That's was me I didn't want to be-smudge Winnie the
;-)
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.)
I haven't resorted to name calling. I make a point not to do so.
Since there is no definition in the law of natural born citizen, the SCOTUS must look outside of the law for an answer.
That would be a paraphrased quote from the Chief Justice in the SCOTUS ruling on Minor v. Happersett. If you had any knowledge, at all, of the law on this issue, you would know that. You'd also realize that SCOTUS, in interpretting the law, essentially does make law/policy. That's evidenced by the precedents set in their opinions.
Nothing else in your post deserves acknowledgment.
In which case he would merely have to reject it.
It sounds like he was burning weed alright.
OMG! I’m going to have rethink my entire position on this whole matter.
I need a damn glass of chocolate milk to sort this one out.
That's was me I didn't want to be-smudge Winnie the
;-)
Because Obama's own books, whether he wrote them or not, say his father was a British/Kenyan citizen. We also know that BHO Sr came to Hawaii in '59 and left in '62, and left the US, IIRC, in '64. By some accounts, which I find credible, the Natural born citizen requirement means more than merely born in the US. So the BC would prove who his father was, thus proving or disproving his ineligibility. When he sends legions of lawyers out to prevent the release of his early records, including his Birth Certificate, that leads somewhat naturally to the question of "just where was BHO Jr. born". For other Presidents, we have signs, national monuments, etc. For BHO, we don't even have a plaque at the entrance to the hospital, if any, in Hawaii that he was born in. Now why would *anyone* not want to say what hospital they were born in?
Other Presidents and candidates did not come to the campaign with virtually no national recognition, beyond a speech at their party's convention 4 years (actually less than 3 year from the day he announced). McCain we knew about, his father and grandfather were Navy Admirals. His picture is the Annapolis yearbook, and we saw him getting off the C-141 from Hanoi in February of '73. We know his ties to the US.
We know Biden is one of the youngest persons ever elected to the Senate (He was 29 on election day 1972, but turned 30 before taking office, as the Constitution requires). We knew he was an idiot and plagerist, but those are not, unfortunately, Constitutional disqualifications for either Senator or Vice President.
You posted a case that bears absolutely no relevance to Obama. But I’ve noticed that Birthers do that a lot.
Can’t be anything too interesting, since I vaguely recall getting one . . . .
Referring to those who oppose your points as “birthers” isn’t name calling?
Likewise, “Nothing else in your post deserves acknowledgment”.
We gotta a whole host of Obama buttsniffin trolls here. It’s hilarious what has evolved.
In addition to OUR lovely taxes despicably paying for O’s representation by the DOJ attorneys in these cases, Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie (married to Glenn Beck’s new best friend, Anita Dunn) is one of the legal firms Obama uses (Obama For America), which must file quarterly reports with the FEC, as, of course, his campaign never ends.
From the Obama For America FEC report for July 2009, for the time period from April 10, 2009 to June 30, 2009, the amount disbursed for legal services Perkins Coie is:
$291,310
Same period - disbursed to Right Now Technologies for
legal services (Bozeman, MT)
$625
Same period - disbursed to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius for
legal services
$4,250
Cash on hand beginning of reporting period
$9,958,960
Receipts this reporting period
$948,576
Total disbursements this reporting period
$1,987,582
Cash on hand end of reporting period
$8,919,953
http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/843/29934510843/29934510843.pdf#navpanes=0
__________________________________________________________
*snip*
In the case, being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, he recently subpoenaed the records documenting the attendance by Obama, or possibly the student when he was known as Barry Soetero, from Occidental College.
The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.
“This firm is counsel to Occidental College. The College is in receipt of the enclosed subpoena that seeks certain information concerning President-Elect Barack Obama,” he wrote via fax.
“Inasmuch as the subpoena appears to be valid on its face, the College will have no alternative but to comply with the subpoena absent a court order instructing otherwise.”
Within hours, Woocher contacted Kreep regarding the issue, telling him, “It will likely not surprise you to hear that Obama opposes the production of the requested records.
“In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena”
Woocher warned, “Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures.”
Why?
Is it a coincidence that both the Occidental lawyers and the Obama lawyers have addresses at 100 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles? And, that Woocher, selected as a “Southern California Super Lawyer, 2009; practices “political law” — what’s “political law?”
There’s at least 48 legal cases attempting to gain access to various documents from Obama’s past. In this one case, Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide his bona fides, and using a “Super Lawyer” to do it. You do the math. Obama is spending millions to hide his past from the American People.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-renewed-debate-about-obamas-birth-certificate/2/
__________________________________________________________
Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?
