Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Land Fines Orly Taitz $20K, File Copy of Order with State Bar of CA
United States District Court (Georgia) ^ | 10/13/2009 | Judge Clay Land

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.)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: afterbirthers; afterbirtherwave; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; civilprocedure; eligibility; judgeland; orlytaitz; truthers; vetters; vetting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,165 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan

This is politics. This isn’t the third grade. Are you a pansy?


51 posted on 10/13/2009 8:15:58 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

These afterbirther trolls (pardon my language) will argue 24-7 using legal technicalities and splitting hairs, but the upshot of it all is that they want Barry to skate without showing a scrap of documentation about his shadowy past.


52 posted on 10/13/2009 8:17:24 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
"How difficult is it for you to type for all of the handles you use here?"

I have one handle. The only one I've ever used here. Since 1998. Lurked for a long time before registering. :-)

"How much does Larry Sinclair’s lover pay you to do this?"

Your comments are inappropriate, and are redirecting the subject to talking about other freepers instead of the issues.

53 posted on 10/13/2009 8:17:40 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Neets

Sure, it’s really more of a Truth Squad. We’re interested in refuting inaccurate information about the law.


54 posted on 10/13/2009 8:17:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“but i would like to see some of the sealed records from college, etc...”

Well there are a lot of us who feel the same way. But you will find out that any questions you ask will be attacked by a certain group of posters. Just read the early ping list to see who most of them are, or post some questions.


55 posted on 10/13/2009 8:18:38 AM PDT by stockpirate ("if my thought-dreams could be seen. They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Why not set us straight, N-S?

What, again?

Sure she can appeal. Any court order can be appealed if there is a higher court that can rule on it.

56 posted on 10/13/2009 8:19:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlo

But that is what you do all the time on the other threads.


57 posted on 10/13/2009 8:19:29 AM PDT by stockpirate ("if my thought-dreams could be seen. They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

calling him a kenyan and calling for the SCOTUS to remove him crosses a line. that’s what Orley wants, isn’t it?


58 posted on 10/13/2009 8:20:06 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Orley=Orly


59 posted on 10/13/2009 8:20:30 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
If you post questions you will likely get answers. It's possible you may not like the answers, depending on the questions and your disposition, but that's life.

If you post false statements you will get someone saying so. If you post true statements you will get someone saying so.

Is there something wrong with any of that?

60 posted on 10/13/2009 8:20:40 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
"But that is what you do all the time on the other threads."

No it isn't. Just like in this thread, it's always a birther who starts insulting people. I'll have a respectful conversation with anyone who shows respect.

61 posted on 10/13/2009 8:22:19 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: manonCANAL
This will give Orly legal grounds to obama’s records.

Why would it?

Orly is no fool...

Apparently Judge Land does not share your opinion.

...and she has many lawyers assisting her.

I believe she has one disbarred lawyer assisting her, not legions. Real attorneys won't work with her.

all you who love the messiah, why is obongo keeping all his records under lock and key??

All you who worship Orly, are you going to kick in for the $20K?

62 posted on 10/13/2009 8:23:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Well Judge Land has also sent the order to the California State Bar.


63 posted on 10/13/2009 8:23:35 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
These afterbirther trolls (pardon my language) will argue 24-7 using legal technicalities and splitting hairs, but the upshot of it all is that they want Barry to skate without showing a scrap of documentation about his shadowy past.

And all you Birthers want is to ignore the Constitution and the law.

64 posted on 10/13/2009 8:24:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

She’s going to be disbarred, it’s only a matter of time.


65 posted on 10/13/2009 8:24:56 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

Nope. I’m not a pansy. It has been alleged that those whom the birthers call “after/anti birthers” troll these threads to disrupt discussion and are usually the ones who first devolve into personal attacks and the like.

I’m just making note of what actually happened. As I will be doing from now on on other threads. It’s just for the record. I don’t expect the mod to get involved until such time as it is clearly demonstrated and documented that the birthers are the ones displaying trolling tactics and launching the personal attacks and not the other way around.

We’re tired of the troll accusations. The mods are tired of the accusations. Even lurkers are tired of the accusations.


66 posted on 10/13/2009 8:25:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

He is a Kenyan. By birth he inherited Kenyan citizenship from his Dad — that was British colonial citizen at Birth, and Kenyan when Kenya became independent. Just as Hawaiian citizens at birth became US citizens when Hawaii became a territory.


