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
I just read Leo’s post about Judge Carter’s ruling over at naturalborncitizen, his spin is that Judge Carter implied that a Quo Warranto case in the DC court is the appropriate venue for removing President Obama from office.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/
And if you enjoy schadenfreude, here’s a deeply ironic post from a birther blog. Be sure to check out the first few comments.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/two-judges/
Vince,
If you learned something from my post, consider it a small payment for all I have learned from you here. I came to this blog because I was nervous that there might be some truth to the birther’s arguments and now, after reading your posts here, I feel like I could beat Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, and Mario Appuzo in a debate (Although I have to believe that the three of them together would cause anyone to start bleeding from the ears in short order). Dr. Asimov is one of my heroes, too (deep down, I still want to be a psychohistorian when I grow up). Curiously, you’re the second person to mention to me that he had met Dr. Asimov recently (mentioned to me recently, not met Dr. Asimov recently ;-)). My thesis advisor had lunch with him when he was a post-doc in Manhattan, a fascinating if somewhat intimidating experience (the other people at the lunch were closer to Dr. Asimov’s stature than my advisor’s). I’d never heard that Vonnegut quote before, but the thought of Kurt up in heaven brings a wonderful smile to my face. So it goes…
Slart, brilliant. I read it all, and learned a lot. My hero, Isaac Asimov, the Good Doctor (I met him personally at the local library back in the early 1960s), the author of the (other) Three Laws, is proud of you.
After all, after Isaac died, Kurt Vonnegut told the assembled American atheists that “Isaac is up in heaven.” Everyone fell on the floor laughing.
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_nice.html
Kurt speaking to us from Heaven: “Do you know what a Humanist is? I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.
We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ”Isaac is up in Heaven now.” It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ”Kurt is up in Heaven now.” That’s my favorite joke.”
Art said of God, “for I have seen Him and He is a white male.”
That reminds me of the old joke about the bigoted, sexist, racist who came back from the dead after seeing God.
They asked him what God was like.
He said, “Sh*t, the first thing is that she is African American.”
Vince,
You mean Leo hasn’t retreated to his ultra-secret lair to prepare the ultimate birther case which will finally remove President Obama from office?
When I was a teen that I read my first copies of “Broca’s Brain” and “The Dragons of Eden” until the spines broke.
To all,
I apologize for this massive, off-topic post. It really bothers me that our educational system has failed so badly as to produce delusional, homophobic, racist idiots like Art Bulla and since he’s talking about a subject I care deeply about, I feel the need to respond. Maybe Vince can give us another spooky chapter in “Orly and the doomed lawsuit” to help get us back on track…
Art Bulla,
I’m sorry that you are a small, hate-filled man and while reading your ignorant, diseased writings sickens me, I feel it is necessary to shine a light on your specious and uneducated ravings about science.
You said:
“More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:”
The theory of evolution (what I assume you mean when you say ‘Darwinism’), is one of the most fundamentally sound and well-verified theories in all of science with over 200,000 studies in peer-reviewed journals over a variety of scientific disciplines supporting it and exactly zero providing any evidence refuting it. As both a scientist and a liberal (I’m not a sodomite, but I am willing to learn ;-)), the foundation of my liberalism is compassion for my fellow human being (even you) and a passionate belief that it’s always possible for things to get better. I don’t belong to any groups named with greek letters, but I do hold a Ph.D. in mathematics and I’m currently employed as a mathematical biologist doing cancer research at a major university. The only person who is proved an ideologue and a fool (with misuse of mathematical probability, among other things) by this trash you’ve written is yourself and I find your hateful preaching an insult to the teachings of Jesus Christ (by denigrating everything he stood for – now there was a great liberal!).
“29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.”
The theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the multiplicity of species we see today and conforms with physics, mathematics and all phenomena which have been observed in every pertinent way. You can tell this by the total lack of any scholarly articles with evidence refuting evolution. And just as an aside, science doesn’t prove anything (that’s what mathematics is about), it provides a framework for collecting and interpreting evidence about the physical universe – ‘provable phenomena’ are just banal pieces of data, theories are the heart of science where the data is transformed into a deeper understanding of the universe around us.
“30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.”
Evolution doesn’t contradict anything (unless you count out-dated unscientific myths). The statement is true, however. (That might be a first for you!)
“31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?”
The key principle of science is that experiments must be repeatable, which provides an internal check against liars (witness the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco a while back) and I believe that the success of science in advancing our understanding of the universe and giving rise to all of our modern technology (including technology and understanding developed based on the theory of evolution). I believe in science because it works – while your false religion has a very poor track record of increasing our understanding of the universe in any useful way.
“32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.”
Really, your uneducated irrational ravings didn’t convince someone that an enormous amount of scientific evidence collected over the last 150 years is wrong? You might be able to convince a child, but it would have to be a pretty stupid, credulous child – anyone else would see your arguments as the mass of bovine excrement that they are.
“33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.”
Mentally unstable people such as yourself should probably avoid LSD.
“34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.”
