Posted on 09/28/2009 10:15:01 AM PDT by vikk
Attorney Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement and lawyer for an Army captain who sought to stop her deployment to Iraq on arguments that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, has filed a motion to withdraw as the captain’s lawyer.
Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes, filed her latest motion Saturday. It cites two court documents as reasons for withdrawing from the case — a Sept. 18 order from U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land threatening $10,000 in sanctions against Taitz and a letter purportedly signed by Connie Rhodes, which asks for Taitz to be removed as her attorney.
“In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications,” Taitz states. “The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case.”
It appears, however, that Taitz didn’t sign her motion. Court records filed Monday state that the motion must be filed again because Taitz didn’t sign it.
That's because they are exhibits of the same document. Duh.
I see. So you expect them to respond immediately to your complaints. Is that it?
See post 454 for the answer.
I see a post with blown up low resolution photos with two seals that look pretty similar. I don't see why you think that's evidence of forgery.
Classic projection.
will not cause me to post for you the screen capture image I archived last summer.
LOL.Of course not. Nothing can cause you to post something that does not exist.
Yeah, they’ve been checkmated pretty good here, but that never stops them.
If an objective was keeping score in these threads, the score would be would be about
Obots/After-Birthers 2, Constitutionalists/truth verifiers 1,000
I've had this conversation before with you. Even had Phil Dragoo tell you in the past that the two images are undoctored. Any fool can see that the seals are distinctly different.
Correction.
If an objective = If an objective [person]
Again, on WND you are wrong and you are wrong here. The Ratan pattern is a ‘security’ feature. There are no broken lines in the FTS [fight the smears] COLB#1 or in the Factcheck COLB#2. You might be alble to lie your butt off and twist lies, but I have posted the evidence.
http://theobamafile.com/_exhibits/SteveCeeFactCheckFogery.doc
There IS no disputing the facts.
What beyond the forged documents [and they have been substantiated AS forged], is there ANY evidence that he was born in Hawaii?
By Obama’s own words, both his auto-biographies can NOT be taken literally. Both are false and misleading pasts of an undocumented alien residing in the United States.
As for the Obama ‘BELIEVERS’ [supporters]
Believer’s are Obama supporters who with NO tangible evidence about Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka ?, but they still believe him, nothing about him, his past, or ant of his claims has been substantiated or proved.
Both of his books by Obama’s own words can NOT be taken literally. They are nothing more then a facade, a mask of the true background and nature of Barack Obama, created to produce the Obama effect on whomever wants to believe in unicorns, forest fairies, bigfoot, UFOs and alternative realities.
Like a flying saucer, people claimed to have seen his REAL Birth Certification, but it has never seen the light of day. It remains hidden like Area 51, sealed to the public.We know it’s there, but you can’t see it. But like all the faked UFO pictures over the years, his COLB is nothing more then that. So continue to ‘belive’ in that facade that manifests in your own reality.
As usual, you lie boldly. Any reader can refute your lie by merely looking at the current fightthesmears image and locating the little black spot in the upper left quadrant and then look at the factcheck image and see that the dot is not there. Your littl squad of liars and dissemblers are becoming so transparent, picking up in team fashion to respond to posts not made to you buyt responding from your talking points. LOL
I would invite any lurker to click on the following link for himself. It is quite clear that there is no black spot. At least I can't see it. I guess I'm not wearing those special birther glasses. LOL.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Three horizontal green equal signs over to the right from Hawaii, upper left. Now go let your mommy change your diaper, you stink obamanoid.
When the DailyKOS forgery was made, the forger(s) didn't have an embossed stamp that looked like the Hawaiian seal. So the forger goes for second best. Create a ghost image underneath with barely visible distortions until a time that they could produce a facsimile of the Hawaiin raised seal.
Almost two months go by then in early August of 2008. The non-"Factchecker".org come out with their new and improved forgery. However, they still screw up the design of raised seal as seen below:
OK, so what you're saying is that the Obama campaign put online a COLB with a 'ghost' seal, and then two months later shared a COLB with a more visible seal with Factcheck.
But that's wholly inconsistent with the allegation that MHGinTN made in post 359, where he wrote:
"It was his website which first posted a jpg image of a CoLB which lacked a raised seal. When that was called to their attention, they placed a raised seal on the first image and claimed that was then genuine. There is an artifact in the image of the first exhibit which shows up in the second exhibit with the raised seal, but not in the third exhibit claimed by factcheck to be the ‘handled’ CoLB."
