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
The proper term for those 14th Amendment citizens whose parents are aliens is “native-born citizen”.
Slarti when you comeback with the popcorn, shut up and listen to the wonderful sounds from Mr. Simons.
Bdaman,
I refuse to admit the existence of god until he shows me his birth certificate.
Pants,
The phrase ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an english translation of de Vattel until 1798, as Vince said. The rest of your post is just as faulty as that accusation, but I’ll let Vince handle that.
Excuse me, I’ve got to get some popcorn…
God, you gotta love it, but before you can, you gotta love God.
God luvit or was that Lyle.
High Ay, I love you too.
You bein frum Texass n evrythang, watt you get when you cross ah brown cow witta brown chicken.
Brown chicka brown brown, brown chika brown brown.
P.S. I prefer Slip sliden Away, Me n da Mrs’s
Vince Treacy “According to Pants, “That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen.”
There is no difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens that the courts have ever recognized. This poster sounds like and may be Mario, who has taken over the invented idea of a 14th Amendment citizen who is (1) born as a US citizen but (2) is not a natural born citizen, but only a (3) born citizen (4) because both parents were not citizens. These concepts are unknown to the Constitution and the courts.”
“[N]o difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen.”? Have you tried selling that one to the Court who claimed Ark to be “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”. Did the Court say that Ark was as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? No. The Court did not.
If someone is not as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, they must just be a native-born citizen. Neither a native-born citizen nor a 14th Amendment citizen have ever been ruled by the Supreme Court to be natural-born citizens whose parents were not themselves citizens. Never!
“The phrase “natural born” did not even appear in English until a 1798 translation, long after the ratification. Vattel was not an authority on the common law as it affected municipal law.”
Enough of the lies Vince Treacy. Vattel’s Law of Nations was first translated into English in 1759. The first American Edition was printed in 1796.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=vattel+%2Blaw+of+nations+%2B1759&source=bl&ots=349g9rqlBF&sig=gz9pm78C3mM_lAzhxv9ACo9B2Lo&hl=en&ei=M7aRS_roGo-0tgfckr3UCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=vattel%20%2Blaw%20of%20nations%20%2B1759&f=false
I’d tell you to get your facts straight but I doubt that would interest you.
~Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas (1775)~ “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
Vince Treacy~ “The concept of “natural born” was taken from Blackstone’s description of “natural born” subject, which included all persons born in the realm.”
The above is the unsupported opinion of Vince Treacy. It is not a matter of historic record. It makes absolutely no sense for the Framers to avoid the clearly stated definition of “natural born citizen” as was presented by Vattel in lieu of an undefined term; especially without further discussion; and even more so when discussing measures of national security involving the qualifications for President and Commander-in-Chief. No evidence of further discussion exists. The term as presented by John Jay to George Washington was clearly understood and clearly defined. There is no evidence of any other term used in the Constitution being made up on-the-fly. It would be reckless for us to even contemplate such an ill-conceived interpretation some 220 years later.
Vince Treacy~ “Children of aliens born in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens from birth. The necessary implication is that they are natural born citizens, because they are not naturalized citizens, and there are no other kinds of citizens other than natural born and naturalized. Once again, that is the “necessary” implication.”
The only thing necessary about it being that it is necessary if you want your interpretation to be supported. OTher than that you’re just playing with the putty until it fits your desired mold.
Vince Treacy~ “I went back to Wong and found the key sentence again: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.”
Once again Vince, the Court had a chance and chose not to say that such a person is as much a natural-born citizen ans the natural-born child of a citizen. Multiple chances in the same case and they still just make them as much “a citizen”. You’re digging yourself deeper into the hole.
More from Wong “To hold that the fourteenth amndment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Once again the Court had a clear chance to declare those born in the U.S. were natural-born citizens but avoided making that declaration. Maybe it’s time to let the Court make that determination. Don’t you think the best time for the Court to make that determination is when the question is actually presented to the Court for determination?
Vince Treacy~ “I will let the reader decide. I have said that Wong held that a child born to an alien is as much a citizen as the “natural born child” of a citizen. That is what the court said. The child of an alien is the same as the natural born child of a citizen.”
The Court never said they were the same. They said the U.S.-born child of an alien, is AS MUCH A CITIZEN as the natural born child of a citizen.
Vince Treacy~ “As much a citizen as a natural born child [of a citizen]. Not as much a citizen as a naturalized child.”
Are you saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen? That what it looks like you’re saying. Isn’t “not as much”, less? I’ll give you not as much as your brother. Are you going to get less? Should we ask the children?
