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
Personally, I welcome the Arizona legislation and others like it. First, it will assuage the worries of reasonable people when President Obama gets on the Arizona ballot. Secondly it will be really funny to watch the brither’s heads explode when that happens…
Bdaman,
If you want to accuse Vince of bad faith, then some proof is in order. If you don’t have any, then maybe you shouldn’t be making the claim.
White House slams latest ‘birther’ move
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/21/white-house-slams-latest-birther-move-2/?fbid=LK1dBpTEOJP
In fact, I had known for some time from the 1882 NY Times article that the suggestion was made in the 1800s.
You also knew for quite some time that there was no verifiable proof that Dr. West delivered Obama but you used it anyway. What else have you known for quite some time that you just threw out there.
Trolling the thread, a snippet was plucked from last year,
Yeah, I said it. Vince Treacy, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am.
HERE is what came before the snippet:
“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 [Donofrio] 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.”
THEN I wrote the snippet:
“There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
HERE is the rest of the paragraph.
“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.
“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.”
Okay. I think it is clear that I was discussing the statute, and asserting that there had never been an action UNDER THE STATUTE to remove the President or other constitutional officers. I do not think I said that no one had ever suggested enacting such a law. In fact, I had known for some time from the 1882 NY Times article that the suggestion was made in the 1800s. So that is the answer. Read the statement in context and decide for yourselves.
So, no, I do not “concede that quo warranto was suggested to test the title of the President and Vice President?” That is not what I said. In my actual statement, I was talking about the statute, not legislative proposals.
Part deuce: Taking victory lap on the “Written prediction ™ ®©” that a quo warranto had zero chances in D.C. (See decision by Chief Judge Lamberth, supra).
Quo Warranto, The Sequel
In 1887, Congress got around to addressing the Hayes-Tilden scrap. One of the things it rejected was the use of quo warranto.
QUOTE
The New York Times, on June 20, 1882, published an article explaining that an attempt by Congress to allow the title of the President to be tried by Quo Warranto had been defeated. Most relevant are the comments by Mr. Hewitt who “did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution”
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
AN ELECTORAL COUNT BILL WHICH WAS PROMPTLY KILLED.
MR UPDEGRAFF’S -SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SENATE BILL-DEGRADING THE OFFICE BY MAKING IT A SUBJECT OF LITIGATION — THE SENATE BILL RECOMMITTED.
WASHINGTON, June 20.-The action taken by the House to-day shows that it will be difficult to frame an Electoral Count bill which will meet the approval of that body, and still more difficult to frame one that will be ac[c]epted by both House and Senate. The bill reported by Mr. Updegraff, from the select committee charged with the subject, which was published in full some time ago, was rejected by a vote of 93 to 100, and the bill which has passed the Senate failed to be advanced to its third reading, and was recommitted by an almost unanimous vote.
The part of Mr. Updegraff’s bill which aroused the strongest opposition was that which provided that the defeated candidate for the Presidency might appeal to the courts after the votes bad been counted and his opponent declared elected. The sections in question provided that the claimant might proceed bv quo warranto in the United States Circuit Court by filing complaint within 10 days after the declaration of his rival’s election. The defendant must answer and plead within 20 days, and the trial must begin within 30 days after the service of the summons. Provision was also made for appeal to the Supreme Court and for enforcement of judgment by a writ addressed to any Marshal.
Mr. Bowman opposed this part of the bill because it degraded the office by making it a subject of litigation before a jury. Mr. Browne. of Indiana, argued that the question of the title of Electors should be settled in the most direct way, in the States, by State courts, under State laws, and that this settlement should be final. He also suggested the abolition of the Electoral College. Mr. Hammond, of Georgia, denounced the bill, and declared that it ought to be called ” A bill to raise hell in the United States.” Mr. Hewitt did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution. Mr. Carlisle thought that Congress should be the final judge. The part of the bill relating to the quo warranto proceedings was stricken out, and then the remainder was rejected. The Senate bill was then recommitted. UNQUOTE
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/ny-times-reporting-on-quo-warranto-and-trying-the-title-of-the-president/
So, once again, the use of quo warranto against the President was considered and rejected.
The statement by Fields is very effective in supporting my position. Fields was talking about a proposal that never passed. It is not the law.
I agree with Fields insofar as “Congress has not as yet [1877] invested any tribunal with the power to try the title to the presidency by quo warranto. No such law exists….” I agree with the concession “have not been able to satisfy myself that there is any provision for a writ of quo warranto in the case of President.”
I disagree that it is “it is competent to Congress to pass such a law,” and the Congress at the time agreed with me, since it never passed any such law. No such law has ever passed.
There is no link to the statement, and no identification of the speaker or the body addressed. There was an Electoral Commission in 1877 and an Electoral Count Act in 1887. There is no date for the statement.
