Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Society

Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation

orly2The 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.”

s-TAITZ-large

“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

1,636 thoughts on “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation”

  1. Apuzzo says ” What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic.” He and Kerchner could start by respecting the fact that the Constitution makes all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the United States by birth. The 14th Amendment so provides.

    Wong Kim Ark authoritatively held that it so provides. Apuzzo is less than candid in his response to Slart on Wong. He and Kerchner have said that they think that Wong was wrongly decided, and that it should be reversed. Slart is absolutely right to say that Wong supports his position. Apuzzo has agreed in the past that Wong is inconsistent with his argument, and has urged its reversal. But now he argues that Wong supports his case. Can’t have it both ways.

    So this self-righteous “respect” for the Constitution is, in reality, a blatant disregard for its express terms, as interpreted in Supreme Court decisions that are binding on all lower courts until reversed.

    This disrespect translates into a nativist, know-nothing, disdain for the rights of all those American citizens who were born under the American Flag, and have been loyal Americans all their lives, but were not fortunate enough to have chosen two natural born American citizens as their parents.

    The problem for Apuzzo, Kerchner and all the other birthers is that Our Constitution is not their twisted, discriminatory constitution, but is the one that the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied.

    The Dred Scott case said that persons descended from Africans could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment rebuked that despicable, racist opinion. Now this crowd wants to read the racism back into 14th Amendment itself by excluding persons of African descent. Their “constitution” is no more valid than the so-called “constitution” of the so-called “confederate states of america.”

    Round Three, Slart.

  2. Mario answers Slarti: “As you correctly point out, the Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support.”

    Well, if Ankeny is so wanting in its reasoning, why is Apuzzo not joining with all the other birthers in taking it up to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead he is wasting his and his client’s time on Kerchner v. Obama, where the plaintiff clearly lacks standing. The courts can never reach the merits in Kerchner because he has no particularized injury that is not common to every citizen and voter. Why not take up Ankeny instead, where Article III standing was not a barrier in State court to a decision on the merits, and stop wasting federal court time and taxpayer money on yet another frivolous federal birther lawsuit?

    Round Two to Slart.

  3. Apuzzo finally responded to Slart on his own site. Slart really baited the bear and angered him.

    QUOTE: So what Wong did was create a class of persons who are born in the United States and even though they are born to one or two alien parents are still considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under a rather liberal interpretation of that clause which at most makes them Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” but not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html

    This is the nonsensical doctrine that there are three classes of US citizens, natural born citizens (with two US parents), “born citizens” under the 14th Amendment (with one or two alien parents), and naturalized citizens.

    There is no basis in the Constitution or the decisions of the Supreme Court for this doctrine. It is an invention of Apuzzo.

    The Supreme Court has made it clear that there are TWO classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, and that they are of equal dignity, with the sole exception that the natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency.

    QUOTE
    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964)

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html

    Round One to Slart.

  4. Mr Treacy I did in fact e-mail American Thinker on your behalf. I never heard back from American Thinker, not even an auto reply that my message was received. I went and read their e-mail policy and if you think the government over regulates, read their policy.

  5. I had the same problem with the AmericanTbinker site. They never put up my post and then barred me from posting anything.

    Another contributor here said he would email the editor to raise the issue.

    Never heard back from the contributor … or the editor.

    Birthers like to talk to themselves, and always find themselves in agreement.

    I never go to any of those sites anymore. I will not give them my email. “Lass’ sie nach Turley kommen.”

    Let them come to Turley.

  6. I recently posted the following comment on an article on Mario Apuzzo’s blog:

    A question: In light of the facts that the founding fathers most likely read de Vattel’s work in the original French and the term ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an English translation of ‘The Law of Nations’ until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution, why didn’t the founding fathers use the term ‘indigenous’ in Article II, Section I? (That being the obvious translation of the French.)

    Commander Kerchner posted this response to my comment:

    Slartibartfast:

    Brand new user ID just created. Hmmh. Do you know any of the team Mario wrote about.

