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.)
Sounds like she is telling the old boy to shove it to me:
Reached on her cell phone by TPMmuckraker and informed of the $20,000 fine imposed on her by a federal judge this morning, Birther attorney Orly Taitz responded, first, with laughter.
“So he didn’t recuse himself?” Taitz asked, after letting out an extended, nervous-sounding chuckle.
Still defiant after months of legal wrangling and, by our count, three written denunciations by federal district court Judge Clay Land, Taitz said she had absolutely no plans to pay the $20,000 fine.
“Are you kidding? Of course not,” she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. “This is a form of intimidation.”
Uh huh.
Oh noes -- you've updated your (hit)list -- we're shaking in our shoes, Joe.
Does that mean you press the abuse button twice when we post?
From the guy that likes to pretend he’s a Muslim on You Tube videos. Now that is rich.
I don't need to; I'm personally satisfied with the evidence I have.
But are you satisfied with the evidence that Joe Biden is Constitutionally eligible for the office he holds? If so, why? He's produced less evidence than Obama, but nobody's demanding that he produce any birth certificates, or parents' marriage certificates, or passport records, or kindergarten records, or baptism records. Do you even know what hospital Biden was born in? Why are you holding Obama to a different standard than Biden?
And if you're not satisfied with Biden's credentials, why aren't you demanding to see his records too? It's just as big a transparency issue. If you're going to claim that Obama should release something, it's not really much more trouble to append "and so should Biden." Failing to do so makes it look like Biden is held to a different standard, just like above.
Well said. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the problem.. But great minds can unite and seek a solution. I shall await their proactive posts.
No, see what I mean? There hasn't been any proof offered that a constitutional violation has occured. The constitution doesn't require production of a birth certificate. The constitutional provisions regarding election of a president have been followed.
Certainly not.
Peggy?
Dang it, man!
Now you’re a troll too.
She is going to be disbarred. Watch and see.
Mostly it's folks who worship them and fawn over their every word that I mess with.
Of course, reading comprehension would be required to know that.
So your confusion is understood.
This is sarcasm right?
Most states already require it. Pissant posted copies of the requirements on a previous thread.
Are you saying that it’s okay for a president to remain in office, if indeed the vetting process shows him or her ineligible?
Dang. Even when Achmed always dies?
We had fun with those, you're just jealous!
As to the impact of foreign law, my own inclination is that it may have to be weighed to the second generation, in this following regard: How much does the foreign custom and law practically hold the descendant the specific person at question?
That is from a nation that maintains very close ties to its ex-citizens, and where the specific person, has publicly and repeatedly expressed a co-citizenship intent, I might not consider that person natural born, under the strong sense that the mention in the Presidential requirement clause should suggest. It is strong because it is a special, extra requirement and thus should be interpreted strongly and not weakly.
That is, there are cases that merit special consideration.
For example: what of the citizen who has always lived outside the country, but who was born to citizens who had traveled abroad? Such an expatriated citizenship can be passed down through many generations as best I understand. Maybe I am wrong.
I think in what the framer’s meant for the term there are clear lines of only a subset of NBC status — being born in nation of citizen parents being NBC, and being born out of the nation to non-citizen parents being non-NBC. But that in the middle — there is a determination to be made under some process (yet to be defined, there’s the rub) and that process would factor in cultural affinity and international legal entanglements both general and specific.
Amen.
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.