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 judges 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, counsels conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsels response to the Courts 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 Clerks Office, within thirty days of todays 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.)
I posit the there were at least two sides to the moon as humans had observed forever there are two sides or more to physical objects. How many millenium of observation would it take for you to accept that as fact. Being in the dark does not always deny a facts. The fact that it was referred to as the dark side is an acknowlegement of the side. In fact when we see OB's records, you may still choose to believe there is no other side to the moon.
This is the same logic problem you have when you look to the constitution for a specific rule to require a BC, when it is obviuous to the rest of us that the best evidence of age and location qualifications is the BC. And please answer my previous question Where are the rules in the constitution about what the president can do with the military?
You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted. You should be concerned more about having an unexperienced socialist in the Oval Office and as CIC than whether or not a candidate might have to show his BC.
Where did you come up with that analysis? I don’t see anything close to that in his order. In fact, he was more than kind to Orly Taitz. More kind than I would have been.
No, actually. He says that the Judiciary "can participate," but that would be only in the sense of (theoretically) finding that Obama fraudulently posed as a natural-born citizen.
However, and this is a big however, such a ruling can ONLY be made in the context of a non-frivolous claim that Obama's actions actually violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. The apparently unbalanced and certainly egregious Orly Taitz certainly failed on that score. (As an aside, I believe that Judge Land thoroughly enjoyed writing the judicial bludgeoning he administered to her on this matter....)
But even then, Judge Land makes clear that impeachment is the Constitutionally-defined method of removing a sitting president.
Just Curious.
It doesn't matter if I know it. It still happened. It is a fact in itself, because it did happen when it did. What people know about it is another question. A fact is true or not true, apart from whether anyone knows its truth.
"You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted."
No, you are attempting to jump ahead. If you can't even accept the notion that a thing is true whether anyone knows it is true or not, then there's nothing to build on. BTW, if you can't accept that notion you don't get to talk about supposed flaws in MY logic. :-)
If that's the case, then Orly Taitz is not just a fool, she's a damned fool.
And if insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," then I would have to say that Orly Taitz is insane. And not just every-day, drooling on her shirt front insane, either.
You all might want to consider that the lawyers here are the ones questioning her tactics, and that her supporters tend to be the ones who can preface their remarks that way.
Oh, dang now you've done it. You outted Land! He had such good cover. ;-)
You can not establish a fact by stating it adamantly and saying that is it a fact. Your saying so does not make it factual. In fact, I believe you are making it up.
Your logic on the presidential qualifications is the same as you are demonstrating here, illogic.
But, there could be some element of doubt, so those who responded negatively to you could possibly have a point. The reason a citizenship claim upon you could introduce doubt as to your being a natural born citizen under the Constitution would be the potential legal claims upon you, by Italy, when outside the jurisdiction of the United States, posing a difficulty for you and in turn the nation, should you become President.
The same would potentially be true, had you been born to two citizen parents in a foreign nation that itself claimed you as a citizen by birth under jus soli.
Obama does not have two citizen parents, and so U.S. jurisdiction was incomplete at birth, which is why you've seen so much parsing of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreign citizenship claim upon him only increases the level of doubt, as to his status at birth. That such a claim apparently did, and perhaps still does, exist, by the British, makes for a very compelling argument, but the fact that the citizenship is there, or is not, is not really relevant. It's the fact that his father was foreign and not a citizen, that is the problem.
The question isn't whether you accept it. It isn't whether anyone believes it. In the hypothetical situation where I was born 35 years ago, the question is whether it is true.
"You can not establish a fact by stating it adamantly and saying that is it a fact."
That's not the point. Again, it's not about establishing belief in the fact, it's that the fact is independently true, whether anyone knows about it or not. Why are you fighting so hard to not acknowledge this simple logical point?
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. ROFLMAO!
Even if Orly pulls the Don Quixote in every one of the cases she has, she still wiins. America now is beginning to find out exactly what Obama has been doing to hide his history.
Soon the issue will enter the political arena.Which is just what is needed. Orly knew this all along. She has lived under tyranny and knows exactly what she is doing, while her detractors jump all sorts of legal thinking and strategy, thinking that she is seeking only the legal remedy.
She seeks their aggression and their sanctions. And I can hardly wait until these break into the press and media on Fox news.
Go Orly GO! We LOVE YOU!!!!!!!
The courts and Obama are doing just what is needed, making a martyr out of her. I hope they continue to lay it on thicker.
Here are the two statements:
October 31, 2008
There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
July 27, 2009
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
As is often the case, what she did not say may be more important than what she did. She did not say that she or the Department "vouched for" the CoLB that was posted on Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, etc., nor any of the information on it, the first time. The second time she said that the origingal vital records, perhaps not that original birth certificate, verified that he was born in Hawaii. Nor did she say, either time, that the state DoH had even issued it. In fact she never even mentioned it.
Riight, much more likely is that it's what step-Dad Lolo was told by Stanley Ann, whether it was true or not.
With the rest
Well, it's your hypothetical, so flesh it out. How would citizenship claims be legally extended to individuals who do not yet exist? We're talking about citizenship status at birth, here.
How would Tonga, or North Korea, or whatever currently unpopular nation you choose to "posit" for reactionary reasons, plausibly claim jurisdiction under any recognized law?
How would such a claim be received by the United States? I strongly suggest it would not be recognized. There's a rather glaring, historic precedent for just this sort of thing.
Break it down for us, LorenC, since you see it as such a strong argument.
I'm going to posit that you know it's a silly, specious argument with no basis at all, which is why you just threw it out there without elaboration.
Did you not notice the Blacked out number, the thing that would lead to real evidence?
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.