The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. 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, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. 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. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“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,” Land writes. “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. . .
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.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
“A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court.”
Slart, this assumes the action ever gets past a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth in Newman, it will never reach that point. The court will never reach the merits of the dual citizenship or two-parent theory, because the AG has not acted, and there is no interested party.
The burden of proof will not arise, since a plaintiff has to establish jurisdiction before any proof is introduced.
That stuff about the burden of proof will not arise, since no court will reach the merits. The theory Rich stated is based on a lot of state cases under state laws, but I doubt if there are any federal cases, and I doubt if a federal court would adopt that doctrine.
Vince Treacy said; “So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.”
The U.S. Supreme Court said; “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”
The Court indicates that the quo warranto statute applies to elected offices.
Vince Treacy, If, after being sworn into office, it is proven that election fraud took place, and the occupant is not connected to the fraud, and the occupant refused to resign, are you suggesting that we live with it? The occupant would not be subject to impeachment, and Congress has already acknowledged that they lack the authority to review the election. If the occupant did not legally win the election, he has no right to title to the office.
Rich S,
It’s academic, in light of Vince’s response, but I’ll answer you anyway. Do you honestly believe that any court would question the COLB combined with the testimony of officials of the Hawaii DOH? (I’m assuming that they would be willing to say what they’ve already said on the record.) I think that in this hypothetical (which, as Vince pointed out, is all this will ever be) this evidence would be more than sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof, especially in the absence of any contradictory evidence. The Constitution is not on your side, the law is not on your side, the courts are not on your side, and reason is not on your side. Your continuing to pursue this indicates that you are either not intelligent enough to understand the issue or that you are so desperate to get President Obama removed (for whatever reason) that you are willing to violate the Constitution to do it.
Trademark: ALT 0153 (hold down the ALT key and type 0153 on the numeric keypad). Option-2 on the MAC™.
Copyright: ALT 0169. Option-G on the MAC©.
I go into Microsoft Word. I type a paren, then cap T and M, and then close the paren. Same deal with cap C and cap R:
™©®
Then I copy and paste it here.
Rich,
As the childrens say, “You got served.”
Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
QUOTE FROM SYLLABUS BY THE COURT:
Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.
Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.
The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.
While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.
The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.
An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.
Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.
UNQUOTE
http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/case.html
So there is the case and the link. Read it for yourselves.
I have made two separate arguments up above.
First, based on Newman, neither Leo nor his auto dealers nor any other similar individuals have any statutory right to bring the writ in D.C.
Second, even if someone (like a sitting Vice President of the United States, or an unsuccessful runner-up like John McCain) were to try it, the court would politely rule that the writ could not run to a President.
Also, about that jury trial. I have been called for jury duty in that District Court. I would like to sit in on this one, but I would probably be discharged. And what kind of Alice in Wonderland Constitution would (1) deny District residents all representation in the National Legislature, but (2) empower a jury of 12 of its residents to depose the President?
That is the plot of a bad SF story, not con law!
Vince,
Nicely done, as usual. One question, though, how do you make the trademark and copyright symbols?
Rich S,
You can’t say I didn’t warn you.
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape,
You don’t spit into the wind,
You don’t pull the hat off the ol’ Lone Ranger, and
You don’t mess around with Vince.
(Not on this thread, anyway.)
Now can you see why we put more credibility in Vince’s analysis than we do yours? Do you understand how weak your arguments look when compared to his? You’re trying to stop a bullet with tissue paper and its going to end badly for you. My advice is to acknowledge that Vince is correct and regain a shred of credibility, because if you stay the course it’s all downhill from here…
Slartibartfast,
A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court. What happens from there will depend on what the information on the birth record reveals. Even if the court finds the birth record to be reliable, the relator with then ask the court to define the definition of natural born citizen.
Ignore all the FactCheck and COLB hooplah. We’re talking quo warranto. FactCheck is not an authorized investigative agency, and the COLB, if presented, is subject to further inquiry. You must remember that in a quo warranto action the burden of proof falls completely on the respondent.
“In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’.” You’re getting the burden confused again. In almost all other cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this quo warranto case it would be up to Obama to demonstrate why his is to be considered a natural born citizen.