So MHGinTN maintained that Obama first posted a COLB that lacked a raised seal entirely, then promptly replaced it on the website with a COLB that DID have a raised seal, whereas you claim that they didn't replace anything until they showed a document to Factcheck in August 2008. And he said that the COLB they gave to Factcheck did NOT have a raised seal, whereas you claim that it DID.
So whose sequence of events is the right one? Because y'all are telling inconsistent and contradictory stories.
It won’t do you any good to badger Red Steel, obamanoid, he doesn’t have my screen shot file handy to post from it. But if you actually wanted the truth you would look carefully at the linked data in #467 above. Steve answered your question thoroughly and it must have stimied your talking points flow chart because you switched to badgering Red Steel for what Steve already gave you. Like I said, obot, taunting and badgering and baiting isn’t going to make you credible or get you anything further than what has laready been posted for you. Maybe Polarik will come back and go on the thread so you can vent your nasty spleen on him like you did a few weeks ago.
But that's wholly inconsistent with the allegation that MHGinTN made in post 359, where he wrote:
It's consistent with MHGinTN alright. There were reports that DailyKOS aka DailyNuts put up more than 1 iteration of the same thing meaning more than one forgery. If you go up thread you'll see where I agree with him, with the word...
"Yes"
And what Red Steel mentions only obliquely is that the second seal, is not from a flatly-scanned image like the first one, but from a photograph taken by a camera that was some inches away from the document, as the document was held at an angle to the camera. Thus, unsurprisingly, it doesn't have quite the same perspective as the first.
It was easily and quick for the forger to fix their glaring mistake for the lack of seal by photo-shopping a nebulous ghost image that looks similar to a raised seal that only after using an “edge detect” that you could see it. It also gives Obama and and the nuts at KOS cover so they could claim it was just a bad image job in the first place.
And isin’t it interesting to watch these obamanoids working so hard to try and cover for their affirmative action liar-in-chief, by expounding on the lies! ... I wonder if the mod on duty has changed yet? The obot roaches will scurry for cover if she’s left.
They may know about that — some do. ;-) I was waiting for LorenC to bring that up I was inconsistent with your posts. LOL! Most of the time I’m many steps ahead of them.
http://theobamafile.com/_exhibits/SteveCeeFactCheckFogery.doc
First, where in that document do you ever show that the FTS COLB#1 does not have any signs of a seal? Your concluding statement claims that this is the case, but you never show any images of the area of the FTS COLB where the seal would be, and you only focus on the ink-stamps. You state it as a conclusion, but you don't make any case for that conclusion.
Second, let me be clear on what your allegation regarding Factcheck is. Factcheck posted nine photographs of Obama's COLB. Eight of these show the area where a seal should be (#4 is a close-up the top part, and #9 is a close-up of the ink stamp). Out of those eight, seven show a seal that is clearly visible to the naked eye. Only photo #3, which is slightly out-of-focus and has a shadow across the seal area, does not have a readily visible seal.
So is your allegation that the Obama campaign created a second, seal-less COLB, and switched out the sealed COLB for the seal-less COLB for a single photo?
Third, you're wrong. Just like the other two attempts at showing a seal-less COLB, run photo #3 through GIMP, tweak the Levels, and you can see the same exact signs of a imprinted seal. Once again, it's the right curve of the seal that shows up the best.
What beyond the forged documents [and they have been substantiated AS forged], is there ANY evidence that he was born in Hawaii?
First, substantiated by who? The two major "experts" who claimed that the COLB was forged both turned out to be lying about their credentials, and were never actually document experts. And after they were exposed as fakes, they promptly disappeared offline and never explained themselves.
Second, the evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii (including the news announcements and the Secretary of State saying "Obama was born in Hawaii") is already more evidence than I ever got that Bush was born in Connecticut, or that Palin was born in Idaho.
Third, on the flip-side, there's no substantive evidence showing he was born anywhere other than Hawaii. Jerome Corsi has claimed that he was an affidavit from Obama's grandmother. That is false. It's been claimed that two of Obama's siblings said he was born in Kenya. But no one has ever been able to say where or when they said this. And so on.
So given the two options before you:
Option 1: Show the saved screenshot, prove conclusively to any doubters that a seal-less COLB existed and that Obama actually did switch out images, and make LorenC look like an fool.
Option 2: Stonewall, refuse to share with anybody the concrete evidence that you've claimed you have and would prove your argument, and make it look like you don't actually have the strong evidence you claim to have.
...you have gone with Option 2.
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.