    To your question …

    You must read the whole of section 212 and it is very clear that “natural born Citizen” is the correct English translation of the subject of that sentence and that is exactly what John Jay wrote in his letter to General Washington in the summer of 1787 when the Constitution was written. John Jay was fluent in French and an ardent reader and believer in Vattel’s Law of Nations. That is how John Jay conveyed in English to Washington the intent of putting that term in Article II as a “strong check” against foreign influence by requiring only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to serve as the President and Commander of the military. To be born with no foreign claims and allegiances at birth and thus have not foreign influence on you at birth, you have unity of citizenship at birth, i.e., you must be born of two Citizen parents of a country, on the soil of that country ,,. a natural born Citizen.

    You can twist and squirm in the face of the truth and choose not to recognize the writings of Vattel and a founder David Ramsay all you want about this, but if you read the entirety of Section 212 of Vattel, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, in either French or English the message, meaning, and intent is the same. Vattel chose the words he did in French and then immediately defined those words. The corrected English translation of those words in 1797 were again immediately defined in the rest of the sentence and paragraph. It is clear as a bell to anyone with intellectual honesty and a seeker of the truth and a student of history and the founding of our Republic. SCOTUS case quote directly from Vattel and restate in English exactly what was meant by “natural born Citizen”. Read the Venus case of 1814 and the Happersett case of 1875 for examples. See these links:

    [links removed]

    I sent in this reply which has apparently fallen victim to moderation:

    Commander Kerchner,

    Thank you for your answer. While I just created the google account for ‘Slartibartfast’, I am an occasional poster (under that pseudonym) at Dr. Conspiracy’s site and a regular poster at George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley’s site (while I use the same pseudonym there, I have revealed my identity so it is not anonymous). I’m not on any ‘team’ and I’m not filled with hate. I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.

    I don’t find your argument persuasive since in other cases where the founders did not want their words to be interpreted in the context of English Common Law, they explicitly said so (such as the definition of the term ‘treason’). In addition, I think that the the statement

    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    in the majority opinion of US vs. Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that President Obama would have been a natural born citizen if BOTH of his parents were aliens (and he was born in Hawaii), but since he is the child of a US citizen born in the United States (and under its jurisdiction) I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office he holds.

    Lest you brand me an obot scared of legal challenges to the president’s eligibility or laws requiring proof of eligibility to get on the ballot (like the measure that recently died in the Arizona legislature), let me say that I am strongly in favor of legislation such as the Arizona eligibility measure and fully expect that at least one court case will surmount the standing hurdle in the run-up to the 2012 election and be heard by a court. I am confident that in such an event an official copy of the COLB (which must be given full faith and credit by any state and satisfies the federal definition of a birth certificate) will suffice to prove President Obama’s natural born status and if any court rules on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.

    I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement. So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.

    Apparently this line of argument doesn’t fit into Mr. Apuzzo and Cmdr Kerchner’s narrative about hateful O-bots who are scared of the eligibility question…

  8. Interesting article. I am not arguing that McCain is or is not a natural born citizen. I am arguing that he is a naturalized citizen. If “citizen at birth” is sufficient for natural born citizen, then surely a 14th amendment citizen is natural born.

    Now sure I agree with Justice Stevens. The phrase “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, …” could be read to apply only to “… a Citizen of the United States, …” and not to “… a natural born Citizen …”.

  9. Dig has not denied posting earlier under as other trolls, has not stated any background in this area. It would help in responses if we knew if Dig were a lawyer or nonlawyer, and something of educational or occupational background relevant to the issues.

    Dig has hurled a lot of nasty juvenile allegations and insults. One of the schoolyard taunts was that “By your comments I would say that you have spent more years of your life in school than out.”

    Dig’s taunts are very telling. I am not making any accusations. I just read the uncivil posts and find that the fictitious “Dig” persona is very juvenile, replete with childish insults, dares, taunts, and name calling.

    Dig may not realize it, but the postings give the impression of a chap in mother’s basement putting up posts while being nagged to take out the trash. Empty pizza boxes are covered by pop bottles. The pages of the Playboys are all stuck together.