It can be found in the “The American annual cyclopedia and register” of important events of 1877, not 1887, Volume 2. So it was made to the Hays-Tilden Commission in the aftemath of the disputed 1866 election.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vaUoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA173&lpg=RA1-PA173&dq=Let+me+ask,+in+the+first+place,+upon+what+foundation+that+doctrine+rests%3F+%E2%80%9CWho+tells+you+that+you+are+to+take+that+certificate+as+conclusive+evidence+against+anything&source=bl&ots=Ma9j51A29O&sig=xemO_OkF7DXg6yI6rOY6V7pl3Sc&hl=en&ei=dXzPS9qvJIWglAeV-oGgCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Let%20me%20ask%2C%20in%20the%20first%20place%2C%20upon%20what%20foundation%20that%20doctrine%20rests%3F%20%E2%80%9CWho%20tells%20you%20that%20you%20are%20to%20take%20that%20certificate%20as%20conclusive%20evidence%20against%20anything&f=false
If the link does not work, google the first two sentences of Field’s speech. Trolls. You gotta proof their postings and do their internet research. On the other hand, this took less than a minute. They ignore page after page of argument, and seize on some scrap torn out of context. How about addressing the substance of the argument?.
So this confirms my argument up through 1877, and supports the position that quo warranto was never authorized by Congress to apply to the President.
Vince Treacy must be exercising his right to remain silent. Readers should accept his silence as representative of inadequate evidence to support his previous position. He has no “reasonable evidence” to support Obama’s birth at Kapiolani. He, like the rest of us, has only the word of Barack Obama.
Let us continue.
Vince Treacy 1, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am
“There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
Vince Treacy should be knowledgeable enough with regards to the common law to understand a judgment of ouster resulting from quo warranto action. To claim that “a suggestion of such an action” is something that “has never been” is the result of historical ignorance.
Representative Fields addressing the 1887 Electoral Commission:
“Let me ask, in the first place, upon what foundation that doctrine rests? “Who tells you that you are to take that certificate as conclusive evidence against anything that can be proved on the other side? By what rule of evidence, by what precept of law, are you deprived of the right to investigate the truth? Is it not a universal rule that every judge is invested ex necessitate with the power to take into consideration all pertinent evidence in respect to the facts upon which his judgment is to be pronounced, unless there is some positive law declaring that certain certificates or other documentary evidence shall be conclusive? I venture to say that that is the universal rule, and that there is no court of general jurisdiction known to American or Anglo-Saxon law in which it is not a fundamental principle that whenever a court can inquire into facts necessary to its judgment, it may take all the pertinent evidence—that is to say, all evidence that tends to prove the fact—unless it is restricted by some positive law. Now, then, show me a positive law that makes the certificate … evidence against the truth? Where is it? In what book? It is not in the Constitution. It is not in the laws of [any state of this union]. Is it in any law of Congress? The only act of Congress applicable is that which provides that the Executive of the State shall deliver to the electors a certificate that they are such electors; but that act does not declare that this certificate shall be conclusive—neither declares it nor implies it. Suppose I offer to prove that the certificate is wholly false—fabricated for the purpose of cheating the State out of its vote, and the other States out of their rights? Take the State, one of the oldest and proudest in this Union of States—the State of Massachusetts, of which my friend Mr. Commissioner Abbott is so worthy a representative—and suppose that the honored Governor of that State were so debased as to certify that the Tilden electors had received the votes of a majority of the good and true voters of Massachusetts: will any man tell me that it must be taken as absolutely true? -That you cannot prove it to be false? Where is the law for that? Nay, more: I venture to affirm that, if an act of Congress had declared that that certificate should be conclusive, the act would have been unconstitutional. For what reason? For this reason: The Constitution, as if the foresight of the fathers grasped the conflicts of future years, declares that the person having the highest number of votes shall be the President. Not the person declared to have the highest number of votes, but ‘the person having the highest number.’ No certificate can be manufactured to take that away. If you had declared by act of Congress, in the most express and positive terms, that the certificate of the Governor delivered to the electors should be conclusive against all proof, you would have transcended the limits of the organic law. You cannot say that the certificate of the Governor of Massachusetts shall override the votes of the electors of Massachusetts in their choice of President. Therefore it is I say not only that you have not done it, but you could not do it. You could not do it if you would, as I am sure you would not if you could.
“Is not your right to inquire into the very truth implied by the law under which you act? What are you to do? You are to declare whether any and what votes are the votes provided by the Constitution; not to declare what are the votes certified by Governor Stearns. That was known well enough beforehand. You are to certify what are the lawful votes upon which a President of forty-five millions of people is to be inducted into office.