67 posted on 10/13/2009 8:25:22 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

QED


68 posted on 10/13/2009 8:25:57 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: manonCANAL
hm?....I am not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable that she should have access to the evidence she needs to defend her reputation. Those records would all those documents surrounding Obama’s eligibility.
69 posted on 10/13/2009 8:26:46 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3243&AD_ID=EMA165


70 posted on 10/13/2009 8:28:16 AM PDT by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Land published his order for sanctions today. $20K.


71 posted on 10/13/2009 8:29:24 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: manonCANAL

I am not a lawyer, but in order for her to disprove the Judge’s assertions, she might have access to discovery...


72 posted on 10/13/2009 8:30:00 AM PDT by Stayfree (FLUSHTHE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS BECAUSE THEY ARE FULL OF IT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
all you Birthers want is to ignore the Constitution and the law

Not sure what you mean. Would you explain?
73 posted on 10/13/2009 8:30:36 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob; All

If anyone’s interested in reading this more than 40 page decision, there is discussion on pp25-28 that this judge believes that the proper forum for outing a POTUS who fraudulently concealed his qualifications to be POTUS is in impeachent proceedings.

I despise Obama and his policies, and believe he has fraudulently concealed his past, but it is a bit difficult to disagree with the substance of this court’s sanctions order, if she engaged in all the behavior he detailed in his decision.

And btw for those who haven’t read the decision and order, he expressly denied being in a coffee shop with Holder, and denied ever speaking or meeting with him.

He was also quite displeased at her specuation that that he had a financial interest in the outcome because he owned stock in Comcast and Microsoft, and she claimed the profits of those companies would suffer if Obama was removed.

You have to be careful about accusing a judge - especially a federal court judge- of illicit and “treasonous” conduct. He obviously took offense to her “fictitious” allegations.

Next case!


74 posted on 10/13/2009 8:32:50 AM PDT by Canedawg (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Obama on birth had dual citizenship, U.S. and British. How can dual citizenship also be a natural birth? Regardless of where Obama wass born, he is does not meet the provision in Art 2 Sec 1 of the Constitution. The courts are the proper venue for rulings on birth.
75 posted on 10/13/2009 8:33:40 AM PDT by spookie (SPOOKIE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg

Nice summary. I concur on all points made.


76 posted on 10/13/2009 8:34:52 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

77 posted on 10/13/2009 8:35:19 AM PDT by montag813 (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
These afterbirther trolls (pardon my language) will argue 24-7 using legal technicalities and splitting hairs, but the upshot of it all is that they want Barry to skate without showing a scrap of documentation about his shadowy past.

No, I don't think that's it. I want BHO gone from the White House as much as anybody, but like some others I don't think this is the way it's going to happen. When the first of the "birther" theories began to surface I thought it was intriguing... maybe something to it.

But the longer it went on, the more smoke and the less fire there seemed to be. After reading everything I could find, the truth is there's just precious little evidence to support spending any further time and energy on this. The State of Hawaii has officially certified that he was born there. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary... anything... then this is going nowhere. Our time is better spent fighting what he is doing than wasted by tilting at windmills.

78 posted on 10/13/2009 8:36:05 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: spookie

Yes, correct. Obama is not a natural born citizen for that very reason, IMO. However, the courts are not the proper venue. I believe that the only option via the courts is a quo warranto action in D.C. Outside of that, impeachment is the only legal method to remove him. If we buckle down and focus on taking back the House AND Senate in 2010, we might get somewhere.


79 posted on 10/13/2009 8:37:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Hey does this mean that she now has standing to get the records to debate the Judge.


80 posted on 10/13/2009 8:37:57 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spookie

Got an explicit ruling on what Natural Born Citizen means? Do you think it is likely you have 5 votes on the SC to cause a constitutional crisis? Do you think it is more likely that they will give a ruling that allows the current status quo to continue and tell people if they don’t like the current president, vote him out during the next election or ask your congressman to start impeachment proceedings?


81 posted on 10/13/2009 8:38:11 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg

Canedawg, you are innocently, I’m sure, being drawn into using an afterbirther troll tactic: “I’m against Obama too, but...” and then make Orly Taitz the issue. She is not the issue. If you’re against Obama (or whatever his name is) and you think his records need to made public, then please help.


