It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judgment Day: Birther Taitz Fined $20,000 For Misconduct

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


what makes you think that Tates is wrong. seems to me she is one of the few trying to get the truth out. why aren't you interested in the truth. if she's wrong, how come Obama just doesn't show his real Birth certificate, which is required by law. how come nobody in this country cares anymore. some days I'm sad to be an American.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Sorry just could'nt help myself;




In anything resembling a sane world, she would fail on both counts.

Taitz’s “case” for this motion consists of (a) a claim that Land has a potential conflict of interest because he owns stock in Microsoft and Comcast (don’t even try to wring a rational connection out of that); and (b) a suggestion, based on an apparently spectral apparition of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, that the judge (an appointee of President George W. Bush) may have been improperly influenced by the Obama administration.

The latter is especially intriguing. It comes from one Robert D. Douglas of Alma, Ga., who says that while he was waiting in a coffee shop across the street before the hearing on Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook’s “birther” claims, he saw Holder enter the federal courthouse.

Could it be that Holder was 3,000 miles away at the time, giving a speech in Los Angeles?
Oops.
This just keeps getting more bizarre, but it has stopped being funny. It’s time for judicial authorities — the U.S. attorney with jurisdiction over this region, perhaps the State Bar of Georgia — to look into Taitz’s waste of federal court time and taxpayer money in filings that have sunk to a level the term “frivolous” unjustly dignifies.

And let us be spared, please, any feeble argument that sanctions against Taitz would be a First Amendment issue. Orly Taitz has the same freedom as her singularly unimpressive roster of clients — to stand on every street corner and claim, if she likes, that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president, that hers is a historic crusade, that she comes from a distant galaxy to bring justice to the primitive people of planet Earth.

It’s also time for responsible voices of the loyal opposition to publicly disavow Orly Taitz, her obnoxious harassment of the court system and everything that effort stands for.

Taitz compares herself to Thurgood Marshall, and her quest to the cause of civil rights. More likely, she is destined to be a footnote in law books and the increasingly obscure answer to a trivia question.

Why won’t this woman go away?

Article is from ledger-enquirer, hope that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I can't help but wonder. A judge can fine a lawyer $20,000 for bringing up a frivolous lawsuit. What is the fine for a DA who sends an innocent man to jail for 20 years?

I confess, I am a "birther". I understand that also makes me an automatic racist. I guess I can live with that, but my reasons aren't racially motivated. I'm not even looking to oust Obama, if he were gone, it would be another puppet in his place doing the same things he's doing now. For me, it's just a matter of sheer curiousity. When someone spends $1 million + to keep a document hidden, naturally I want to know what's on it.

Although I am a birther, I can be reformed. I don't even need to see the BC. Just answer two questions for me. Name the hospital in which he was born, and name the attending physician. What harm can that do? It would make a great Jeopardy question.

"I'll take US Presidents for $1000, Alex"
"And the answer is ... This hospital is known as the birthplace of the 44th president. ... Wolf ..."
"Isnt' that a racist question?"
"Judges? ... Yes, we would have also accepted 'What are you, a racist?' Select again ..."



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Something very creepy is going on BH, be forewarned.


Honey, something creepy has been going on in our government for a long time. It's no more creepy now that it was 10 years ago. Based on reality, Obama is no worse and has the potential of being "not as bad as" previous administrations. But the hysterics about this birth certificate are baseless. It's a fantasy.


Originally posted by PowerSlave
isn't Obama "alluding" to a long form cert that is sealed in Hawaii. You want to see it? Or are you okay just taking someones "word" for it?


As far as I know, Obama has never said a word about it.

The Hawaii Dept of Health has officially stated several times that they have his long form in their records.
Nancy Pelosi has signed a document stating that he meets the Constitutional Requirements.
Congress has passed a resolution stating that he was born in Hawaii.
There is a short form certificate that appears to be genuine.
There are two birth announcements in papers of 1961
His grandmother said he was born in Hawaii

These are not "allusions". And they, along with the fact that the opposing position has produced no evidence, are why I believe he was born in Hawaii.

reply to post by December_Rain
 


That is hilarious!


Originally posted by watcher2
if she's wrong, how come Obama just doesn't show his real Birth certificate, which is required by law.


Show me the law that says that a president must show his Birth Certificate. To whom must he show it? There is no such law. The Constitution says he must be a natural born citizen. He is, being born in Hawaii.


Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I confess, I am a "birther".


