Main Menu

Taitz barred from Georgia court

photo of Orly Taitz at the close of the Farrar hearing in AtlantaI told you so. The Superior Court of Fulton County rejected the request of Orly Taitz to represent David Farrar, et al. before it. While not going into quite as many specifics as I did, the court noted that Taitz had not provided “the majority of the required  information” in her pro hac vice application, and in particular her failure to list an in-state sponsoring attorney.

Update:

Orly has responded to this latest debacle on her web site saying:

I, also, wrote to the court, that in the administrative court I was granted the right to represent the clients pro hac vice- meaning an out of state attorney representing in state client. Though usually it is required for an in state attorney to co-sign the case, when the case is handled pro-bono (at no charge to indigent client) and/or it is a civil rights case, the requirement for the in state co-counsel is waived. Judge Wright was not willing to waive this requirement. I got a response from her, she wanted full complience [sic] with the in state counsel co-signing and additional information. While I have no problem supplying additional information, It [sic] is impossible to find a co-counsel who is not frightened to take upon these most explosive issues, dealing with Obama using a stolen Social Security number1 and a forged birth certificate. Keep in mind, that attorneys Hatfield and Irion have a very limited case dealing with interpretation of the meaning of natural born citizen, they do not bring any incriminating evidence against Obama. So, Hatfield or someone else can co-sign for Irion, however when the case is dealing with the fact that the sitting president is committing serious crimes, other attorneys are afraid of perscutions [sic] by the regime and afraid to get involved and co-sign.

Taitz presents no precedents for waiver of in-state counsel in Georgia Superior Court, nor does Taitz does assert that she’s even tried to find an attorney in Georgia to sponsor her, so her claim that it is impossible to find one rings hollow, and sounds like a typical Birther knee jerk excuse for their own incompetence. In fact Taitz is the leader of the crazies and the “regime” isn’t persecuting her.

I tried the following search engine query:

“pro hac vice” waiver (“civil rights” OR “pro bono”) georgia (“local counsel” OR “in-state counsel”)

The BarReprocity.com web site indicates that in some states and situations a waiver is possible (e.g. in Alabama the in-state counsel rule may be waived the Appellate level for pro bono cases), but that same source does not indicate that a waiver is possible in Georgia Superior Court. Taitz notes that she was admitted pro hac vice by a Georgia Administrative Court, but BarReprocity states that the rules of the Superior Court require:

Domestic Lawyers must associate with a local Georgia lawyer. The Georgia lawyer who is co-counsel or counsel of record remains responsible to the client and the conduct of the proceeding. The Georgia lawyer has to advise the client of his or her independent judgment or contemplated action in the proceeding if that judgment differs from that of the Domestic Lawyer’s judgment.

This just goes to demonstrate that Taitz is not familiar with the rules in Georgia and has no business practicing before a Georgia Superior Court.

2012-02-15 FARRAR v OBAMA (APPEAL FCSC) – ORDER Denying Taitz Motion for Admission pro hac vice


1The editorial standard on this site is to write “social-security number” (hyphenated and in lower case) following the legal filings of the Social Security Administration in Taitz v. Astrue.

, , ,

113 Responses to Taitz barred from Georgia court

  1. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    i asked taitz why her petition was denied

    so far: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  2. avatar
    JPotter February 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Yeah, she seems to have overlooked posting this.Is there anything Orly did right on this one? She didn’t miss a deadline, and i think she sent it to the right address, but beyond that …. ?

  3. avatar
    Arthur February 16, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    donna: i asked taitz why her petition was denied

    donna, there’s no need to even ask that question–the system is rigged!

  4. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    donna: i asked taitz why her petition was denied

    Um, because she’s a meshugener, perhaps?

  5. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    rigged?

    i KNEW it would be denied from the start

    an elementary school kid would have don’t better following instructions

    i posted the question and order to see if it would be deleted as she usually does

  6. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    DC – Taitz v Ruemmler – Orly missed a filing…

    TAITZ v ASTRUE APPEAL (USDC D.C.) – Orly missed a filing…

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  7. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    LMAO! Wow, she is about as incompetent as they come! So, 10 days PAST the filing deadline, she finally files…and attempts to request a 30 day extension… ROTFL!

    donna: DC – Taitz v Ruemmler – Orly missed a filing…TAITZ v ASTRUE APPEAL (USDC D.C.) – Orly missed a filing…http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  8. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    LOL

    didn’t her online, non-aba approved “law school” teach civil procedure?

  9. avatar
    JPotter February 16, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    G: So, 10 days PAST the filing deadline, she finally files…and attempts to request a 30 day extension…

    Can’t blame her for tryin’ … oh, ummm, yes, yes you can.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    A little bird told me that someone asked her yesterday who her in-state sponsor was. That comment didn’t pass moderation either.

    donna: i asked taitz why her petition was denied

  11. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    lol

    i’m STILL waiting

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 16th, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

    why was your ga pro hac vice petition DENIED?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81865925/2012-02-15-FARRAR-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-FCSC-ORDER-Denying-Taitz-Motion-for-Admission-pro-hac-vice

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    So that makes 4 counting pro hac in Georgia and the form screw up in Indiana.

    donna: DC – Taitz v Ruemmler – Orly missed a filing…

    TAITZ v ASTRUE APPEAL (USDC D.C.) – Orly missed a filing…

  13. avatar
    BillTheCat February 16, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Good lord, as usual, she is just terribad.

  14. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    she’s apparently filing a challenge in indiana too: “Urgent regarding election fraud complaint”

    everything MUST be received by noon tomorrow

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    No fax or email allowed either.

    donna: everything MUST be received by noon tomorrow

  16. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    MD: fair v obama

    to: barack hussein obama II

    UNKNOWN ADDRESS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81882701/2012-01-26-Maryland-FAIR-v-OBAMA-Complaint-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-tfb

  17. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    *facepalm*

    Also, that filing rates quite high on Squeeky’s Rictus scale… just about every Birther myth is thrown in and recycled there… *rolls eyes*

    donna: MD: fair v obamato: barack hussein obama IIUNKNOWN ADDRESShttp://www.scribd.com/doc/81882701/2012-01-26-Maryland-FAIR-v-OBAMA-Complaint-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-tfb

  18. avatar
    ASK Esq February 16, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    On the plus side, at least she’ll avoid further sanctions.

