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.)
WOW...Anita Dunn is married to Obama’s DOJ lawyer?! These people sure are an incestuous bunch of vipers..LOL!
The abuses of power and derelictions of duty continue to mount.
“Does he think we will not continue to pursue the truth even after his death of old age?”
LoL oh Lord help us all if we have to wait that long. NS, MLO and the rest of us who usually lurk will nead thicker glasses and assistance freeping. HahahahA!
Yep .. she used to work for Daschle
You’ve got a target rich environment on this thread enjoy. :-)
Ooops .. Robert Bauer IS NOT 0’s DOJ lawyer .. he’s 0’s personal attorney and attorney for the DNC.
http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/
I appreciate the kind words, but I came out in the middle of my class, not the top. Writing is fun, but timed tests not so much. I cheer myself up by remembering how smart, young, and energetic the competition was. Our school is cranking out a 90+ bar passage rate nationally. I spent a lot of sleepless nghts just trying to keep up. Wouldn’t trade the experience, though. It was great.
Bump
In which case he would merely have to reject it.
It's obviously not practical or reasonable to expect a baby to contact a foreign country and renounce dual citizenship.
Are you a vetter?
OK, I see we have a fundamental epistemological issue. :-)
"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."
It may not be a confirmed fact, but if I really was born 35 years ago then it's a fact I'm 35, whether anyone see the proof or not. It's a fact because it IS, not because someone's confirmed it.
There's a dark side of the moon that nobody had ever seen before we built rockets that could get there. For all of human history no person had ever confirmed anything about the dark side. But it still existed. It was there. It has craters that didn't pop into existence only when someone looked at them. It was a fact of existence, even without a person confirming it.
In the same sense, I am my age whether anyone ever looks at my driver's license. It just is.
He might as well work for the DOJ....no doubt that Holder is taking orders from him by now.
Most eveything has grown back now.
There's still a low spot this side of the river.
Don’t have to do it as a baby. (strawman as usual)
Well, it’s been an interesting and somewhat disappointing day. I figured everyone would be undivided when it comes to vetting candidates. I am worried about that little factoid. If we’re not all for vetting, then this whole thing could happen again.
I believe you meant 1981. There was no travel ban, but there was a travel advisory. Basicaly it stated that while Visas were obtainable at the airport in Pakistan, they were not good for any more than 30 days, and they could not be renewed. Staying longer, or if the travel was business related, required getting the Visa in adance, and that took a long time. Since Obama's trip was tagged on to the end of a visit to his mother and sister in Indonesia, it seems unlikely they would have gotten it in advance, but possible. However they also likely did not stay for more than 30 days, so he would not have needed to get the one in advance. Probably the same deal if he traveled on an Indonesian passport.
This is the behaviour of a client who HAS a lot to hide.
It looks as if they are indeed hiding fraud committed on the American public.
This is going to gain tracton, more and more. The suits need to keep coming, the more , the better.
It is the one area that REALLY worries Obama, that he will be discovered , in fact.
Only a matter of time now, for the issue will surely enter the political arena.
COmpared to say, one case against Scooter Libby, one case against Tom DeLay which the left used to pillory both men, we have 48 cases that go unmentoned in the media. Soon that will change.
All of AMerica will soon be asking. " SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE!"
It also will become a campaign issue in the upcoming 2010 electoins as conservative candidates wave their birth certificates AT the press, and publish them.
We have a presidet who CANOT do the same. HE WILL NOT. Preferring to spend millions to keep a sordid past secret from America.
Obama's time for covering this up is now drawing to an end.
Heard a rumor that Orly Taitz will be on CNN tonight at 9 Eastern. That should be loads of fun!
“Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.”
My conclusion: Judge Land is a “birther”!
Judge Land’s remedy if Orly’s charges are true:
“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.”
My conclusion: Land, by omission doesn’t recognize quo warranto as a remedy for removing an ineligible POTUS. Leo Donofrio will not be pleased. Land articulates Orly Taitz’ exact charges against Obama and rather than disparaging them, instructs Taitz on the most straightforward constitutional remedy.
But then, shockingly, Judge Land identifies the one exception when the judiciary “will participate in…the removal of the President”:
“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.”
Holy Fleep!
Hidden in Judge Land’s ruling in which he must uphold the dignity of the federal bench when under assault from well-intentioned but deluded and reckless counsel regardless of his personal views on the case, Judge Land, in my reading, has declared his support for participation of the judiciary in the removal of the President if (and only if) “an individual can clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
How about Keyes individual right to a fair election which Judge Carter has already verbally affirmed as being a legitimate right of the candidate plaintiffs of Taitz and Creep?
Note Land’s language “violated by the process”! Obama wouldn’t even need to be aware that he was ineligible to be removed by the judiciary if it was proved that a flawed process allowed an ineligible candidate to become president, it seems Land is saying.
Note that Judge Land’s statement covers not only the pre-inauguration “selection” process, but “removal of the President”, as in the inaugurated President! Judge Land says the judiciary can remove the sitting President under this exception!
I hereby pronounce Judge Land to be a Patriot and a credit to the federal bench!
Which is exactly what Orly wants. She will ask the court of collection to subpoena Obamas documents, when they try the collection process, saying that the order of fine is based on a refusal by land to follow due process on a probative point in a valid case. SHe can raise this point as a matter of defence to the fine.
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.