Just FYI, I don't think it's something you should "confess". If you have questions, I think you should ask them and be proud to be looking for the truth, if you think you don't have it.


For me, it's just a matter of sheer curiousity.


You're certainly entitled to be curious.
But you're not entitled to have that curiosity satisfied when it means violating someone's privacy.



When someone spends $1 million + to keep a document hidden, naturally I want to know what's on it.


And I want to know how you know this piece of information. Because I've never seen anything verifying it.



Just answer two questions for me. Name the hospital in which he was born, and name the attending physician.


Dr. Rodney T West - Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.
Source

Funny Jeopardy question.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Although I am a birther, I can be reformed. I don't even need to see the BC. Just answer two questions for me. Name the hospital in which he was born, and name the attending physician.


Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Doctor Rodney T. West
Here is his Bio..Good man.
honoluluprepares.com...

There are the answers to your two questions...reformed now?

That didn't do it for you did it? Don't be dissapointed, just ask yourself why answers to your questions don't actually change your mind...Do you want answers or do you just want to keep feeling the way you feel about the POTUS? Because you can feel any way you like whether he was born in Kenya or not. Thats OK. This crazy BS is not.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by maybereal11]
Edit to add link to Dr West's Bio

[edit on 14-10-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

I don't like his policies, I don't trust politicians, why should I trust this one?

And I am nosy.
I want to know more about him.

I don't think I can complete this story with out all the information.

[edit on 053131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


You don't have to like his policies. You don't have to trust him.
You being "nosey" and "wanting to know more" is no excuse for lying.

That is my answer to yourself and the birther movement as a whole.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


She has a doubt about the legitimacy of the presidents birth certificate.


She has a right to her views, opinions and freedoms of speech. She doesnt have a right to wage a lawsuit against somebody based on lies and assumptions. She took an online course in law, she should understand duty as a lawyer, to uphold the truth, and to put the evidence where her mouth is.



Let HER see the long form.


She doesnt have that right sorry.


-----

1. How do we know that this lawsuit is based on lies and assumptions? Because you assume they are? Or did you have CNN "fact-check" them for you?

2. Why doesn't she have the right to see the long form? I mean, we have to prove ourselves/identity to the government all the time. Hell, even to get a job (SS card,drivers license). Why in the world wouldn't he have to prove himself to us? Is he better than all of us that he don't have to? I guess he's above the law though isn't he, ya know, since he's so historical.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by sr_robert1]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

Let HER see the long form. No copies she can keep, just make one copy for her and the judge to see and return it to the president for destruction of whatever as it would be HIS copy.



And when this has convinced her that it is all a load of crock (as if), who is the next lawyer (just him), and the next (just them)?

You can't do this because it is a waste of time. Period. The courts have other things to do.

The woman is a train wreck. She is probably in negotiations for a film as we speak, and probably thinks she is going to be Sarah Palin's VP running mate in 2012 (allowed by the change the constitution conspiracy Obama is pushing of course).

A $20k fine is only going to encourage her, methinks.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Let HER see the long form. No copies she can keep, just make one copy for her and the judge to see and return it to the president for destruction of whatever as it would be HIS copy.


Haha. That would defy one of the US hard-line positions. NO NEGOTIATION WITH TERRORISTS. OK, roll your eyes, but she equates to a terrorist to Obama. Much like the "playground bully" is a terrorist to the other kids.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sr_robert1

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


She has a doubt about the legitimacy of the presidents birth certificate.


She has a right to her views, opinions and freedoms of speech. She doesnt have a right to wage a lawsuit against somebody based on lies and assumptions. She took an online course in law, she should understand duty as a lawyer, to uphold the truth, and to put the evidence where her mouth is.



Let HER see the long form.


She doesnt have that right sorry.


-----

1. How do we know that this lawsuit is based on lies and assumptions? Because you assume they are? Or did you have CNN "fact-check" them for you?

2. Why doesn't she have the right to see the long form? I mean, we have to prove ourselves/identity to the government all the time. Hell, even to get a job (SS card,drivers license). Why in the world wouldn't he have to prove himself to us? Is he better than all of us that he don't have to? I guess he's above the law though isn't he, ya know, since he's so historical.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by sr_robert1]


Answer 1: a) because it isn't based on legal argument. (b) because her clients have fired her, yet she continues (c) because it is in the court transcripts. (d) because she refuses to argue the law and continues to discuss topics over which the court has no jurisdiction. (e) because she uses libel, contempt, innuendo, and insult for the court, the court officers, and the legal system in general. (f) because she has demonstrated zero understanding of the Constitution that she is purporting to defend, the separation of powers defined therein, or the definition of the only crime actually defined in that Constitution. (g) because she accuses the court of treason when it renders a judgment that she doesn't like.