Obama has the ability to request a certified copy of his vital records, and a judge can order the Hawaii DOH to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital records.
Ҥ338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof. Since they are not a state of the union, they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause.
Rich S. should be careful he yells “LIE.” I noted the exception.
I wrote: “The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.”
The statute allows an “interested person” to petition the court.
Who is an interested person?
In one of the cases that I read, a citizen challenged the appointment of one of the civilian commissioners of DC. (In those days, three Commissioners ruled the District, and one of them was a General in the Army Corps of Engineers). The citizen claimed that the Commissioner was not a resident of the District, as required by statute, and the statute did require residence. So he brought a quo warranto. But the case was dismissed, because the citizen was not an interested person, since he had no claim to the office. He would not have been entitled to it if the incumbent were tossed out.
So, as I said above, I do not think that any of the auto dealers would be interested persons, since they have no claim on the Presidency.
In general, the QW debate shows a blinkered reading of the Constitution. Article II, sec. 4 provided for removal of Officers of the United States. But it has to be read with other clauses.
Judges hold office on “good Behaviour.” They have been removed throughout the history of the Constitution by impeachment, but there is no known instance of QW against a federal judge or Justice, because their tenure protects them.
The President and Vice President hold office for four-year terms. This grants them tenure directly under the Constitution, subject only to removal on impeachment.
The officers of the United States may be removed by the person who appointed them, that is the President, since the Myers case held the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. But Congress did want the power to remove a corrupt officer who the President would not remove, so those officers can be impeached also.
So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.
There is no know enumerated or implied power of Congress that could authorize it to pass a law allowing the President to be removed by a single judge and jury. Leo tried to tie it to the District of Columbia Clause, but that is ludicrous, since that clause grants only municipal powers over the seat of government, not the power to affect the National Government.
The writ cannot be used under the Constitution to challenge the qualifications of a President, either before or after sworn in, because that function is textually assigned to the joint session of Congress presided over by the Vice President by the 12th Amendment. That is the constitutionally designated forum for challenges to the eligibility of the President.
The determination of the joint session cannot be challenged in the courts. The Speech or Debate Clause expressly states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Art I, sec. 5.
The broad reading given by Leo and Rich S. would lead to totally contradictory results. The quo warranto cannot against a Member of Congress because each House is the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. Each House can expel a Member with concurrence of two thirds. Yet Leo and Rich, to be consistent, would have to argue that a writ of quo warranto could supersede these express provisions and be used in any election challenge.
Not one of the hundreds of election challenges in the entire history of the Congress has ever involved a quo warranto.
So I will make my Written Legal Prediction ™©®:
Application for writ of quo warranto against the President, dismissed.
Bdaman,
In regard to NY-23, you might have noticed that even the post & email dropped that story when it turned out to be baseless. (My favorite part was the uproar about there being more votes for coroner than for US representative without bothering to find out that voters were allowed to vote for two candidates for coroner.) In regard to the birth certificate – what is posted on the web is what you get when you ask Hawaii for proof of your birth. Neither you, nor any other birther has answered the question of why that isn’t sufficient proof. I answered your question (he has posted a reasonable response to questions about his birth), will you answer mine?
Rich S,
If you want to play until Vince steps in, I’m game (at least for a while, then I’ve got to get some work done).
You said:
“An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.”
You presume that quo warranto is valid against the President.
You said:
‘Burden in quo warranto proceedings:
“Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”‘
So we agree that you’re not talking about voter fraud of any sort? And for the purposes of this remark, I’ll ignore the issue of whether or not quo warranto is applicable to the presidency. So President Obama would have to establish that he is a natural born citizen, which would require a) for him to provide the court with the document examined by fact check (which is valid prima facie evidence of US birth in the absence of contrary evidence – the difficult of providing this contrary evidence was discussed upthread and it’s hard to imagine that anyone has evidence that can outweigh the testimony of Hawaiian officials and the documents they maintain) and b) establishing that the circumstances of his birth make him a natural born citizen – which, as Vince has ably demonstrated here, they do. In short, what do you think will actually be accomplished by bringing a quo warranto action except to verify the president’s eligibility?