82 posted on 10/13/2009 8:38:20 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Not sure what you mean. Would you explain?

All that I or anyone else who get's labeled 'troll' around here wants is for the rule of law to be upheld. We don't want the Constitution trampled or the law ignored or legal precedent ignored for the sole purpose of gettng one man. There is no law requiring Obama to produce more documentation than he has, or any documentation at all for that matter. We wish there was but we're not willing to make up laws just to get Obama. There is a strict legal definition for meeting the requirements for filing a suit in civil court. If Taitz and her plaintiffs don't meet them then we don't go around calling the judge treasonous or making up fairy tales about midnight trips by Eric Holder to threaten him. We may not like the way things are going, but we understand why things are the way they are. And we realize that the antics of legal boneheads like Orly Taitz isn't going to accomplish anything.

83 posted on 10/13/2009 8:40:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

You can argue about tactics all you want, but if you think Obama needs to come clean with the American people, then at least don’t hinder if you can’t help.


84 posted on 10/13/2009 8:40:13 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Oh, ouch.

That’s all I got today...


85 posted on 10/13/2009 8:40:52 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ramius; Genoa
I see these liberal/Marxist arguments all the time regarding many issues.

It goes as follows:

“I want or support ( name the conservative issue) but... our time is better spent fighting what he is doing than wasted by tilting at windmills.”

Yeah right! ( Color me skeptical)

86 posted on 10/13/2009 8:41:33 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: spookie
Regardless of where Obama wass born, he is does not meet the provision in Art 2 Sec 1 of the Constitution.

And you base that on what?

87 posted on 10/13/2009 8:42:23 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I’m not a lawyer either but I think the Rules regarding a sanction and any requirement of discovery would not obtain here. She had a hearing, she had the opportunity to appear in the judge’s court, and to file documents explaining her position. She would only be afforded the discovery she seeks, as far as I understand it, if the judge sanctioned her without affording her the opportunies that he did to make her case, and she failed. Before going further she should pay up the $20K and be done with it in this court. This is not going to help one iota in CA, either, nor does it advance the goal of obtaining the information so many would like produced. I’d put any hope for that document production in one of the other, quieter, cases that are making their way thru the courts.


88 posted on 10/13/2009 8:42:33 AM PDT by EDINVA (Obama CAN'T see the Olympics from his back porch !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
"I am not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable that she should have access to the evidence she needs to defend her reputation. Those records would all those documents surrounding Obama’s eligibility."

No. Obama's records have nothing to do with defending herself against the fine. That's based on her own conduct, not her legal argument about Obama.

89 posted on 10/13/2009 8:42:39 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
What are Orly’s appeal options? Anyone know??

Probably none. Orly was damned by her own stupid behavior.

90 posted on 10/13/2009 8:43:02 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All

I defy the Taitz supporters to actually read the order and continue their support.

She is a complete whack job, and richly deserves the sanction.


91 posted on 10/13/2009 8:43:30 AM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Obama hasn’t produced any documentation at all to anyone of legal consequence that we know of. Unless you consider the marxists FactCheck and Kos the arbiters of NBC status now.


92 posted on 10/13/2009 8:43:43 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

I understand exactly what you are saying.

But as a conscientious particiant on Free Republic, and as someone who has a JD, I sometimes undertake to analyze and explain legal documents here so that other FReepers understand the legalese that is contained in these documents.

Last year I cautioned FReepers that the Berg case was in all likelihood not going to be satisfactorily resolved prior to the election, which of course turned out to be correct, although it may have disappointed some here.

My interpretation of developments in this litigation should not be confused with supporting those who may be DU trolls.


93 posted on 10/13/2009 8:44:13 AM PDT by Canedawg (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
tell people if they don’t like the current president,vote him out during the next election

I don't believe it's about 'liking or not liking' the current resident of our WH; it's about our Constitution.
94 posted on 10/13/2009 8:44:24 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I read some of this judge's opinion, and I think a fair summary of his thrust is that there is no way to remove an usurper except through impeachment.

He dismisses all armed service personnel concerns with a simple "shut up and serve, even if your orders come from an usurper --- it's up to the Democrats in Congress to do anything, and you cannot come to our courts for relief."

95 posted on 10/13/2009 8:45:09 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The “he” that is being referred to is Judge Land.