“Is not the same right implied in the notion, which I find to prevail everywhere, that Congress might authorize a writ of quo warranto to try the title of President within the purview of the Constitution? Can that be doubted? The Constitution has declared that the person having the highest number of votes shall be the President; not the one certified. Congress has not as yet invested any tribunal with the power to try the title to the presidency by quo warranto. No such law exists, I am sorry to say. Such a law, if I might be permitted to say so, ought to be made. It is no small reproach to our statesmanship that for a hundred years no law has been provided for this great exigency.
“I have not been able to satisfy myself that there is any provision for a writ of quo warranto in the case of President. But my argument is that, whether there be a law now existing or not, it is competent to Congress to pass such a law; and if a law to provide for a writ of quo warranto would be constitutional, then it is constitutional to impose a like duty on any other tribunal to investigate the title. That is to say, if you could devolve that duty upon any tribunal by means of a writ of quo warranto, you can devolve it by other means. If the Governor’s certificate would not be conclusive there, it is not conclusive here. The right to inquire into the fact exists somewhere; and if nowhere else, it must be here.
“Thus thinking that Congress could devolve upon some tribunal the authority to inquire into the title of the President, and that such authority would necessarily give to the tribunal investigating the right to go into the truth, notwithstanding any certificate to the falsehood, I argue that here before this Electoral Commission, invested with all the functions of the two Houses, you can inquire into the truth, no matter what may have been certified to the contrary.
“Furthermore, I submit to the commission that there is another rule of law which necessarily leads us to answer affirmatively the question whether the truth can be given in evidence notwithstanding the certificate: and that is, that fraud vitiates all transactions…”.
Will Vince Treacy now concede that quo warranto was suggested to test the title of the President and Vice President?
PHOENIX — The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.”
Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.
http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html
Mr Treacy I’m not bent out of shape. I just think there’s a little bit more goin on behind the scenes for you. Like I said, everything is gonna be just fine, I know so, the oracle told me.
Integrity, I could be wrong, and I can’t recall the specifics but I’m pretty sure Mr. Treacy cleared that one up. Like I said I could be wrong. As many times I’ve been told I was, chances are pretty good 🙂
Hey, Vince Treacy, why don’t you call it The Rainbow Edition? Why don’t you show us where you “linked to Rainbow”? What do you consider to be “linked”?
You’re avoiding the question, Vince. What’s the matter? Have you been caught making statements that you can’t support?
Per Vince Treacy “I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani”.
Lay it on us, dude! Show us your “reasonable evidence”. Give us one piece of verifiable evidence that shows Kapiolani to be the birth hospital of Barack Obama.
You response will tell the readers a lot about what you consider to be reasonable evidence.
Hey, Integrity, when does your integrity finally make you admit that I had already linked to Rainbow, as bdaman has just told us, contrary to your assertion. Show a little integrity yourself. No more answers for you until then. Goodnight.
BD is still bent out of shape about calling a guy a blogger. Well, everybody, maybe bdaman should take this up with the editors of the Washington Post, since they are the ones who posted the piece on a page labeled as a “blog”:
“1. Blog | 04/14/2010
“All Opinions Are Local: The guy in the windbreaker
“washingtonpost.com editors (washingtonpost.com)”
Link to Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=tom%20satterwhite&
And this page:
“Search This Blog
“Recent Posts
“ * Unbuilding the Mall?
“ * The guy in the windbreaker”
Link to source:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/04/the_guy_in_the_windbreaker.html
So it was the Post editors who posted Tom’s piece in a blog. His argument is with them, not with me. I just called a guy who posted something in a Post blog a blogger because the Post put his piece on a page labeled a blog. Stop bothering everyone with this trivial irrelevant sh*t..
So much nonsense, so little time.
And don’t think I forgot about this one.
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.” In other words, he was an eyewitness giving us first hand information.
I’m still waiting for you to produce other articles written by Tom Satterwhite who is, according to you, a blogger for the Washington Post.
richCares at Dr. Conspiracy
He complains about anonymous posters but accepts what an anonymous poster says.
is my source for the statement about the confusion.
Sorry Mr. Treacy your gonna have to do a little better than that.
I can tell you one thing for sure about your source.
Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
Per Vince Treacy “I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani”.
Lay it on us, dude! Show us your “reasonable evidence”. Give us one piece of verifiable evidence that shows Kapiolani to be the birth hospital of Barack Obama.
You response will tell the readers a lot about what you consider to be reasonable evidence.
Mr. Treacy in your defense
I did find it after a long search, and posted it on another thread, actually in response to bdaman. Scroll up. I posted it here again.
I can say that I am one who does not need to scroll up on this issue.
and I’ll take a demerit on this
voted yea in conference* (results of conference votes are not publicly disclosed
Hi Mike
Integrity, are you a licensed attorney? If so, show some ‘integrity’ and post using your real name as Mr. Treacy does since you are both presenting legal arguments and you are questioning his “legal research” abilities.
If you are not a lawyer, please leave the legal criticism to real lawyers.