Vince Treacy~ “If Obama was born a citizen, becoming a citizen at his birth and by virtue of his birth, then he was a natural born citizen.”
“If Obama was born a citizen”! Freudian slip or recognition of valid questions? Did you finally look into the Lucas Smith certificate (You know, with the same kind of energy you expend to defend Obama?) and discover that the false claims of forgery made by WND were just that. False claims!
Contrary to the false claims presented here, the Lucas Smith birth certificate has never been proven to be a forgery. Anyone having a desire to address a specific detail of that document is welcome to ask a question about it.
Still in the bowels of the ship eh Bdaman? Figures, swirling or swilling the remainder of the night?
Sorry Slart I’m not paying attention anymore. It is not my norm to consume alchoholi beverages but tohnight I got a beer in one hand and a crown in the other, I love you man.
Who’s the president?
No buddy Knows
Who cares?
Whats the difference
History lesson for ya. Back in the day whenn manure was being transported they placed in the bottom of ships. The water mixed with the manure it turned to methane and the the first one to light the lantern went boom. There for they came up with shit.
Ship High In Transit
And thats how shit happens.
Here is just one of many cases describing the two, and only two, classes of citizens, from the excellent site entitled “Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored”:
QUOTE
Zimmer et al. v. Acheson, Secretary of State United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. – 191 F.2d 209, 1951
There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens. [1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen [2]
[1] Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67
[2] United States v. Wong Kim Arm, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar, C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67
UNQUOTE
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/zimmer-et-al-v-acheson-secretary-of-state-united-states-court-of-appeals-tenth-circuit-191-f-2d-209/
Pants,
That certainly seems like ‘relevant citations’ from Vince to me. Do you have any citations to back up your argument?
There is plenty of proof of forgeries on the net. This is old, old news.
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/09/lucas-smith-is-back.html
Anyway, the burden is on convicted forger Smith and his supporter.
Anyone can check the Wikipedia “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories” page for discussion and links to all aspects of the controversy. Here is an excerpt:
“Alleged Kenyan birth certificate
“On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents what she alleged to be an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an “unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth”.[52][53] The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the “Republic of Kenya”, when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama’s birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963).[54][55] Subsequently, evidence was unearthed that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate is a modified version of a 1959 Australian birth certificate found on an online genealogy website.[56][57] The Washington Independent website cited an anonymous blogger[58] as having taken credit for the forgery and posting four photos substantiating the claim.[59] Examples of actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificates have also been revealed, which look substantially different from the document Taitz submitted to the court.[60]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
According to Pants, “That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen.”
There is no difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens that the courts have ever recognized. This poster sounds like and may be Mario, who has taken over the invented idea of a 14th Amendment citizen who is (1) born as a US citizen but (2) is not a natural born citizen, but only a (3) born citizen (4) because both parents were not citizens. These concepts are unknown to the Constitution and the courts.
Vattel? We discussed him in Retired General and other threads. He was an authority on the laws of nations, that is, international law affecting relations among states. His statements about citizenship applied to continental powers, not to common law countries. The phrase “natural born” did not even appear in English until a 1798 translation, long after the ratification. Vattel was not an authority on the common law as it affected municipal law. This is all a myth.
The framers used common law concepts for far more issues than habeas corpus. That is a misleading statement. Many more common law terms were used, including bill of attainder, corruption of blood, jury trial for cases at common law, ex post facto, speech or debate immunity, and many others. The concept of “natural born” was taken from Blackstone’s description of “natural born” subject, which included all persons born in the realm.
Minor left the question of children of noncitizens open. Whatever doubts were expressed in Minor were resolved in Wong Kim Ark. Minor is not the law on this question. Wong Kim Ark is the controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Children of aliens born in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens from birth. The necessary implication is that they are natural born citizens, because they are not naturalized citizens, and there are no other kinds of citizens other than natural born and naturalized. Once again, that is the “necessary” implication.
I went back to Wong and found the key sentence again: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.”
Link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Now here is what Pants had to say: “We are all aware that the Obfuscator in Chief will say that Wong Kim Ark concludes that 14th Amendment citizens are as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. Just like a naturalized citizen is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court isn’t stupid. If they wanted to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment they could have done that.”
I will let the reader decide. I have said that Wong held that a child born to an alien is as much a citizen as the “natural born child” of a citizen. That is what the court said. The child of an alien is the same as the natural born child of a citizen. It is not the same as a naturalized citizen, because it can be President. So I think the court did say that Wong “was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment.” I provided the link.
Even though Obama’s father was not a citizen, but a lawfully admitted student, his child is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen,” according to the ruling in Wong. As much a citizen as a natural born child. Not as much a citizen as a naturalized child.