Answer 2: (a) she doesn't have the right because such a right does not exist. Period. (b) When you "have to prove ourselves/identity to the government all the time", by your own admission, you provide less positive ID (SS Card is not ID, drivers licenses are easily forged) than Obama has provided. (c) Obama has provided sufficient convincing documentation to every authority as required, including the United States Congress, which is charged by the Constitution with ensuring the eligability of the President. (d) it is not in the Constitutional authority of the courts to even discuss the eligibility of the President, let alone rule on it.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




(c) Obama has provided sufficient convincing documentation to every authority as required, including the United States Congress, which is charged by the Constitution with ensuring the eligability of the President.


And how do you know he has shown anything at all to Congress, or every authority as required? Where is the proof of that or are you just making an assumption. Just because they are charged with ensuring eligibility does not mean they did so. And if it comes out that they did not, then they are all going to be looking for jobs.
Everyone can stay in denial all you like but there are a hell of a lot of people who believe him to be ineligible. When you have a plot this big with powerful players, nobody wants to put their neck on the line and end up dead. That doesn't actually mean that half of congress don't know what's really going on...well the half that are not playing computer games all day, that is.
It is insanity for him not to have shown the long form instantly this issue came up. So there is no doubt he is hiding something huge. Whether in the meantime his goons will have forged a new long form would have to be rigorously checked if disclosure is granted.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968

Proving without a doubt that he is a natural born citizen is a requirement of the constitution and therefore must be satisfied when challenged. Once satisfied then all this nonsense can go away and they can look for some other cause to champion. You are sticking with the notion he should not have to produce the long form BC because it is a private document but he really should as it is the only real proof. The latest case in California has a chance to have the POTUS produce this document where it will be examined and this will be put to rest once and for all, but it must be done to satisfy the Constitution.


The Constitution gives Congress the task of certifying the eligibility of the President, not the Courts, and not Private Citizens.

If you are going to argue the Constitution, get it right.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by piddles
Because he doesn't have to show you. Just because he's President of the United States doesn't mean he's not also a private citizen. No one has to show you their long-form birth certificate if you ask for it.



show me your long form birth certificate. oh? you don't want to?

even if you did, I would call it fake because I can and because I don't like you.


sound familiar?

[edit on 14-10-2009 by piddles]


Hmmm, seems to me you had better notify the DMV, The SS Administration when attempting to recieve replacement cards, the County Recorder's Office when you go for a Marriage License, My employer when I complete my I-9 form, the folks at the passport office etc... Every single one of those entities demanded my Birth Certificate as a form of ID - and I'm not even president. I'm not looking for the authority to make, pass or veto laws, command the worlds most powerful army, command the worlds largest budget, command the worlds largest economy, dictate foreign policy etc... I was just trying to function as a simple, law-abiding American. Seems to me that PROOF that one is eligible under The Constitution to hold the office of POTUS should be mandatory! I had to prove myself for much lesser "priveledges!"


you can do all of those things with a short form birth certificate. my point is he doesn't have to "prove" his long form birth certificate because YOU (as in everyone) don't have to.

I got my passport, CA driver's license, and SS card all without a long form certificate. my gf all this AND a medical marijuana card without having to provide proof she was born here.


Also, you saying there's a chance that he was elected into office without meeting the official qualifications means absolutely not one person in Washington actually bothered to check whether or not he was born here and a US citizen.

I doubt this because I want to believe that not everyone working in and for the whitehouse is a complete idiot.


where the conspiracy probably came from is "a whole nother" pot to stir that would derail the hell out of this thread.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
"All he has to do is show his long form birth certificate and this issue will go away"

"What about the DMV? The Social Security Administration? They require my Birth Certificate!"

"My Boss made me show my birth certificate to him in order to be hired!"

Here is the simple truth.

The DMV, the Social Security Administration, and your boss, has the Legal Authority to view your birth certificate for verification purposes. The difference between these entities and Joe Blow on the street is this.

Yes the DMV and the Social Security Administration might require your birth certificate, does that mean you have to show it to everyone in the room?