  10. Dig: “Inviting persons of dual-character to occupy the position of the Executive is not evidence of a strong check on foreign influence.” I have found no “dual character” clause in the Constitution. The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is clear on its face. The manifest effect was to exclude naturalized citizens from the Presidency. It does not exclude dual character, whatever that is. There were and are only two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized, and the clause excluded the naturalized ones.

    Dig: “You have been arguing that Obama did not have dual citizenship from birth. That position is contrary to obamaconspiracy.org, fightthesmears, Factcheck.org, and my opinion. For some unknown reason you seem to think that the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”

    I never argued that Obama did not have dual citizenship.

    Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.

    I argued that Obama was under US jurisdiction.

    I never said “the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”

    Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.

    It is hard enough to defend what I do in fact write, without contending with fictitious statements attributed to me.

    Once again, slowly. Obama had two citizenships at birth. He was a full natural born citizen of the United States under the Constitution, Article II and Amendment 14. His conditional Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he did not go to Kenya and swear allegiance to Kenya.

    Obama was not subject to dual JURISDICTION. He was subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States at birth.

  12. Dig said “If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.”

    I think the framers did accept Hamilton’s suggestion, just as they accepted his grandfather clause, but in slightly different words. They did not give a reason, but the concept of “natural born” was in the common law and in Blackstone. They adopted a lot of common law concepts as American law. I think it was a change of style, not substance.

    The Framers used common law terms instead of spelling out the provision. Instead of saying Congress could not inflict punishment on a named individual by legislative act, they said no bills of attainder. Instead of saying a law could not make past conduct criminal, they said no ex post facto laws. The preserved habeas corpus. They spoke of marque and reprisal and corruption of blood. Instead of saying born a citizen, they said natural born citizen. So that is a reason why the framers could have chosen natural born.

    There is no difference between being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds, born and naturalized. No person who was born in the US itself has ever had to take out naturalization papers. She just shows a birth certificate.

  13. Dig: “I can provide the Common Law of England of which I can prove the Law of Nations to be part of. And the law of nations states that Obama does not meet the criteria to be a natural born citizen.”

    Sorry, the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions are the applicable law here, mate.

    The common law is a good guide to the meaning of American law, but it is not the law. The law of nations is a good guide for international law, but not for the domestic (municipal) law of citizenship.

    Dig: “Obama’s dual character at birth that prevents him from being a natural-born citizen.”

    No case or law provides that “dual character,” whatever that may be, is a legal element in determining “natural born” status.

  14. Dig: “…you should be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close.”

    This is from the Supreme Court. It is pretty close.
    [qt]

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.” [unquote]

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964)

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html

  16. Nal,

    Here’s an oral argument from 2001. I think you will see that questions of citizenship, as well as what exactly is a natural-born citizen, is a question that has not been settled. Mind you, this is from 2001 (before Obama was even in the picture). You will see that Ms. Davis (Associate-Dean of Northeastern University School of Law) acknowledges natural-born citizen to be considered by commenters to be a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli.

    I think you will also find that the Court (like you and I) consider those foreign-born children of U.S. Citizen parents to be “naturalized” citizens.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

  18. Nal,

    Don’t you think those on a military base would be “subject to the jurisdiction”?

  19. Dig continued:

    Will FFLEO be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close. If not, is he willing to say that the question has not yet been legally answered by a court of competent jurisdiction?

    I doubt that he feels the need to – I just did and I’ve lost count of the number of times that Vince has done a more thorough job of making the same point.

    Maybe he doesn’t want to answer. Maybe he should have asked himself that question before he voted for Obama.

    I’m quite confident that his qualms about voting for President Obama arise from the actions he’s taken (and actions he’s not taken) since becoming president, not ignorant birther propaganda about eligibility.

    If Obama is not clearly a natural born citizen, how could someone who supports the Constitution vote for him?

    Logically speaking, your premise is untrue (President Obama is clearly a natural born citizen as Vince has shown), so your question (like so much of what you post) is irrelevant.

    These and many questions like them should be answered by all those who ridicule the birthers for daring to ask the questions.

    I ridicule the birthers for being so intellectually dishonest that they wont accept the correct answers to the questions they raise and so scared of the black man in the Whitehouse that they’re unwilling to debate the issue on the facts and the law.

    If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.

    Again, I refer you to Blackstone’s definition of the English common law term ‘natural born subject’ and ask you why, if the founders did not mean to use the definition found there, did they not explicitly say so like they did in the case of the definition of the term ‘treason’. In addition, if the founders intended for the definition found in de Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ to be used, why didn’t they use the term ‘indigenous’ – the obvious translation of the original French version in which the founders most likely read de Vattel and the term which appeared in the only available English translation at the time?

  20. Dig spewed:

    Slartibartfast,

    How old are you?

    I can’t say for sure. I don’t remember my birth and my birth certificate is demonstrably wrong (it lists my adoptive parents as mother and father). I wouldn’t want to make a statement that I couldn’t back up.

    Where do you get off demanding that I do anything?

    I didn’t demand anything – I merely stated the circumstances under which I would respond to your comments. (In case you’re wondering, this falls under (c) – calling you out for spewing your crappy lies.) Surely I have the right to decide whether or not (and how) I will respond to your comments, just has you have the right to continue posting your intellectually dishonest lies.

    Just how self-important do you think you are?

    I don’t think of myself as self-important at all. Mostly, I just want to be left alone to pursue my research, but I have a low tolerance for the kind of misinformation and Rovian tactics that you’ve been employing here and a philosophical belief that they should be answered with facts and sound reasoning.

    “The evidence and law suggest that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.”

    Wrong biotch! The law suggests nothing of the sort.

    As Vince has explained (repeatedly) (with multiple citations of law) (and references justifying his interpretations) (again and again) the law says that President Obama is a natural born citizen provided he was born in Hawaii. Furthermore, he has shown that the COLB (i.e. a certified copy from the Hawaii DOH that contains the same information as the copy posted online) is sufficient proof of Hawaiian birth in any US courtroom absent more credible evidence to the contrary (which would almost certainly have to include Hawaii DOH officials repudiating the document – unlikely since it would open them up to perjury charges). You’ve provided nothing credible which would challenge any part of this interpretation.

    When asked to provide any “law” that would declare the Hawaiian-born child of a natural-born citizen woman, and a Kenyan man (who was only here in temporary residence) to be a natural-born citizen, you failed miserably.

    US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Vince has provided strong support for the interpretation that President Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth while you have provided nothing of substance that would contradict him.

    You consider the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens to be natural-born citizens; so your understanding of the law in this area is void of support.

    No, I said that the citizenship of foreign-born children of US citizens is governed by US law (and US law only) and irrelevant to this discussion (unless you can provide evidence of foreign birth which is more credible than the records of the state of Hawaii).

    Slartibartfast said; “Have you not noticed that I’ve been advocating brither laws here for the last several days?”

    Have you noticed that you’re the only one on your team doing so?

    I’m the only one on my ‘team’ that supports President Obama – of the recent posters here, FFLEO and Buddha are both outspoken in their (reasoned) dislike of the president and to the best of my recollection Vince has never posted any indication of his political leanings here. I would guess that FFLEO and Buddha don’t care about people stupid or ignorant enough to be convinced by birther arguments and Vince is only interested in presenting the facts on the law so that people with enough intellectual honesty to look at both sides will be exposed to the truth. (FFLEO, Buddha and Vince: please correct me if I was wrong about any of your positions.)

    They know that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and if some state tries to keep him off the ballot it will permit the court to rule on it.

    Yes, I agree that it is almost certain that a lawsuit which surmounts the ‘standing’ hurdle in regard to state ballot eligibility will occur. How do you think that the court will react to an official copy of the COLB from Hawaii? Do you think that it will be given ‘full faith and credit’? I do (especially since the Constitution says that it must). The howls of dismay from you and your ilk when that happens will be even funnier than the time that Dr. Kate posted a long essay about Judge Carter’s integrity (and how he was sure to rule against President Obama) on the same morning he released his order dismissing the birther case before his court.