  19. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    the BEST GIGGLE

    did they move louisiana?

    Orly – Geography impaired?

    Orly announces that ballot challenges were received by the SOS of Louisiana and as proof she shows mail being received in Indianapolis. My goodness sakes… Of course there is NO evidence of a forged SSN or BC…

    Obama ballot challenges were received by the Sec of State of LA and the elections board in IN. Please call them, follow up, make sure, if Obama is not removed, there is an official response, why wasn’t he removed, in light of his forged SSN ID and BC

    Posted on | February 13, 2012 | No Comments
    Certified mail receipt secretary of state of LA

    70101870000339951299
    Delivered
    February 13, 2012, 12:40 pm
    INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46205

  20. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    I guess a plus for her… I consider that to be the main DOWNSIDE of her not getting Pro Hac Vice – the woman is long overdue for some more massive sactions…

    ASK Esq: On the plus side, at least she’ll avoid further sanctions.

  21. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    It is hard to find ways in which Orly isn’t somehow “impared”…

    donna: – Geography impaired?

  22. avatar
    Keith February 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    She is heading for a nervous breakdown trying to do 15 things at the same time.

    As much as I like to laugh at her as much as anyone, she seriously needs someone close to her to do an intervention.

  23. avatar
    Northland10 February 16, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Keith: She is heading for a nervous breakdown trying to do 15 things at the same time.

    Her reply brief was due today in her appeal of Taitz v. Dunn, and that was after being granted an extension (among the various other delays cause by both her and possibly Dunn). I am not sure if she made the deadline but Dunn does have request for judicial notice scheduled for next week.

    She apparently has difficulty walking away from a case to focus her energy on cases, though lacking merit, have not been made moot by the 2010 primary and eventual general election (which Dunn lost anyway).

  24. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    Keith:
    She is heading for a nervous breakdown trying to do 15 things at the same time…she seriously needs someone close to her to do an intervention.

    Sorry, popcorn. People like her are ruining Israel, and I have no patience for them.

    “For Mideast peace, Israel must cut off U.S. Jewish lobby

    The time has come to make a decision: If the goal is integration into the region, then it is essential to break away from the Jewish lobby.”

    Read on:
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/for-mideast-peace-israel-must-cut-off-u-s-jewish-lobby-1.411091

  25. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    I think it is way too late for an intervention for her. She needs a full padded cell and a rubber straightjacket.

    Keith: She is heading for a nervous breakdown trying to do 15 things at the same time.As much as I like to laugh at her as much as anyone, she seriously needs someone close to her to do an intervention.

  26. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    G:
    I think it is way too late for an intervention for her.She needs a full padded cell and a rubber straightjacket.

    Thorazine.

  27. avatar
    John Potter February 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    If you guys would just hit that Paypal button enough she could afford a staff! Now go get clickin’!

  28. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    John Potter: she could afford a staff

    Dogs have owners; cats have staff.

  29. avatar
    Arthur February 16, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Keith: As much as I like to laugh at her as much as anyone, she seriously needs someone close to her to do an intervention.

    Like her husband? Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to have Orly for a wife . . . or a mother. That voice; can you imagine being nagged by that voice?

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    If you consider her web site, it looks like she’s mostly thinking about media interviews and publicity. And don’t forget, she’s running for the US Senate.

    Northland10: She apparently has difficulty walking away from a case to focus her energy on cases, though lacking merit, have not been made moot by the 2010 primary and eventual general election (which Dunn lost anyway).

  31. avatar
    Arthur February 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    John Potter: If you guys would just hit that Paypal button enough she could afford a staff! Now go get clickin’!

    I’ll no sooner hit Orly’s Paypal button than I will tap her badonkadonk–even though both are large, round, shiny, and red.

  32. avatar
    John Potter February 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you consider her web site, it looks like she’s mostly thinking about media interviews and publicity. And don’t forget, she’s running for the US Senate.

    Doc, having noted her finally qualifying for the ballot, do you think her crusade is intended to attract attention to her Senate run, or her Senate run a gimmick to attract attention to her crusade? Or is it all just spastic flailing?

    I decided it’s neither, all just clamoring for attention. The woman was replaced by a massive personality disorder long ago.

    Poor woman would have a better chance of being elected as a nobody. Took this long to get 100 signatures … will she get 100 votes in the primary? Yeah, at least that many people will hit the wrong button.

  33. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Arthur: That voice; can you imagine being nagged by that voice?

    Fingernails on a blackboard.

  34. avatar
    John Potter February 17, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    misha: Fingernails on a blackboard.

    Talk about a case of the Mondays. 😉

  35. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 6:34 am #

    Orly finally addressed the denial of her PHV application on her blog. Typical Orly stuff.

    She’s claiming that an in-state sponsoring attorney should have been unnecessary as she is handling the case pro bono and it’s a civil rights case, and the requirement for a sponsoring attorney is typically waived under these conditions. O RLY?

    She then goes on to say that it would be impossible for her to find a sponsoring attorney because all are “frightened to take upon these most explosive issues” of criminal activity by the president. So she has advised Farrar to continue pro se.

    She claims the judge is a ” very liberal Democrat” who would never rule against Obama anyway.

    Says she’ll pick this case up again when it goes to SCOTUS!

    Insists she is not in this for the money and then promptly begs for money.

  36. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 17, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    And we know she WILL file her batshitness with the Supreme Court. I’m too lazy to look up which Justice has circuit authority over the Eleventh and can look forward to being graced with the first of her multiple applications for emergency stay.

  37. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    I couldn’t figure out why Orly would think (or claim, anyway) that the requirement for an in-state sponsoring attorney would be dropped in pro bono or civil rights cases, so I looked up the GA PHV information.

    Apparently, the fee for filing the PHV application is waived in certain pro bono cases.

    Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of “civil rights” cases or any instance in which a sponsoring in-state attorney is not required.

    That’s Orly for you–making up laws as she goes along!

  38. avatar
    Tarrant February 17, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    I think Orly believed that, having been admitted PHV for her case in the administrative court with Malihi, it would be a mere formality to be granted PHV in the Superior Court – after all, it’s the same case in her mind.

    Now that doesn’t mean she would have filled it out properly otherwise, we all know she’s terrible at that in any case – but rather I don’t think deface eventual seconds thought to filling it out because it wouldn’t surprise me of for a whole she thought it would be automatic given her admission by Malihi.

    As for her argument that her case is so amazing that no one would sponsor a lawyer challenging eligibility, I note that Hatfield is sponsoring Van Irion for PHv, but not Orly…

  39. avatar
    Arthur February 17, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    RuhRoh: She then goes on to say that it would be impossible for her to find a sponsoring attorney because all are “frightened to take upon these most explosive issues” of criminal activity by the president. So she has advised Farrar to continue pro se.

    God, what B.S.! Her excuses read like those of U.F.O. apologists who insist that high ranking officials won’t acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials because they are being intimidated into silence. For the conspiratorial mind, no excuse for failure is too far-fetched, and no failure is an excuse to stop.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will February 17, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    RuhRoh: That’s Orly for you–making up laws as she goes along!

    Shocking!

    Will she make it to November before imploding?

  41. avatar
    donna February 17, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    november? don’t forget, she’s running for senate – i can’t wait for her to blame those “marxist” voters and rigged election for not winning

  42. avatar
    Majority Will February 17, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    This twit is obsessed with a false equivalence:

    “Even though the nation elected Nixon, the nation accepted his impending impeachment and removal from office due to criminality. The nation will accept removal of Obama due to criminality. What I am bringing forward, is evidence of criminality.”

    (source: the twit’s online cesspool)

    The legitimate legal community has been far too patient with this disrespectful, bumbling, ego driven twit.

  43. avatar
    donna February 17, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    funnies from ofgs:

    Notice, while Taitz’s Application captioned Barack Obama as the sole Defendant, Judge Wright properly added Secretary of State Brian Kemp and copied his office. In the Appeal itself, Taitz captioned “Barack Obama, Secretary of State.” That’s right, Secretary of State. (That’s a step up from the other day when she told Newt Gingrich the President wasn’t qualified to “pick tomatoes or clean bathrooms.”) She then wasted no time in disrespecting Chief Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi. Nothing very new, though, since this is common behavior for Orly Taitz.

    According to Dean Haskins, posting at Orly’s World Facebook

    Dean Haskins
    I am told that David Farrar has sent out multiple emails asking if anyone knows of a Georgia attorney who would be willing to file a pro hac vice motion for the dentist. Can any of you possibly help him out? LOL!

    If true, it indicates Georgia lawyers weren’t jumping to associate with the Birther Queen, anyhow. Who can blame them? And, if you were a judge and had the choice, would you have this miserable, rule-breaking bitch practice law in your courtroom?

  44. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Majority Will: The legitimate legal community has been far too patient with this disrespectful, bumbling, ego driven twit.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    It remains astonishing to me that she hasn’t been disbarred.

  45. avatar
    richCares February 17, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Orly is a foul mouthed nasty witch that is rotten to the core, every time Orly’s name s mentioned I think of the song from the Wizard of Oz, the one about the witch, that cheers me up.

  46. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Agreed! Well said.

    Also a kudos to Doc C. for the detailed Update section added to this blog post.

    Arthur: For the conspiratorial mind, no excuse for failure is too far-fetched, and no failure is an excuse to stop.

  47. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Strongly agreed!

    Lupin: I couldn’t agree more.
    It remains astonishing to me that she hasn’t been disbarred.

    Majority Will: The legitimate legal community has been far too patient with this disrespectful, bumbling, ego driven twit.

    richCares: Orly is a foul mouthed nasty witch that is rotten to the core, every time Orly’s name s mentioned I think of the song from the Wizard of Oz, the one about the witch, that cheers me up.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Could Orly have meant the Secretary of State of Los Angeles (LA)?

    donna: did they move louisiana?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    She can’t have it both ways. She can’t say that everyone is scared silly of her criminal charges to the extent that no attorney in the entire state of Georgia will sponsor, and then cite the example of Nixon and the country taking his resignation in stride.

    Majority Will: The nation will accept removal of Obama due to criminality. What I am bringing forward, is evidence of criminality.

  50. avatar
    donna February 17, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    lol

    “Could Orly have meant the Secretary of State of Los Angeles (LA)?”

    she said “SOS of Louisiana” but the address posted

    Posted on | February 13, 2012 | No Comments
    Certified mail receipt secretary of state of LA

    70101870000339951299
    Delivered
    February 13, 2012, 12:40 pm
    INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46205

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:22 am #

    Where did you find this? I’ve found waiver of the fee in pro bono cases, but not waiver of in-state counsel. See, for example Page 22:

    http://gabar.org/public/pdf/ogc/ogc_report_07_08.pdf

    RuhRoh: Apparently, the fee for filing the PHV application is waived in certain pro bono cases.

  52. avatar
    JPotter February 17, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Could Orly have meant the Secretary of State of Los Angeles (LA)?

    She’s been confusing Indiana and Louisiana for some time. I joked somewhere that the rhyming state names were throwing her off.

    Maybe that’s it, she’s reading everything backwards!

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Loren?

    donna: I am told that David Farrar has sent out multiple emails asking if anyone knows of a Georgia attorney who would be willing to file a pro hac vice motion for the dentist. Can any of you possibly help him out? LOL!

  54. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Where did you find this? I’ve found waiver of the fee in pro bono cases, but not waiver of in-state counsel. See, for example Page 22:http://gabar.org/public/pdf/ogc/ogc_report_07_08.pdf

    We’re saying the same thing: that the filing fee can sometimes be waived in pro bono cases but there appears to be no circumstance in which the requirement for a sponsoring in-state attorney can be waived.