96 posted on 10/13/2009 8:45:17 AM PDT by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate; 1rudeboy
I thought that was him. Well we can tell he is open and honest.

I think 1rudeboy was messin' with you, son. On the day of the supposed meeting, AG Holden was in Georgia. For them to have met as alleged, Mr. Holden and/or the judge would have had to have traveled at Mach 3+ to get back to where they were spotted later in the day (3000 miles apart).

97 posted on 10/13/2009 8:45:56 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; presently no screen name; pissant

Those darn secretary of states DO play a role in vetting candidates.. And pissant pointed out numerous examples of state requirements on previous threads. SOS-not doing their jobs.


98 posted on 10/13/2009 8:47:15 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: spookie

Counsel, at least superficially, appears to understand that she
must structure her claim to overcome the standing hurdle. She
attempted to clear that hurdle on her way to the prize (verification
of the President’s place of birth) by having her client challenge her
deployment orders. This leap from a concern about a President’s
Constitutional eligibility to hold the office to a private legal cause
of action by an Army Captain to avoid deployment pursuant to an
otherwise valid order is where counsel entered the thicket of legal
frivolity. Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.
Counsel does not have the right, however, to file an action in federal
court on behalf of an Army officer to avoid deployment when the only
basis for seeking the Court’s aid to prevent deployment is speculation
and conjecture that the President is not eligible to serve.
Plaintiff’s counsel ignored the well-established precedent that
disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the armed
forces. She pointed to no legal authority supporting her contention
that an alleged “cloud” on the President’s eligibility to hold office
violated one of her client’s individual constitutional rights. And
she provided no legal authority to support the proposition that even
if the President were found not to be eligible for the office, that
this would mean all soldiers in the military would be authorized to
disregard their duty as American soldiers and disobey orders from
their chain of command.
Adoption of counsel’s legal theory would make the judiciary the
arbiter of any dispute regarding the President’s constitutional
qualifications. Our founders provided opportunities for a President’s
qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct
involvement by the judiciary. In addition to the obvious opportunity
that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s
qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism
for removing a President who “slips through the cracks,” which is how
counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the President
can be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4; see
also id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the
office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his
constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing
him from office. Except for the Chief Justice’s role in presiding
over the trial in the Senate, that mechanism does not involve the
judiciary. Id. art. I, § 3, cl. 6.
One can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected
representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether
a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the
issue in our courts. Although counsel’s present concern is the
location of the President’s birth, it does not take much imagination
to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks “too young”
to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he
reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older
than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz
be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his
birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps
an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an
alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce
the Constitution.7 Or, more to the point, perhaps the Court should
issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending
any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz
is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office. The federal
courts were not established to resolve such purely political disputes
or to assist in the pursuit of a political fishing expedition,
particularly when that intrusion would interfere with the ability of
the U.S. Army to do its job.
Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, the courts do not refrain from
entering political debates because of bias or personal disinterest.
They do so because the Constitution, within which counsel attempts to
wrap herself, prevents their encroachment into the political sphere.
That does not mean that judicial decisions do not often have political
consequences, nor does it mean that the judiciary cannot rule upon
issues that may overturn actions by the political branches when they
are contrary to the Constitution. But it is clear that the
Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate
in the selection or removal of the President, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are
somehow violated by the process. A generalized claim that the
President is unqualified does not fall within this narrow exception
and is best addressed to the First branch of government, not the
Third.
The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined
with the political diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that Ms.
Taitz’s purpose is to advance a political agenda and not to pursue a
legitimate legal cause of action. Rather than citing to binding legal
precedent, she calls the President names, accuses the undersigned of
treason, and gratuitously slanders the President’s father. As the
Court noted in an earlier order, counsel’s wild accusations may be
protected by the First Amendment when she makes them on her blog or
in her press conferences, but the federal courts are reserved for
hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a platform for political
rhetoric and personal insults. Simply put, no reasonable basis
existed for counsel to believe that her legal cause of action was
legitimate under existing law or under a reasonable extension or
modification of existing law. Thus, counsel’s Complaint on behalf of
Captain Rhodes was frivolous.


99 posted on 10/13/2009 8:48:24 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Oooh! Can I play?

“Are you in the entertainment field?”
— Bennett Cerf


100 posted on 10/13/2009 8:48:26 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( If you have kids, you have no right of privacy that the govt can't flick off your shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson