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
Thanks to all for illuminating the path of the latest ‘Orlyboros’, Art Bulla. Who chooses by free will to create the dimmest in humanity!
“The truth will be known at Res Ipsa Loquitor,” ah Vince’s hallowed words, it’s forever a treat reading you folks.
Vince and Slats,
These Orly Trolls are especially slowing in realizing that their claims are baseless and that Orly is going to be dealing with her own “legal” issues.
And lo, in the third hour of the fourteen score and second day of the time of Obama I was spaken unto again. And the wrath of Art crashed mightily upon me, yet I was unmoved, save for a single tear of regret that a fellow human being has had his mind so badly twisted by fear, hatred, and lies that he would spew such venomous bile.
Art said:
“Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism.”
I don’t think you understand how poorly your posts come off in comparison to me (and the other regular posters as well). You give racist polemics and biblical and pseudo-biblical quotes while we give evidence and references for our arguments. I believe that most readers can readily see that you don’t understand mathematics or science and have no clue what rational debate is (which is what many of us come here for).
“The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction.”
On the subject of ducks: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. The duck principle tells me that you are a racist, bigoted, homophobe.
I’m just going to ignore the rest of your pseudo-religious BS, except to say that the hatred you spew in the cloak of religion shames everyone who calls themselves a christian (you might want to do some research on what it really means to live according to Jesus’ teachings).
As for your other post:
You said:
“I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Apparently you didn’t understand the part of the bible that says “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
“And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation.”
Nice run-on sentence. I didn’t realize that your post was such a pristine masterpiece that it was forbidden to debate what you said. And enough with the latent homosexuality already – can’t you just find some guy and get a hotel room already? As for you tautological statements, when you use a tautology to attack a straw man, that doesn’t make for a valid argument… I’ll let others judge which one of us the insane ideologue is, but I’m confident that it’s not me. 😉 As a graduate of an outstanding (public) school district who went on to get a BS and an MS from a public university (I got my PhD from a private university), I’ll stack my public education up against yours any day of the week. Furthermore, our public education system is a big part of what has made our country great (you don’t build a strong middle class without an educated workforce).
“That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.”
I don’t need you to tell me what mathematics is all about, especially when you clearly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Tautologies, being statements that are true no matter what the premise (for example, Art is an idiot or Art is not an idiot), are not generally very helpful in establishing that a statement is true given a set of premises (which is called a ‘proof’ and is kind of important in understanding what mathematics is all about).
“I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”
I pity you. I pity your lack of understanding of the world you live in, your small-mindedness, your lack of compassion, and your ignorance. And it’s obvious to me that my mother taught me far more about being a decent human being than you’ve learned from any source. And while I would be respectful to your face, I would also stand by everything I have said here and while I would never start something physical, I would certainly defend myself from a hateful, small-minded, ignorant bigot such as yourself.
“But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in
your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer.”
Unfortunately, my mother died of cancer several years ago, so I can’t sit in her basement, but I do research trying to help understand and cure cancer and I believe she would be proud what I’m doing with my life. I feel sorry for the pain your mother must feel if she is aware of how badly she failed in raising you to be a decent human being. While I’m not a ‘queer’ as you so eloquently put it, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being gay, so your intended insults are ineffective. I’ll just continue to assume that you use words like ‘coward’ and ‘queer’ because deep down this is how you see yourself.
“Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.”
I’ll thank the founding fathers (a bunch of deists and atheists, by the way) and our judiciary (including Judges Carter and Land) for granting and protecting our freedom of speech – although in this particular forum it is Professor Turley granting us that freedom (so thanks to you, too JT). When I don’t know anything about a particular subject, I listen and ask questions – maybe you should try it sometime.
> I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. … I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Its rather rich she would complain about that after she herself encouraged her followers to write letters to the courts.
The last paragraph of the WildrootNutOilDailyDouble up above at October 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm said “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.”
I have already noted that there never was a hearing. For reference, here is the link to the Turley blog coverage of McCain natural born citizenship, complete with the text of Tribe-Olson:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/
And, of course, the “controlling legal authorities” for anyone born in the United States are the state officials in charge of official birth records. The controlling legal authority in Hawaii issued a Certification of Live Birth, the ONLY form of birth certificate now issued to ANYONE, and department spokespersons later said that they had examined their records and that the records showed Obama was born in Hawaii.
So the Nut lied again. Contrary to their story, controlling legal authority WAS sought and furnished to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
World Net Daily itself concluded last year that the COLB was genuine. Why is THAT fact never pasted up in their stories?
Orly’s site is often infected with malware, and so is a dangerous visit. Black Lion over at obamaconspiracy.org posted her reaction for Dr. Conspiracy and the gang, so that we can all read it safely. It is like a guided tour of the funhouse of her mind, complete with misspellings and malapropisms. My favorite is “I am the only attorney,…” Read on:
QUOTE ON
From Orly’s Site….
what doesn’t break us, makes us stronger
Posted on | October 29, 2009 |
As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.
Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”
While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.
First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?
There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.
Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice, when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt
To be contined…
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/comment-page-4/#comments
Art,
You realize of course that quoting a book only counts as an argument when the people believe the book to be true?
For instance: I could tell you that “Paladins can’t wear Helms of Destruction,” and since I assume you’re not the type to play early edition D&D (you strike me more as the kind of guy who plays those computerized versions of board games, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc.) you would have every right in saying “can too.”
Slart, Vince, Mike, Mike,
As always, thank you.
“We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.
“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.”
“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.”
Besides your obvious blasphemy in presuming to speak for the Creator, I believe that the “stong delusion” you refer to in your quote refers to you. If you do not immediately repent your sins I am afraid that it is your immortal soul that will burn for eternity. you are putting yourself before god, by decreeing that god speaks through you. The only possible saving grace on you is god’s pity at your obviously distraught mental state. However, unlike you I don’t presume to speak for the Lord and so it is possible that He afflicted you with this delusion as a punishment for your sins. Repent!
The best source I have found for Gnarly Taints news is http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
The Washington Post has really become a shadow of itself. It printed a long profile of Orly a while back:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
A lot of readers protested that it was not really news.
Now, today October 30, 2009, there is real news on the wires and the web, and the Post has nothing. A search of its site shows no report at all about the dismissal of Orly’s suit.
Be sure to check the Turley blog each day for the real news.
Vince,
You met Asimov, eh? Never has my avatar’s color been more appropriate.
The other interesting nugget in the ruling was that it might be possible for the courts to have a role in determining a candidate’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. I look forward to the next round of birther lawsuits in 2012 when Obama runs for reelection.
Leo is still dreaming of quo warranto.
[Begin quotation]
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court. [End quotation].
Leo the so-called poker player is actually the master of three-card monte. He keeps hiding the nut under the cup.
Of course, Judge Carter did not hold that a quo warranto was improper to challenge the President, because that question was not before him. Once he held that the proper venue was in D.C., not in California, he had no jurisdiction to rule on any other aspects of quo warranto. As a prudent, responsible and learned jurist, he confined his ruling to matters within his jurisdiction.
But the entire rationale of his decision militates against the use of the QW writ:
“Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”
As the Judge stated, the Constitution defines the processes for the removal of a President. It does not include a role for the courts in that process. The Constitution is explicit. The President can be removed by impeachment, within the “sole” powers of impeachment and removal vested in the House and the Senate. The President may also be removed for incapacity under the 20th Amendment.
Leo’s theory is inherently incredible. After 69 million people have voted for Obama, Leo would have a single District Judge in D.C. exercise the power to order a jury trial to remove a President. This, even though the entire House of Representatives (elected by all the people of the nation) and the entire Senate (also elected by all the people under the 12th Amendment) have declined to take action on the unassailable grounds that Obama is fully qualified for the Presidency as a natural born citizen BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
This is insanity. A quo warranto is an action for ordinary appointed municipal and federal officials who happen to hold office in D.C. to test their entitlement to office.
There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed. Federal Judges hold office on good behavior, and have never been removed except by impeachment. Members of Congress serve fixed terms of office, and may only be removed by expulsion by a 2/3rd vote of their respective Houses. The President and Vice President serve four-year terms. Removal is by impeachment.
At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.
Finally, D.C. may not have a Representative or Senators, but it does have the right to vote for President, and it supported Obama overwhelmingly.
What are Leo’s chances for a quo warranto and a D.C. jury trial?
Written prediction ™ ®©:
Nada. None. Below absolute zero.
Mike, Leo has a “New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. The chances of your comment being printed are slim. Sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know – most comments will not be printed.”
Yet another reason why I do not post there.
Leo is still dreaming that his quo warranto theory will fly in DC.
I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool. And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation. That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you. But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer. Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.
Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism. The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction. The curse of Cain has not been abrogated nor done away with in the least by your junk science and foolishness as evidenced by authoritative revelation from Israel’s God:
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.
(2 Ne 28:14-17)
But as to the mark placed upon Cain:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, AS THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE THE LORD GOD DID CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS TO COME UPON THEM.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
(2 Ne 5:21-24)
Mike A,
Awww, I loved being spaken unto. However will I find the strength to go on…
Slartibartfast, your responses to Mr. Bulla are truly devastating. I fear that he may be unwilling to ever again spake unto you.
Vince, thanks for the heads up on whistleblower. I just left a gracious request on naturalborncitizen requesting Mr. whistleblower to provide some details concerning the “unsupported, innacurate interpretations” of ours that appear to concern him.