    Here’s the link to the rules that I found earlier this morning http://www.gabar.org/public/pdf/news/pro_hac_vice.pdf

    It’s under Section E: Application

    “3. Exemption for pro bono representation. An applicant shall not be required to pay the fee established in Rule 4.4 E.2 above it the applicant will not charge an attorney fee to the client(s) and is:

    a. employed or associated with a pro bono project or non-profit legal services organization in a civil case involving the client(s) of such programs; or

    b.involved in a criminal case or a habeus corpus proceeding for an indigent defendant.”

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    Sorry, my brain jumped ahead of my eyes. I just wanted to make sure I didn’t say something wrong in the article.

    RuhRoh: We’re saying the same thing

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    Oh, now you’ve reminded me of the song: Flagalapa. I still remember Timmie Rogers singing it.

    JPotter: She’s been confusing Indiana and Louisiana for some time. I joked somewhere that the rhyming state names were throwing her off.

  57. avatar
    Rickey February 17, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Tarrant:

    As for her argument that her case is so amazing that no one would sponsor a lawyer challenging eligibility, I note that Hatfield is sponsoring Van Irion for PHv, but not Orly…

    Hatfield is a crackpot, but he isn’t stupid. He has seen her in action and he doesn’t want to run the risk of being held responsible for her behavior.

  58. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    G: Strongly agreed!

    Me too.

    Lupin: I couldn’t agree more.
    It remains astonishing to me that she hasn’t been disbarred.

    Majority Will: The legitimate legal community has been far too patient with this disrespectful, bumbling, ego driven twit.

    richCares: Orly is a foul mouthed nasty witch that is rotten to the core, every time Orly’s name s mentioned I think of the song from the Wizard of Oz, the one about the witch, that cheers me up.

    IANAL. I’m just starting to scratch the surface here…

    From Cornel University Law School: California Legal Ethics
    VIII. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION
    (This is a comparison of the ABA Model Rules (MR) to the California Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC) and Business and Professional Conduct (B&PC)

    8.2:101 Model Rule Comparison

    MR 8.2 contains two rules which are only loosely connected. MR 8.2(a) prohibits lawyers from making false or reckless statements regarding the integrity or qualifications of judges, judicial officers and judicial candidates. MR 8.2(b) requires that candidates for judicial office comply with applicable provisions of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct.

    In California, the statute which most closely resembles MR 8.2(a) is B&PC � 6068(b). The California statute is, however, significantly more vague than the Model Rule. B&PC � 6068(b) simply provides that it is the duty of a lawyer “[t]o maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.”

    Looks like CA has an extremely weak version of MR 8.2(a). I suspect Orly would be gone ages ago if CA was even close to the Model Rule. However, from the same source:

    8.2:200 False Statements About Judges or Other Legal Officials
    Several California cases address the situation in which a lawyer makes a false or disparaging statement regarding a judge. In general, these cases involve statements made in a filed pleading, and the decision generally is grounded in B&PC � 6068(b) which requires a lawyer “[t]o maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.”

    One of the leading California cases is Ramirez v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 402, 169 Cal.Rptr.206, 619 P.2d 399. In Ramirez, a lawyer first in a reply brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and later in a petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, accused the members of a state appellate court panel of, inter alia, acting “unlawfully” and “illegally” and being parties to a “theft” because of the panel’s reversal of a trial court decision which had been favorable to the lawyer’s clients. The State Bar’s Disciplinary Board and the Supreme Court found that, at the very least, the lawyer had acted with reckless disregard of the truth and suspended him from practicing law for thirty days and placed him on probation for a year. Moreover, the California Supreme Court found that because the lawyer had acted with reckless disregard for the truth, his statements were not protected by the lawyer’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. This finding that reckless disregard for the truth can lead to bar-imposed sanctions indicates that, despite the vague language of B&PC � 6068(b), California courts enforce a standard of conduct substantially similar to the standard found in MR 8.2(a).

    A list of other California cases in which false and defamatory statements made by lawyers regarding judges led to disciplinary questions can be found in Attorney’s Criticism of Judicial Acts as Ground of Disciplinary Action, 12 A.L.R.3d 1408 (1967 and Supp. 1997).

    There is also the provision in CRPC 5-100

    Rule 5-100. Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges.

    (A) A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.

    (B) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “administrative charges” means the filing or lodging of a complaint with a federal, state, or local governmental entity which may order or recommend the loss or suspension of a license, or may impose or recommend the imposition of a fine, pecuniary sanction, or other sanction of a quasi-criminal nature but does not include filing charges with an administrative entity required by law as a condition precedent to maintaining a civil action.

    (C) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term “civil dispute” means a controversy or potential controversy over the rights and duties of two or more parties under civil law, whether or not an action has been commenced, and includes an administrative proceeding of a quasi-civil nature pending before a federal, state, or local governmental entity.

    It seems to me that

    1) the California Bar admission procedures are next to worthless, as evidenced by Dr. Taitz success.and
    2) the Standards for behavior for member of the Bar in California are so low as to be nothing more than window dressing.

  59. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    I’m with you on that and disgusted with the CA Bar. I don’t buy others arguments that they can’t be bothered with a small fish.

    Orly is someone who has garnished a lot of freak public national attention for filing frivolous motions all over the country on her CA license and with an astoundingly appauling history of “disregard of the truth” and “threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute” and outright threats of treason and other disparaging statements way beyond the pale. So, she has clearly made numerous egregious violations of even their weaker standards.

    They cannot be unaware of her or her actions. As others filed complaints to the CA Bar, they should be continuing to monitor her behavior, but they probably aren’t. The CA Bar only serves to discredit itself and its reputation by turning a blind eye to this crazy and utterly incompetent flagrant offender.

    Keith: It seems to me that
    1) the California Bar admission procedures are next to worthless, as evidenced by Dr. Taitz success.and
    2) the Standards for behavior for member of the Bar in California are so low as to be nothing more than window dressing.