Posted by papundits on 04/16/2009
Exclusive by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway
(Editor’s note: Barack Obama’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with “sanctions,” because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth. No legalizing on our part. No exaggeration. No political manipulation. Just the facts in black and white.
We have the shocking letter dated April 3 . The president of the United States is threatening sanctions – and the word “sanctions” is used in the threat — against attorney John Hemenway. Read on.)
After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President.
(Hemenway had joined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton’s ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.)
The entire letter, written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following (and we note that there is no reference in this letter to an existing valid Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, as opposed to a Certificate of Live Birth, and there is no claim that a valid Birth certificate exists which can be shown to the American people, an act that immediately would shut down this query):
“I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.
Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”
Mr. Hemenway’s response to the letter was a promise to “write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to “transparency” and “openness” and honesty in governmental operations-all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter.”
Mr. Hemenway added, “The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won’t work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me.”
In his opinion, “many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: “Nada dakazat’ kulak!” (You must show them your fist!)”
Hemenway also pledged:
“…to appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called “reprimand”) by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as “frivolous” but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11.
(This would have given me-and others engaged in this important battle -standing in the Court of Appeals.)
I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals. The military, as Colonel Hollister’s interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ orders originating from a ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ commander-in-chief.
Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn’t seek any. The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering’.”
For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill’s admonition: “If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up-never – never – never.” The most important part of that quote is the “matter of principle.”
It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill. Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle.
If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Last, Hemenway points out:
“Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called “Anschluss”) and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria. He says his father left Austria in 1940. Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started.
In any event, if Bauer’s background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?”
Well, I’m not a birther. I want all candidates vetted personally by ALL sec of states. Are you not a vetter?
Of course you're not.
No, that's not right. Look let's just address some basic things straight up, without sniping and accusations of bad faith. Maybe we just might get to a point where each side can understand the other's honestly, without assuming evil intent.
So in simple terms, you understand that any President could be 35, be a natural born citizen, and have lived in the US for 14 years. That those facts can be true facts, even if he shows nobody anything to prove them. They can still be true facts of themselves. Right?
Nope. Since I used to call myself a birther, it most definitely is not name calling.
I like the one where Eaker blows up Huffman by shooting Achmed in the Nuke.
The mechanism is up to the judgment of the electors (and to the judgment of Congress when certifying the electoral result). My point is that the electoral college was created as one of many buffers to screen out lawless mob rule while still allowing the citizenry to control the state — the people in that office were clearly expected to exercise that function by (for example) withholding their votes from a candidate who was (in their determination) not legally eligible to assume the office.
A fact is not a fact until it is confirmed. Having it in your mind or saying it is true does not make it a fact. Showing to other observers who see the same thing makes it a fact. If you say you are 35 that is not a fact until it can be shown in some manner to be factual.
How odd that someone on a web site on which politicans are grilled every day would accept Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean's comments that OB is in fact qualified to be president. In fact, the facts are being questioned, are they not. The facts are known and the proof is out there (apologies to X-Files) but his comments may not be factual. In fact, it is my stronge desire to one day know the actual facts by having recognized authority review his personal records. Until then the facts remain unknown.
This is the first time I’ve stayed on an anti-vetting thread for an entire day. They get mean at night!
I would think expending that amount of resources, court and attorney, and staf time is a sign of mental illness. Does he think we will not continue to pursue the truth even after his death of old age? History and a free citizenry are entitled to the truth.
That was not the criteria for "natural born subject" nor "naturales" in Blackstone or Vattel respectively. It has to do with the the place of birth and status of the parents. Blackstone has the only exceptions from place of birth be for foreign diplomats or armies in occupation of that place, as well as for the children of British fathers born outside the Kings domain. Vattel has an eception to his "of citizens and in the country" for those born outside the country but in its service.
Under Blackstone's "rule", Obama is a Natural Born Subject of the Crown of England, assuming his parents were who he says they were, and were legally married at the time. His birth certificate would prove who is father was in a legal sense, so even in the "born in Hawaii" case, it has something to contribute.
Under Vattel's rule, Obama is not a Natural born citizen of the US, since his father was not a citizen. (The father need not be natural born, can be naturalized, which BHO Sr never was). Of course if BHO was not born in the US, then under the law at the time, he's not a citizen, or if his parents were not married, he's a citzen but not natural born. (An unmarried woman need only have resided in the US for one year for her foreign born child to be a citizen under the immigration and naturalization code), by either Blackstone or Vattel's rules.
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.