You said:
“Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.”
I’m not sure where you get this, I think you may be misunderstanding something I said. Please clarify.
You quoted:
“While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”
Who are you quoting here? In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’. Doesn’t that sort of put a hole in your argument?
You said:
“The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.”
Yes, but it’s a prohibition that doesn’t apply to natural born citizens like Barack Obama.
Slart with the recent revelations of voting in NY-23, polling machines got infected with a virus. Maybe during the general election, the machines got a virus and it was put in there to hide the decline. Of course we’ll never know cause they probably threw the original data out.
Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.
WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.
Rich S, your free to copy that and paste it. I think thats a fair question, don’t you?
67% “Yes” — 33% “No”
http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F
Slartibartfast,
An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.
Burden in quo warranto proceedings:
“Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”
Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.
“While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”
The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.
Rich S
I had to read that a couple of times and I aint real good at legalese, I think thats short for lawyerin talk but it. Sounds good to me.
Can I copy that or is that copyright protected? Everyone here knows how much I like to paste.
Rich S,
Another quick point before Vince takes you out to the woodshed. You seem to be implying that President Obama (or someone) committed election fraud. This is an unreasonable assertion without any kind of proof to back it up. Nate Silver (of fivethirtyeight.com), working from basically all of the polling data available (left, right, and center) was able to predict the national vote to within 0.1%. This implies that people voted pretty much how they said they would in polls – i.e. no indication of a significant number of fraudulent votes. If you are referring to the Democratic party certifying him eligible for the presidency, the proper procedures were followed by the party (just like they have been with every other president). The document posted on line is sufficient proof of his eligibility (have someone explain to you what prima facie evidence is), so no fraud was committed there. You birthers seem to think that if you can just clear the next hurdle (be it standing or justicability, or whatever) then the rest of the path will be cleared to oust President Obama from office. Well, in reality, the hurdles you’re having trouble with are the small ones – you have nothing to prove that President Obama was born outside of the US (which will get worse if judicial notice is taken of Hawaii’s records), a pathetically weak argument that whoever translated Vattel into english (a decade after the constitution was written) is the proper authority to define the term natural born citizen, and worst of all, the courts have no power to remove the sitting president of the United States (quo warranto or not). In response to your latest post, you should probably ask yourself if the Presidency is (legally speaking) included in “public offices held within the District of Columbia”. In any case, I’m sure Vince will be happy to clarify the matter.
Slartibartfast,
Vince made the right call because none of the cases were filed in a court that had jurisdiction. It would require a corrupt or incompetent court for him to make the wrong call.
“An examination of several of the statutes authorizing the use of this extraordinary remedy reveals that its application is rather broad but specifically limited to the use therein provided. There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C.Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.”
http://openjurist.org/248/f2d/804
Mike S,
The thing that annoys me most about our political discourse in this country is our total lack of the ability to deal with nuance. This is a complicated world full of difficult problems and none of the solutions can be explained in a 30 second sound bite. As someone who studies complexity professionally, I love looking for the patterns that help us understand these complicated systems and wish that our elected leaders would spend more time trying to understand the nuances and listening to people who do. That is why I like President Obama so much – say what you want about him, but all of the indications I’ve seen say he surrounds himself with smart people, listens to their opinions, and then makes up his mind (Afghanistan being but the latest example of this). You may disagree with his decisions, but you can’t deny that he comes to them in a deliberative fashion after getting the facts rather than going by his gut like his predecessor.
Rich S,
Throughout my interest in the birther movement I have gotten information by looking at the arguments from both side (and any references provided) and making up my own mind. In my opinion, the birther’s arguments are poor to pathetic while Vince has shown remarkable scholarship and impeccable reason and every prediction he’s made has been correct. I understand why you’d try to pick a fight with a small fish like me, but there’s a big, bad shark in this pool – his name is Vince and he is going to tear you apart with remorseless logic and implacable facts. And you never know when those tiny fish are going to turn out to be piranha.
“The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.”
Rich S.,
Your QW interpretation is off base and you are hardly the person to admonish anyone about not getting information from partisan sources. Next thing we know is you’ll be quoting Vattel.