  60. avatar
    jayHG February 17, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Seriously, the REAL reason Orly can’t get anywhere is because she’s crazy. Normal people can see, “oh, I should have done this instead of that” and correct themselves and go forward. Mentally ill people can’t do this.

    I really can’t believe that she has NO ONE around her who loves her/cares enough about her to grab her, shake her, and get her some help. All the people she associates with can’t be similarly mentally ill.

    Normal people, and especially normal folks with law degrees, understand that you win some and you lose some and when you lose ALL, THE PROBLEM IS LIKELY YOU!!

    i work at a law firm. The retainer agreements all have clauses telling the client that there is no guarantee of success one way or the other with their case.

    I don’t bother with Orly anymore except to get entertained because trying to make sense or anything she does is a complete waste of my time. She’s not stable mentally and someone who loves her should help her.

  61. avatar
    RetiredLawyer February 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    A note on CA’s Bar. In the current on-line edition of the official bar journal the discipline that is being published is from six months ago. Yep. the lag time on discipline ordered and the official announcement is around six months. Also, since Orly’s unprofessional conduct is not such that is easy to prove, such as taking client’s money or just not showing up for court, the hearing process can be overly prolonged, some of the current discipline entered six months ago is for misconduct that occurred some four or five years ago. So, given that the Bar discipline proceedings are closed until a result is had, and remain closed unless public discipline is imposed, the CA Bar could be in its usual extremely slow process.

    I didn’t invent the mess we have.

  62. avatar
    BillTheCat February 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    The one and only reason she is letting this go now is because she will never allow herself to attach Judge Land’s sanction order against her as required at this stage. Game over in GA, Orly.

  63. avatar
    Majority Will February 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    The one and only reason she is letting this go now is because she will never allow herself to attach Judge Land’s sanction order against her as required at this stage. Game over in GA, Orly.

    Like her many other strong delusions, the twit will never admit that the sanction was legitimate.

  64. avatar
    Reality Check February 17, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    I believe it is Clarence Thomas

    GeorgetownJD:
    And we know she WILL file her batshitness with the Supreme Court.I’m too lazy to look up which Justice has circuit authority over the Eleventh and can look forward to being graced with the first of her multiple applications for emergency stay.

  65. avatar
    Stanislaw February 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I believe it is Clarence Thomas

    Yep, it is Clarence Thomas. If she would have a shot with any of the justices he would most likely be the one given his extreme conservativism. On the other hand, I’ve actually met him in person and he couldn’t be a nicer guy.

  66. avatar
    Robert February 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    But what happens when the Cal. Bar asc. disbars her? Sure, she can’t practice, but she can still file in CA, still can preach online, and, most importantly, this ‘proves her point.’ If we in some way censor her, even if it is absolutely legit (and, as a soon-to-be member of the Bar, I am disgusted at her behavior), then she will be able to use it as ammo, and MANY people would see it as a smoking gun. That action alone could undermine the office of the presidency enough to result in, god forbid, a crazy person acting.
    She should be sanctioned, maybe fined, and maybe even a temp ban (6 months is common, maybe give it to her around may or something?), but an outright disbarring would be horrific for our cause.

    G:
    I’m with you on that and disgusted with the CA Bar.I don’t buy others arguments that they can’t be bothered with a small fish.

    Orly is someone who has garnished a lot of freak public national attention for filing frivolous motions all over the country on her CA license and with an astoundingly appauling history of “disregard of the truth” and “threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute” and outright threats of treason and other disparaging statements way beyond the pale.So, she has clearly made numerous egregious violations of even their weaker standards.

    They cannot be unaware of her or her actions.As others filed complaints to the CA Bar, they should be continuing to monitor her behavior, but they probably aren’t.The CA Bar only serves to discredit itself and its reputation by turning a blind eye to this crazy and utterly incompetent flagrant offender.

  67. avatar
    Majority Will February 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Robert:
    But what happens when the Cal. Bar asc. disbars her? Sure, she can’t practice, but she can still file in CA, still can preach online, and, most importantly, this proves her point.’ If we in some way censor her, even if it is absolutely legit (and, as a soon-to-be member of the Bar, I am disgusted at her behavior), then she will be able to use it as ammo, and MANY people would see it as a smoking gun. That action alone could undermine the office of the presidency enough to result in, god forbid, a crazy person acting.
    She should be sanctioned, maybe fined, and maybe even a temp ban (6 months is common, maybe give it to her around may or something?), but an outright disbarring would be horrific for our cause.

    How about just behind bars then?

  68. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    I completely disagree.

    First of all, the reasons to disbar her, sanction her, declare her a vexatious litigant, etc. (or even to mentally have her committed) are all LEGIT and on extremely solid grounds.

    If you waste time fretting about crazy people declaring themselves martyr’s for their cause, then you are the one who has already lost the battle.

    The crazies will declare themselves martyr’s regardless. They and their followers will wail and gnash their teeth and claim that the “fix” is in against them no matter what.

    Appeasement NEVER works with these types. It only makes it worse. The only thing that they respond to is when they actually have real world consequences to fear.

    Of course, deal with them completely WITHIN the limit of the law. But enough treating them with kids gloves. Time to throw the book at Orly and these other malcontent and unsatisfiable delusional bozos and start holding them to stricter standards, as already available within existing law.

    Robert: But what happens when the Cal. Bar asc. disbars her? Sure, she can’t practice, but she can still file in CA, still can preach online, and, most importantly, this proves her point.’ If we in some way censor her, even if it is absolutely legit (and, as a soon-to-be member of the Bar, I am disgusted at her behavior), then she will be able to use it as ammo, and MANY people would see it as a smoking gun. That action alone could undermine the office of the presidency enough to result in, god forbid, a crazy person acting.She should be sanctioned, maybe fined, and maybe even a temp ban (6 months is common, maybe give it to her around may or something?), but an outright disbarring would be horrific for our cause.

  69. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    On another thread, Keith recently pointed out this these sage words of advice by Karl Popper. It was a quote that had previously appeared on the Quote of the Day feature here.