The fact that Darwin was not a hard scientist and had no understanding of things like, say DNA and yet was able to produce a theory whose mechanisms were not understood until the discovery of DNA 100 years later, but was still able to make successful predictions in the field of genetics is a testament to the soundness of the theory and the brilliance of Charles Darwin.
“35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:”
Sure.
“36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.”
You make a mistake common to scientifically illiterate people – the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, it tells us how life evolved into the multiplicity of species that we see today. While how life originated is a fascinating question and science has a long way to go in explaining abiogenesis, results like the Miller-Urey experiment are promising and all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).”
If you had actually studied thermodynamics (which I have) you would know that the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (more specifically, closed systems near equilibrium) unlike the earth, which is constantly having energy added to it by the sun. Also, the 2nd law states that robots must obey… oops, sorry! … states that entropy (a measure of disorder in a system) always increases, not energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, water runs uphill perfectly well, provided you have a pump.
“38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).”
Entropy isn’t a process – as I said above, it is a measure of disorder. Spontaneous organization of systems of high energy density is common in nature (star formation, just to name one) – take a look at the works of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine if you’d like to learn more. And if you’re talking about the human body, you aren’t speaking of random collisions of molecules.
“39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.”
Once again energy and entropy are two separate concepts and energy is neither created or destroyed.
“40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.”
Like, maybe, the sun? Heat from the earth’s core? Volcanoes? Lightning? Tidal forces?
“41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!”
No, but evolution can.
“42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.”
No, it just takes a little faith in the scientific method and evidence collected by generations of scientists across dozens of disciplines…
“43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.”
Yes, you do seem to be short on logic and reasoning ability.
“44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).”
Evolution is not random, nor does it purport to explain the origin of life.
“45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).”
There are proteins made up of a few amino acids and proteins made up of thousands and just about everything in between.
“46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?”
A lot higher than you think, if the question is ‘what are the odds of a particular protein occurring via the process of evolution?’ (which is the appropriate question).
“47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!”
This is the chance of getting a specific protein if you select 100 amino acids at random. It has nothing to do with the chances of said protein appearing in nature.
“48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!”
Yes, it is. You understand exponential notation, how wonderful for you.
“49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.”
So?
“50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.”
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.”
I lumped these all together as this hypothetical of yours forms a clear picture of just how badly you misunderstand mathematics, probability and science. Congratulations, you have laboriously created a meaningless and incomprehensible hypothetical.
“54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.”
There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And then there is complete and utter male cattle poop like what you present. One more time: evolution is not a random process.
“55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.”
None of us are poor in spirit compared to the utter destitution that you exist in. Please continue with your stupid, meaningless hypothetical.
“56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.”
Wow, you took quite a while to spew that nonsensical drivel, do you feel better now? I put the odds of you ever stumbling across a rational, well-organized argument at infinity to one against.
“61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
Since you are clearly a bigot, I assume that you don’t believe this. To make this statement have any scientific meaning whatsoever, you need to tell us what the scientific definition of the ‘spirit’ is (not to mention why a urologist has relevant expertise).
“62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?”
There are immortal organisms – cancer cells (this comes from the work of recent Nobel Laureates on the protein telomerase). And organisms do not evolve (except in bad sci-fi), species evolve over many generations.
“63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?”
It was the salmon mousse.
“64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.”
You go girl.
“65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.”
Bring it on. You can make all of the commands that you want, but nobody here has any inclination to obey you.
“66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
This whole post has no bearing upon any sort of science in any way. What it means is that you are a pathetic, bigoted, misogynistic racist with delusions of grandeur who has absolutely no idea just how disgusting his diseased ramblings are. I suggest you get professional help. Excuse me, but I have to go and wash your putrescent ideas out of my brain now.
Mike,
This was posted over at Leo Donofrio’s blog last September:
QUOTE ON whistleblower Says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
“Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it”.
Many bloggers, who are not lawyers, are providing more accurate, and supported, legal analysis than are the partisan lawyers.
The statement should be “Beware of bloggers who are, and are not, lawyers giving you…”
Vince Treacy and Mike Appleton, over at Prof. Jonathan Turley’s blog are perfect examples of lawyers giving unsupported, inaccurate interpretations of the law. UNQUOTE
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/ [scroll down to Sep 29, 12:29 pm]
If you are lurking, or googling yourself, Sorry that you are not happy, whistleblower.
But your post is not very helpful to me or Mike, because you do not give even a single example of an UNSUPPORTED, INACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW that Mike or I may have written.
“Oh! that mine adversary had written a book….”
Mike and I have put up a lot of support for all our positions, and have patiently answered a lot of questions. You did nothing at Leo’s site except to make a single, unsupported allegation about us.
While you are at it, W., say goodnight to Leo. He stopped posting at his blog weeks ago and has disappeared from the fray.
Here is a reprint of an earlier post.
According to Professor John Yinger, Hamilton warned implicitly, early in the Convention before the natural born citizen clause was introduced, against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States, and said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.”
It appears that Hamilton, an immigrant himself, was not in favor of restrictions on immigrants, and would have favored a broad reading of “natural born,” not a narrow one that excluded children born in the U.S. to alien immigrants.