I have found no judicial authority for “born citizens,” “14th Amendment citizens,” or “basic citizens.” These sprung from the writings of Donofrio and Apuzzo and unknown others. The concept is a stranger to American law.
There are only two kinds of US citizens. Natural born citizens. Naturalized citizens. A person who is born as a citizen is a natural born citizen. Persons who are legally naturalized are naturalized citizens. A citizen is one or the other. The only difference is eligibility for the Presidency and Vice Presidency.
If Obama was born a citizen, becoming a citizen at his birth and by virtue of his birth, then he was a natural born citizen.
I have described how the common law of England was accepted by each of the 13 original states. Its terms were used constantly to interpret the law. For a complete discussion, see the posting by Ballantine at:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-united-states-court-of-appeals-for.html
I saw this story on Think Progress today, and it is rather surprising that Georgia’s Rep Broun claimed not to know President Obama was a U.S. citizen; as he had voted YEA on House Resolution 593 which in addition to honoring the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood, and much to the chagrin of Rep Bachman, HR593 (AKA the “counter-birther” bill) also recognized Hawaii as the birthplace of our 44th President!
Bdaman,
Take a look at the sort of thing that went on when both medicare and social security were passed. You’ll see a lot of similarities in the tactics and rhetoric of opponents then and now.
“Pants, so what part of the statement “The so-called certificate produced by Smith is a proven forgery” is a lie? Even WorldNutDaily would not verify it. What is your proof that it is genuine?”
You want to say that it’s a “proven forgery”. You prove it’s a forgery.
Saying that it is a proven forgery is a lie.
“[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett (1874)
We are all aware that the Obfuscator in Chief will say that Wong Kim Ark concludes that 14th Amendment citizens are as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. Just like a naturalized citizen is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court isn’t stupid. If they wanted to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment they could have done that. But they didn’t. Were the judges in Minor v. Happersett aware of and discussing the 14th Amendment? Let’s look at the first sentence of the Court’s opinion.
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
The Court was considering the 14th Amendment when they handed down their opinion in MINOR.
Readers should notice that none of the definitions presented by Vince Treacy are supported by relevant citation. He wants you readers to think that the Common Law of England was the law of the United States when in reality the Court only used the common law for interpretation of things like habeas corpus. Does Vince Treacy ever tell the readers that Vattel’s Law of Nations was made part of the Common Law of England in 1764? The Court in MINOR obviously knew that.
A vast majority of Americans
Ok, and by the sounds of it you don’t mine. But why do I have to follow and is this why they call it Hope and Change. What I don’t think is the vast majority of Americans voted for being,
” five days away, of fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
I guess there will just be a vast majority of Americans that you’ll have to drag to get them to follow with you.
Bdaman,
So what? A vast majority of Americans are just fine with socialism (social security and medicare).
He very well maybe natural born but nobody can deny this from Broun.
“I know he is,” a socialist, Broun said. “You look at his own writings. He said when he was in college he leaned to Marxist tendencies and is linked to Marxist professors. He joined Marxists clubs. And look at who he’s put in his administration, they’re devout socialists.”
Broun Told the Truth, The Whole Truth and Nuttin But da Truth.
Has anyone seen this yet.
JAKARTA, Indonesia – Scores of Islamic students staged protests outside Jakarta’s parliament and in at least three other major Indonesian cities on Friday against President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to this predominantly Muslim country.
The students carried banners branding Obama as an enemy of Islam and an imperialist in downtown Jakarta as well as in the provincial capitals Padang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_re_as/as_indonesia_obama
Seeing how we’ve had many comparisons of Obama to Bush here at the Turley Blog, I don’t think he should go.
And in other news,
Rep. Paul Broun not sure if Obama is citizen
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33992.html#ixzz0hLWYaDWB
Why do people think Obama was born in Kenya?
His parents were U.S. citizens. They didn’t have any relatives in Kenya. When would they have been able to go to Kenya? He wasn’t born during summer break was he? Why would they have gone to Mombasa. Would it have been a problem for his father to go to his own village? Was he already married? Were there better doctors in Mombasa? Somebody is saying that the doctor in Mombasa was one of the premier obstetricians in Kenya. Is that true? Isn’t there some record of his mother being in Hawaii after he was born up until the time she was spotted in Seattle?
Didn’t his grandmother say she was at the hospital when he was born?
I don’t get it. How can people think he may have been born in Kenya when there would have been nothing that would have made Kenya a good place to visit the summer after they were married. It’s not like it’s a place where being on Kenyan soil is important in their culture.
I wish people would just let it go.