    It bears repeating yet again, as a reminder to Robert and those like him who buy into the false hope of appeasement in these types of situations:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    – Karl Popper
    – The Open Society and Its Enemies

    G: If you waste time fretting about crazy people declaring themselves martyr’s for their cause, then you are the one who has already lost the battle.
    The crazies will declare themselves martyr’s regardless. They and their followers will wail and gnash their teeth and claim that the “fix” is in against them no matter what.
    Appeasement NEVER works with these types. It only makes it worse. The only thing that they respond to is when they actually have real world consequences to fear.

  70. avatar
    misha February 18, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    jayHG: the REAL reason Orly can’t get anywhere is because she’s crazy. Normal people can see, “oh, I should have done this instead of that” and correct themselves and go forward. Mentally ill people can’t do this.

    First, IANAL, but I have a paralegal cert from Old Dominion University in Norfolk.

    I have written this before, and I’ll say it again: Orly and her ilk do not believe in democracy. Israel is filled with people like her. Orly, Berg, Klayman and their coterie believe Obama is bad for Israel, and they truly believe they can drive Obama from office. They hate Obama viscerally, and so get into bed with anti-Semites.

    “I really can’t believe that she has NO ONE around her who loves her/cares enough about her to grab her, shake her, and get her some help. All the people she associates with can’t be similarly mentally ill.”

    You better believe it, because yes they can: “Settler leader calls democracy an obstacle to Israel’s higher calling – Veteran settler leader Benny Katzover: ‘We didn’t come here to establish a democratic state.’ ”

    Read it and weep: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settler-leader-calls-democracy-an-obstacle-to-israel-s-higher-calling-1.407490

    I met Sharansky, and was a supporter until he went off the deep end, and started to advocate expelling all Arabs from Israel. That’s right: strip them of their citizenship, and force them to leave.

    Think I’m exaggerating? “Israeli Arabs are citizens, not enemies of the state” –
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-arabs-are-citizens-not-enemies-of-the-state-1.411089

    You remember this gem: “Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/uproar-after-jewish-american-newspaper-publisher-suggests-israel-assassinate-barack-obama-1.408429

    Mark my words: Orly’s goal is to incite a lone wolf.

  71. avatar
    G February 18, 2012 at 2:03 am #

    Let us all hope that she fails as miserably at THAT as she seems to do with everything else related to Birtherism…

    misha: Mark my words: Orly’s goal is to incite a lone wolf.

  72. avatar
    Ohio February 18, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    She must know that IT Doesn’t matter where the request for a SS Card comes from. SO if BHO dad sends a request from what state he is living in, the gov’t Dept that issued them, will send one to that address. Expample is my Dad. He was born in Ky, Went to the Army during WW2, came back to OHio and has lived here since 1949. So if he was to run for an office, would somone wonder why a Man with a Ky SS Card, be running in Ohio?? Another point. She states the BD for Hawaii will not be issued to her. In Hawaii and many other states, a BC is not released to the general public.. I can’t get a copy of mywifes BC, unless she signs a paper givingme the OK.. Plus the then Republican Gov of Hawaii at the time BHO was running, signed a statement saying she saw his BC.. Orly is just a nit wit who wants to get Headlines for her run for the Senate.. Her so called Experts have no papers showing they have anytraining to be Experts, so the Judges have thorwn the caese out.. Just live withthe fact that BHO is Pres. NOW We can do something to get rid of him and that is to VOTE HIM OUT !

  73. avatar
    bob February 19, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    RuhRoh:
    I couldn’t figure out why Orly would think (or claim, anyway) that the requirement for an in-state sponsoring attorney would be dropped in pro bono or civil rights cases, so I looked up the GA PHV information.

    Apparently, the fee for filing the PHV application is waived in certain pro bono cases.

    Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of “civil rights” cases or any instance in which a sponsoring in-state attorney is not required.

    That’s Orly for you–making up laws as she goes along!

    Orly’s experts have had more training and experience that BHO has had for the Presidency–She has done more to expose the Fraud in the white house than any other attorney–she has a following in the hundreds of thousands and growing hourly.

  74. avatar
    richCares February 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    “has a following in the hundreds of thousands and growing hourly”
    that is really funny, oh you forgot to include the 12 that showed up at the last big rally

  75. avatar
    Arthur February 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    bob: Orly’s experts have had more training and experience that BHO has had for the Presidency

    Rite on, Bob! Stick it to these Oboziododos! As Orly and Friends know, real expertise isn’t earned, it’s declared. Plus, don’t forget the intense training and experience Orly’s experts have in Dungeons and Dragons, traveling on UFOs, and eating at IHOP.

  76. avatar
    G February 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Orly’s followers don’t come across as the type that used to play D&D or other RPGs. As a former RPG player, it usually attracted creative intelligent types…not delusional angry nitwits. So I don’t see much crossover appeal there.

    However, Civil War reenactors and wanna-be weekend militia types, most definitely.

    Arthur: Rite on, Bob! Stick it to these Oboziododos! As Orly and Friends know, real expertise isn’t earned, it’s declared. Plus, don’t forget the intense training and experience Orly’s experts have in Dungeons and Dragons, traveling on UFOs, and eating at IHOP.

  77. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    bob: Orly’s experts have had more training and experience that BHO has had for the Presidency

    Gary Kreep – Holocaust denier
    Mario Apuzzo – DWI lawyer
    Larry Klayman – sued his own mother, and took it to trial
    Paul Jensen – lawsuits mostly for dog bites

    bob: she has a following in the hundreds of thousands and growing hourly.

    Yeah, she gets another fan each time a grifter is released on parole.

  78. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    G: However, Civil War reenactors and wanna-be weekend militia types, most definitely.

    Q: What’s the solution to the Birther problem?
    A: Live ammo for Civil War reenactments.

  79. avatar
    G February 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    *chuckle*… Ohhh…that is dark humour, indeed. I shouldn’t have laughed at that, but I couldn’t help myself…

    misha: Q: What’s the solution to the Birther problem?A: Live ammo for Civil War reenactments.

  80. avatar
    Arthur February 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    G: However, Civil War reenactors and wanna-be weekend militia types, most definitely.

