person, to prove her wrong. At least one such set has already been posted here on FR. The "accepted by" language is clearly part of the '61 and '63 BC forms, it's not something stamped or typed on the printed form.
I'm more concerned by the date shown, the Tueday after the Friday evening birth, and the file sequence number. In comparison, the Nordyke twins', born 19 hours after BHO's COLB image says he was born, in the same hospital (Maybe?? since he won't say which hospital he was born in) which show file numbers *lower* than his, and an "accepted by" date 3 days after his. Now that is something to make you go "Hmmm?"
I do. But that’s besides the point. Are the marxists at FactCheck the de facto vetters now?
Here's the clause: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...
Served and said 10 Billion times on FR over the last year.
Whoever wrote that obviously is not familiar with the Ark case and the Elg case.
Heck, I'll post it:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
If you're going to claim that the plural "parents" automatically implies that the Senate meant that two parents are required, then the Senate must have also mean that being born on an American military base is also required.
The simple fact is that John McCain was born to two American parents, so it said "parents." He was born on a military base, so it said "military base." They phrased it based on his circumstances, not on some grand but unstated theory of natural-born citizenship.
Not if the lawyer from the Soviet Union has her way.
The fact that the Senate deemed birth in presumed U.S. territory worthy of inclusion in a Resolution, purportedly affirming that John McCain is a natural-born citizen, is indicative of specific need to do so.
That both citizen parents and birth in presumed U.S. territory were deemed worthy of inclusion in their Resolution, with both the jus sanguinis qualifying status and the jus soli qualifying status, is indicative of specific need to do so.
The relevant SR.511 text in question reads:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936"
And none of that matters one wit if we demonstrate your hero is a fraud.
Yep...very telling.
I think Subway skimped on the mayo, so my hero is probably a fraud.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=815
U.S. Supreme Court
ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
401 U.S. 815
ROGERS, SECRETARY OF STATE v. BELLEI
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
factcheck aka wh bloggers
“A decade after the original was written” Wasn’t this a time when the British were taking our sailors off of US ships and claiming they were British citizens. I’m thinking there would have been a lot of discussion and perhaps writing about the issue of citizenship during that period until about 1814.
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.