    That is something they don’t want.

    Bring it on.

    They don’t want it because it will; (1) demonstrate that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

    Kind of hard to do that without any law to support you…

    (2) Stop permitting the children of illegal aliens to become citizens. That reduces the number of those who are likely to vote for the Democrat.

    And the opponents of anchor babies haven’t done this already because… ?

    Slartibartfast said; “It says that he was born a citizen – i.e. that he was not a naturalized citizen (which I gave a definition of). As Vince has repeatedly demonstrated via citations of law there are only two types of citizens and Barack Obama is NOT an naturalized citizen… (I’ll let you figure out the rest). If you think differently, let’s see the citations of law and SCOTUS opinion that say so… Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any.”

    There you go genius. You can’t provide law, and I can’t provide law. I can provide common-law. I can provide the Common Law of England of which I can prove the Law of Nations to be part of. And the law of nations states that Obama does not meet the criteria to be a natural born citizen.

    Oh, you’re a de Vattelist… Vattelite? Vince, we need a term for this faction of birthers. Search this thread for ‘Blackstone’ and you’ll find an actual reference to the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject’ – WARNING: you’re not going to like it. And if you can prove your statements about the ‘Law of Nations’ (meaning the book by de Vattel rather than the ‘law of nations’ referring to the laws that govern the interactions of nations) then, by all means, please do so.

    Slartibartfast said; “No you idiot, he’s been arguing that only US law is relevant in determining the citizenship of President Obama.”

    No. You’re the idiot. It is Obama’s dual character at birth that prevents him from being a natural-born citizen.

    And you’re support for this statement is… ?

    Inviting persons of dual-character to occupy the position of the Executive is not evidence of a strong check on foreign influence.

    The founders (as shown by their own words) were worried about bringing in out-of-work foreign nobility as king (a common practice at the time). The interpretation of NBC that Vince has espoused prevents that from happening (and he has given an enormous amount of support for it). If you’ve got a different interpretation, please present your support for it.

    Then again, who gives a crap about foreign influence? (as long as he’s a Democrat (or not Bush) you’ll be happy)

    I give a crap about the Constitution. I originally came to this blog because I was worried since I couldn’t debunk the birther arguments – after looking at all of the information and links that Vince has provided I can now dismantle every birther arguments I’ve ever seen, from Kenyan birth to Indonesian adoption to de Vattel.

    –Let me guess. By your comments I would say that you have spent more years of your life in school than out, and (except for maybe short periods of time) you have never held a job where your pay was not ultimately provided by the government.

    You would be wrong about that (except for the more years in school than out thing…). By your comments I see that you have great difficulty understanding and constructing logical, rational arguments and I would guess that you are parroting things you’ve found on birther websites (where all of the comments are moderated to keep out any contrary opinions) and only partially understood.

    I said; There seems to be no evidence that Obama had any passport when he traveled before he became a U.S. Senator.

    Slartibartfast said; The burden of proof lies on you here.

    Where do you come from?

    East Lansing, Michigan.

    What part of your world makes you think that something exists until someone can prove that it does not?

    If you want to assert that President Obama had a non-US passport at any time that is your right (many people believe illogical, incorrect things). If you want any reasonable person (or more importantly a US court) to consider that assertion, it must have evidentiary support.

    Are you a religious person?

    Religious, no. Spiritual, yes. I believe in the teachings (but not the divinity) of Jesus Christ and at times I have considered myself a follower of or had my worldview influenced by Agnosticism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism (Wicca), Atheism and science. Today I believe I will consider myself a Pastafarian. You’re just begging for a smiting from the noodlely appendage…

    If not, prove to me that God does not exist?

    As an atheist friend of mine once wrote in his thesis, the burden to prove the existence of God lies on the theist. I don’t have proof that God does not exist, I merely have no credible evidence that he does.

    Do you really not understand that you can only prove [sic] Obama’s travel on a U.S. Passport is to provide that passport?

    Again, I don’t have to prove it – if you want a court to believe you, you will need evidence (of which you have none at all).

Comments are closed.