    Good point! Those Civil War reenactors are in a class by themselves.

  81. avatar
    Northland10 February 19, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    G: *chuckle*… Ohhh…that is dark humour, indeed. I shouldn’t have laughed at that, but I couldn’t help myself…

    I agree with myself.

  82. avatar
    Northland10 February 19, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    bob: She has done more to expose the Fraud in the white house than any other attorney–

    She has done more, and still failed. She might find all of her effort to be more productive and produce results if, in fact, she actually had credible evidence of fraud.

    The Mythbusters once took crap (literally) and spent hours and days with it. They shaped it, polished it, and buffed it to a high gloss. They spent more time with crap than most anybody else and made the crap all shiny and pretty. Yet, after all that time, all they ended up with was crap.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    I suspect that your capitalization of “Natural Born Citizen” and your lack of capitalization of “obama” is a big hint to how you think.

    As to your question, it’s hard to answer a hypothetical where you know that the assumption is false. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and the only place that’s going to be found otherwise is on a Birther web site.

    If you asked a possible hypothetical question like “Would you care if a presidential candidate were found not to be a natural born citizen?” then the answer would be yes. However, such a thing is not a matter of concern since such a candidate would never be allowed by run by any political party that had a chance of winning, the news media would be all over it and the Congress would never certify the election.” So yes, I would care, but I would not be anxious over what would happen.

    I deleted your other comment, and don’t do that again, or you will be banned.

    veritas: would any of you care if obama was found not to be a Natural Born Citizen?

  84. avatar
    G February 19, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Well said Doc C! I agree with everything you said.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I suspect that your capitalization of “Natural Born Citizen” and your lack of capitalization of “obama” is a big hint to how you think.

    As to your question, it’s hard to answer a hypothetical where you know that the assumption is false. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and the only place that’s going to be found otherwise is on a Birther web site.

    If you asked a possible hypothetical question like “Would you care if a presidential candidate were found not to be a natural born citizen?” then the answer would be yes. However, such a thing is not a matter of concern since such a candidate would never be allowed by run by any political party that had a chance of winning, the news media would be all over it and the Congress would never certify the election.” So yes, I would care, but I would not be anxious over what would happen.

  85. avatar
    G February 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Egads! I checked through the 15 photos of that sad little photo essay. The final one with the kid in the Klan outfit really was a sad thing to see…

    misha:
    I’m not going to say anything more, because I know you have only a few minutes to get to that cross burning. Don’t forget your costume. Mother Jones has a profile of a good supplier: http://motherjones.com/photoessays/2008/03/aryan-outfitters-01

  86. avatar
    Arthur February 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Wow . . . really disturbing, Misha. Nevertheless, thanks for link.

    misha: I’m not going to say anything more, because I know you have only a few minutes to get to that cross burning. Don’t forget your costume. Mother Jones has a profile of a good supplier: http://motherjones.com/photoessays/2008/03/aryan-outfitters-01

  87. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    So, DonnaLS, what you’re saying is the following…

    A woman (lets call her Elizabeth Elg) was born in New York. Elg, when she was four, moved to a foreign country (let’s say Sweden), where her parents naturalized in the foreign country, and as a result gave Swedish citizenship to Miss Elg. Miss Elg moved back to the United States and resumed living there.

    What you’re saying is that Miss Elg lost her citizenship when she naturalized in Sweden, due to the actions of her Parents.

    The Supreme Court directly says otherwise. In fact, the Supreme Court directly said that Elizabeth Elg was a Natural Born Citizen. (read Perkins v. Elg, 1939)…

  88. avatar
    John Reilly February 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    The challenge that President Obama lost his citizenship, either by adoption or by law, in Indonesia, is a tacit admission by birthers that the President was born in Hawaii. They are moving on.

  89. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    dunstvangeet: A woman (lets call her Elizabeth Elg)

    Call Me Ishmael.

    No.

    -Call me a taxi.
    -OK, you’re a taxi.

  90. avatar
    Arthur February 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    misha: Call Me Ishmael.
    No.
    -Call me a taxi.
    -OK, you’re a taxi.

    You forgot the “bada-bing!”

  91. avatar
    G February 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    *yawn*

    Another run-on cut/paste of long debunked Berg nonsense offered here by some random Birther out of nowhere. I suspect we’ve got another butt-hurt PUMA dropping by to throw a tantrum…

    Keep crying there, sister. Hey, only 5 more years of Birther tears for you to go…

    Donna LS: “Many cases are pending that are asking the same question as Philip Berg. The question however simple now has a life of its own and it is now obvious it will not die easily. It is whether Barack Obama is in fact constitutionally eligible to assume the office of President. More than X cases are pending throughout the country and new ones are planned until the matter is put to rest.”

  92. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    misha: Call me a taxi. OK, you’re a taxi.

    Arthur: You forgot the “bada-bing!”

    [bada-bing] Fixed.

  93. avatar
    donna February 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    Farrar v. Obama: Petition For Letters Rogatory Filed

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21791

  94. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    donna:
    Farrar v. Obama: Petition For Letters Rogatory Filed

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21791

    Proof how the birfers want to have their cake and eat it. First she uses Judge Malihi’s decisions before the circus trial to claim that Obama was in contempt, and then she turns around and denounces him as an Iranian Muslim (now would it not be funny if he were really Jewish, as some people have suggested) who betrayed the US of A in return for war heads to be delivered to Teheran as soon as possible.

    It is tragic, really, the woman may have started as a refusenik with an agenda, but now she has gone heart-sticka meshogge (using the Amsterdam Bargoens version of that Yiddish word, Misha), and that is a euphemism.

  95. avatar
    veritas February 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Do you people believe that the 14th amendment makes a person a natural born citizen?

  96. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    veritas:
    Do you people believe that the 14th amendment makes a person a natural born citizen?

    No, if you could read above 4th grade level you would understand the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment restates the English common law rule incorporated into the NBC clause. It really isn’t that hard for people who can read English.

  97. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    veritas:
    Do you people believe that the 14th amendment makes a person a natural born citizen?