And when is the last time you have ever shown your birth certificate to your boss? This is a flawed argument, I had to provide two forms of ID, the acceptable forms can be a state ID and my Social Security card. I have never shown my boss my Birth Certificate. It just hasn't ever happened. But in the case somehow I did not have those two forms of ID, a Birth Certificate can be shown to your boss for employment, it however does not have to be shown to every employee in the business just because they might be curious.

There is a congressional confirmation process that happens after the election, this is when the newly elected POTUS is confirmed for the job by our duly elected representatives.

By the way, how did this thread turn once again into a Birth Certificate thread? I thought it was about that nutjob Orly Taitz getting spanked by the court for her idiocy?

[edit on 10/14/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by rnaa
 




(c) Obama has provided sufficient convincing documentation to every authority as required, including the United States Congress, which is charged by the Constitution with ensuring the eligability of the President.


And how do you know he has shown anything at all to Congress, or every authority as required? Where is the proof of that or are you just making an assumption. Just because they are charged with ensuring eligibility does not mean they did so. And if it comes out that they did not, then they are all going to be looking for jobs.
Everyone can stay in denial all you like but there are a hell of a lot of people who believe him to be ineligible. When you have a plot this big with powerful players, nobody wants to put their neck on the line and end up dead. That doesn't actually mean that half of congress don't know what's really going on...well the half that are not playing computer games all day, that is.
It is insanity for him not to have shown the long form instantly this issue came up. So there is no doubt he is hiding something huge. Whether in the meantime his goons will have forged a new long form would have to be rigorously checked if disclosure is granted.


For crying out loud, please break out of the cocoon the puppetmasters have you locked up in. You are playing into their hands by continuing to be distracted by this nonsense while ignoring serious matters.

I know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he has demonstrated this because:

1) Those Sates that require proof of eligibility before a candidate can appear on a ballot have allowed him to appear on the ballot. Note that since the general election is electing electors, not the President directly, this may only apply to the primary elections, but I don't know. I don't pretend to know the electoral law in every state. Only that many states do require such evidence, and that he was not denied a ballot place in any State or Territory.

Ipso Facto, he satisfied every state authority he was required to satisfy.

2) The Constitution charges Congress with task of certifying eligibility and Congress did so certify, and he was sworn in to office, twice, just to be sure.

Ipso Facto, he satisfied every federal authority he was required to satisfy.

3) He is not required to satisfy every correspondence school lawyer who thinks she can get enough publicity by making an ass of herself to swing a movie deal.

4) He is not required to satisfy every individual private citizen who thinks he/she can irritate enough people on a message board by asking the same nonsensical questions over and over and over to swing a star and flag.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


They also allowed someone here on a green card to appear on the ballot.

So that point is moot.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Who? Can you cite a reference? What office were they seeking?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


You don't have to like his policies. You don't have to trust him.
You being "nosey" and "wanting to know more" is no excuse for lying.

That is my answer to yourself and the birther movement as a whole.


I am lying?

I can't lie, I haven't enough information to lie.

silly goose.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




For crying out loud, please break out of the cocoon the puppetmasters have you locked up in. You are playing into their hands by continuing to be distracted by this nonsense while ignoring serious matters.


Don’t worry about me, I can keep two thoughts in my head at the same time…now what was I saying?



1) Those Sates that require proof of eligibility before a candidate can appear on a ballot have allowed him to appear on the ballot.


Still does not mean that because something was required that the rule was instigated or that any evidence was given, apart maybe from that laughable COLB, if any evidence was given or asked for at all.



3) He is not required to satisfy every correspondence school lawyer who thinks she can get enough publicity by making an ass of herself to swing a movie deal.

4) He is not required to satisfy every individual private citizen who thinks he/she can irritate enough people on a message board by asking the same nonsensical questions over and over and over to swing a star and flag.


Now you are just being silly. You forget that the President is working for the people not the other way around, although the administrations of all countries have forgotten that, so busy are they all lining their own pockets. So Orly has a right to know. Any military person who is putting their life on the line has a right to know. If your employer suspected that you might be an illegal immigrant then they would have a right to ask for your birth certificate, quite rightly…so what is the problem? There is no other President anywhere who has hidden so much for so long and got away with it.
And I love this argument about distraction. So if you weren’t distracted what would you have the power to do exactly about all the other pressing serious issues? Absolutely nothing. Plus if you are so distracted, why are you posting about other people being distracted and distracting yourself from these serious issues?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join