This is made clear by looking at his entire suggested draft: The full clause was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
Note the words that are not there. He did not say “born to citizens” or “citizen parents” or “citizen” father. He did not say born in the United States. He said “born a citizen of the United States.”
The words exclude a narrow category of naturalized citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency. At the time, just about everyone born in the United States was born a citizen, except for the child of the British Ambassador. Just about everyone born in Britain became a British subject, except for the child of the American Ambassador.
The evidence shows that Hamilton favored the immigration of aliens to the United States.
Source and context: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/testimony.htm
QUOTE The first draft of the Constitution that contained the Electoral College also was also the one that first contained the clause restricting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.(3) This joint appearance of the Electoral College and the denial of presidential eligibility for naturalized citizens is somewhat ironic. After all, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running to the President through the Legislature. However, the long debate about eligibility requirements for legislators apparently left the Founders uncomfortable with prospect of eliminating all eligibility requirements in the process of presidential selection. As a result, they added the natural born citizen requirement even though it was no longer needed.
This addition may have been controversial. In fact, two of the most influential Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, argued against it, at least implicitly, earlier in the Convention by warning against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States. Then he said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.” UNQUOTE, footnotes omitted.
Thanks, Gyges.
Here is another Nutworld chestnut: “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”
There was no hearing on McCain. What alternate universe are they transmitting from? There was a non-binding resolution that passed the Senate. Senators made statements. Research by Tribe and Olson was put in the record. I pasted up the entire memo here at the Turley blog.
I will now type real slow-like so that the birfers can read along with their lips:
McCain was born OUTSIDE the 50 states. There WAS a question whether he was a “natural born citizen.” It was debated here, and just put those words in the search window to read about it.
There was no question about Obama, and no need for a resolution, because — he — was — born — in — the — USA.
There was no question about Obama because — he — produced — his — birth — certificate.
If badaman and birther Byrne are lurking, they know where the discussions were posted.
Raff,
If my google-fu skills are up to par, Vince has a long history of dealing with people with no regard for facts.
Thanks, rafflaw.
The words of the Judge on subornation of perjury suggest that the State Prosecutors ought to bring the case to the Grand Jury for possible indictment:
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
This is getting far more serious than a mere disbarment.
There is a long – 30 pp or so — declaration by ed-convict Lucas Daniel Smith that has been up on the web since October 12, saying that Taitz wanted him to testify falsely. He filed it with the Judge, so this is likely to be one of the sworn affidavits that he saw.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx
I am linking it but not posting it because it is totally worthless, except as evidence of subornation. I posted the entire decision by Judge Carter because there is so much for all of to learn from it about standing, political questions, and our constitutional system of government.
Vince,
I do not know how you have the patience to deal with these trolls who have no regard for facts. This latest version also seems to think he/she is the Messiah. If he is, then we are all in trouble.
Mike A.,
I would expect our old friend Orly to be removed from the bar in short order with this long list of charges.
Vince, great work as usual. Thanks for the reference to the Catalinian oration. I had to memorize great chunks of it in my junior year in high school. In my senior year I fell in love with Virgil, and fantasized that I would produce a new English translation of the Aeneid which would surpass anything previously done. I seem to have misplaced that particular project somewhere along the way.
It is interesting that Ms. Taitz has now added possible subornation of perjury to her growing list of ethical lapses. The only interesting question remaining is whether she will be dismissed by the bar before the last of her cases is dismissed by the courts.
With regard to Mr. Bulla, I started to read his comments from several days ago, but he lost me at “traitors to their own race.” He appears at times to be walking along the top of an unstable fence separating reality from fantasy, occasionally falling off. Reading him produces an image of Elmer Gantry on mushrooms, with a decided anal fixation.
Art Bulla,
I knew from your statements that you were a blasphemer, but then I went to your website and learned that your sins do not end with blasphemy. I sincerely pray that your ask for the Lord’s forgiveness
for putting false idols before Him and repent now, or God save your eternal soul.
Art Bulla–
Take your medication and step away from the computer.
Good one:
“Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter”
Rimshot. Badda-BING!
More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:
The Revelations of Jesus Christ
Section 14: 29-66
29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.
30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.
31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?
32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.
33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.
34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.
35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.
61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?
63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?
64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.
65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.
66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2: 11.
Darwinists aka “anti-Christs” (a more correct appellation) always use the same argument: “out of his mind”, proving how wicked and corrupt they are, therefore adding blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to their long train of foul acts, attributing the Holy Ghost to the “effect of a frenzied mind”:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the EFFECT OF A FRENZIED MIND; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms–telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.
(Alma 30:12-18)
More junk science.
“December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body…”
So that explains it. Art is not only out of his mind, he is also out of his body. Aw, hell, no one could make this stuff up! The artful Art Bulla is still in the throes of an OOBE, out in space with the Junior Galactic Raiders of the Universal Empire.
Art also talks like a white supremacist, accusing the left of “being traitors to their race.” It is grim window into the mind of the birther underworld.