    Only if they shop exclusively at Whole Foods. If they step inside a Walgreens, no. Also, if they tie a dog to the roof of their car for 12 hours, no.

  98. avatar
    G February 20, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Agreed!

    ballantine: No, if you could read above 4th grade level you would understand the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment restates the English common law rule incorporated into the NBC clause. It really isn’t that hard for people who can read English.

    veritas: Do you people believe that the 14th amendment makes a person a natural born citizen?

  99. avatar
    veritas February 21, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    does the term NBC appear in the 14th amendment? Im havent read the whole thing yet.

  100. avatar
    RetiredLawyer February 21, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    veritas:
    does the term NBC appear in the 14th amendment? Im havent read the whole thing yet.

    And there it is. Birthers who admit that they have been posting here without bothering to actually read (let alone understand) the most basic documents.

  101. avatar
    veritas February 21, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    well I was just being honest, Im sure you can point me to the section in 14 where the term NBC is used. Im really looking for answers, you dont need to insult me I really want to learn.

  102. avatar
    Ballantine February 21, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    veritas: well I was just being honest, Im sure you can point me to the section in 14 where the term NBC is used. Im really looking for answers, you dont need to insult me I really want to learn.

    The trouble was that the term “natural born” was not defined leading to Dred Scott. the legislative history of the clause leaves no doubt they were re-stating the same rule except writing out what the English rule was rather than using the term of art. Such is the opinion of the Supreme Court and is historically accurate.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    If you read lots of the old material, you will see the terms natural born citizen, native citizen and born citizen used interchangeably (and sometimes imprecisely). Armed that that background you can find “citizens … born … in the United States” in the 14th Amendment and understand that it means “natural born citizens.” In several court decisions, it is made clear that there are just two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized, so the part in the 14th Amendment not about naturalized citizens most refer to natural born ones.

    If you’re really interested, and not just being facetious, let me know and I can give you a pile of references to the old material to read.

    veritas: well I was just being honest, Im sure you can point me to the section in 14 where the term NBC is used. Im really looking for answers, you dont need to insult me I really want to learn.

  104. avatar
    Majority Will February 21, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    veritas:
    well I was just being honest, Im sure you can point me to the section in 14 where the term NBC is used. Im really looking for answers, you dont need to insult me I really want to learn.

    It was a six second search, copy and paste that even a lazy moron could have accomplished.

    If you can’t perform extremely simple tasks, then perhaps you have much bigger issues than understanding the concept of natural born citizen.

    You most certainly deserve derision if you have the audacity to question the eligibility of the President without doing the most basic research on your own. That is truly pathetic, “veritas”.

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

  105. avatar
    Ballantine February 21, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you read lots of the old material, you will see the terms natural born citizen, native citizen and born citizen used interchangeably (and sometimes imprecisely). Armed that that background you can find “citizens … born … in the United States” in the 14th Amendment and understand that it means “natural born citizens.”

    This was very apparent in the 39th Congress. by my count 8 membes of such Congress said the President must be a native born citizen and such included almost every important participant in the citizenship debate. Since so many thought eligilbity a native birth requirement and they were defining who was a native born citizen, it is not surprising that a number of members of such Congress thought they were determining who could be President. One way natural born was defined in the pre-amendment era was being born “within the limits and under the jurisdiction” of the government. Another was being born “in subjection to the government and its laws.” See any similarlity in the language.

  106. avatar
    veritas February 22, 2012 at 12:30 am #

    long story short you cant tell me where the phrase natural born citizen appears in the 14 amendment.

  107. avatar
    G February 22, 2012 at 12:54 am #

    Vertias, you are being intentionally obtuse for disingenous reasons. You have been given serious answers, yet you continue to play silly games.

    I seriously doubt you are too stupid and lazy to look up the 14th Amendment itself and see what it reads. So, right off the top, you are being disingenous by asking a question you can easily answer for yourself.

    Of course the specific phrase “natural born citizen” will not be found in the 14th Amendment. *** DUH *** Everyone knows that. NOBODY has claimed otherwise.

    The ONLY place those three words are put together in that precise way is in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    But you knew that already too.

    HOWEVER, what you have been honestly and repeatedly told is WHAT the 14th Amendment actually DOES say and WHAT it means:

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    As has been explained to you *repeatedly* and quite clearly, BORN = NATURAL BORN.

    They are synonomous in meaning.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment makes it very clear that there are ONLY TWO types of US Citizenship:

    IF you are a US Citizen then you are EITHER:

    BORN a citizen

    or NATURALIZED to become a citizen.

    That is it. No other way. Just Born or Naturalized. Of those two, “natural born” is obviously NOT “naturalized”. Therefore Born and Natural Born are the same thing.

    veritas: long story short you cant tell me where the phrase natural born citizen appears in the 14 amendment.

  108. avatar
    Majority Will February 22, 2012 at 5:48 am #

    veritas:
    long story short you cant tell me where the phrasenatural born citizen appears in the 14 amendment.

    Are you just too darn lazy to use punctuation? It’s difficult to respect your intentions if you’re not going to show any effort whatsoever. You said you wanted to learn. Was that just a silly lie?

    Here’s your sign. In the United States, you’re either born a citizen or naturalized.

    There’s is no super secret, magical third type of citizen for birthers to show the world.

  109. avatar
    Majority Will February 22, 2012 at 5:49 am #

    Correction: There is no super secret, magical third type of citizen for birthers to show the world.

  110. avatar
    misha February 22, 2012 at 6:09 am #

    Majority Will: There is no super secret, magical third type of citizen for birthers to show the world.

    Thanks. Now what do I say to Soros??

  111. avatar
    Majority Will February 22, 2012 at 6:24 am #

    misha: Thanks. Now what do I say to Soros??

    So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish?

  112. avatar
    G February 22, 2012 at 6:45 am #

    😉

    Majority Will: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish?

  113. avatar
    The Magic M February 22, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    Majority Will: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish?

    To which he’d reply “We apologize for the inconvenience”? 😉