Like Lt. Easterling et al, Cook got burned by foolishly associating with Orly.

Eventually everyone who associates with Orly gets burned.

Again, I support the Legal Removal of BO, but Orly clearly can not get the job done.

http://www.scribd.com/full/17606749?access_key=key-1tem5bday0qwrftnvw3h

“This immediate situation giving rise to this challenge also is capable of repetition. Plaintiff Cook can only assume that issuance of orders to mobilize will be recurring on the part of these defendants who will immediately REVOKE those orders if challenged on grounds of the President’s lack of constitutional qualifications (see O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).”

“The case is therefore not readily distinguishable for an abortion case, the classic case capable of repetition yet avading review, because we can assume a woman can become pregnant again. See generally Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct, 705, 35, L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The difference is that in this case it was the Defendants (especially the Department of Defense) who performed the abortion by revoking the order to deploy rather than the Plaintiff.”

So Orly is comparing Major Cook’s right to have a job to a woman’s right to choose? Is she kidding me? Using Roe v. Wade in that way? Wow. Of course she neglected to mention that his defense security clearance was revoked, which forced his employer to let him go. His job required having that security clearance. Once he lost it, due to his request to be granted CO status, and question the Army chain of command, there was nothing that his employer could do. Security clearances are not a right, they are a privledge.

Your are right to question anyone and everyone associated with Orly Taitz.

Ms. Taitz called and emailed me repeatedly for weeks trying to get me involved with her delusional nonsense.

Orly is very beguiling but if you listen to her carefully, you will soon discover that there is little truth in what she says.

Btw, Orly is much like Obama regarding truth.

I support the Legal Removal of Obama, but Orly will never get the job done.

The War didn’t even start until March 19th.

So… when and where was he dodging those SCUDS he talked about in his interview two days ago? Exactly?

Is this the same Lou Dobbs who reported that there would be widespread leprosy caused by illegal aliens from Mexico?

Is this the same Lou Dobbs who appeared to try and mislead people that voter registration fraud and voter fraud were the same thing?

Yet, as I recall, several U.S. Attorneys went on record saying that there had never been a documented case of voter fraud that had resulted from voter registration fraud?

Hmmm, that Lou Dobbs?

So, why are you reporting on this “lawyer Taitz’” questionable practice. It distracts from the compentent lawyers who are bringing legitimate cases challenging Obama’s Eligibility.

Taitz makes all Eligibility Lawyers look bad.

Phil,

A lie being spread about on blogs and forums is that Orly is in danger of being disbarred for employing Charles Lincoln as a “law clerk”, on account of Lincoln being disbarred.

The lie goes on to say that this is contrary to CA Bar rules.

They even sometimes quote rule 1-320.

However that rule has nothing to do with this. …

So if you run into this allegation, patriots, cite this rule and silence the Obot libelers…

You seem to be doing more than a good enough job of citing such rules and, subsequently, combating such commentary.

Frankly, I don’t really pay much attention to some of the commentary being bandied about by the opposition on my site. The way I see it, most are saying the same things over and over again. My time is way too valuable to get roped into joining such discussions, especially as I’ve already covered most of the material.

-Phil

A lie being spread about on blogs and forums is that Orly is in danger of being disbarred for employing Charles Lincoln as a “law clerk”, on account of Lincoln being disbarred.

The lie goes on to say that this is contrary to CA Bar rules.

They even sometimes quote rule 1-320.

However that rule has nothing to do with this.

Rule 1-310 does: and it allows such employment, as a law clerk:

———-
Rule 1-311 Employment of Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, or Involuntarily Inactive Member.

(A) For purposes of this rule:

(1) “Employ” means to engage the services of another, including employees, agents, independent contractors and consultants, regardless of whether any compensation is paid;

(2) “Involuntarily inactive member” means a member who is ineligible to practice law as a result of action taken pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6007, 6203(c), or California Rule of Court 9.31; and

(3) “Resigned member” means a member who has resigned from the State Bar while disciplinary charges are pending.

(B) A member shall not employ, associate professionally with, or aid a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform the following on behalf of the member’s client:

(1) Render legal consultation or advice to the client;

(2) Appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer;

(3) Appear as a representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter;

(4) Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of the client with third parties;

(5) Receive, disburse or otherwise handle the client’s funds; or

(6) Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.

(C) A member may employ, associate professionally with, or aid a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform research, drafting or clerical activities, including but not limited to:

(1) Legal work of a preparatory nature, such as legal research, the assemblage of data and other necessary information, drafting of pleadings, briefs, and other similar documents;

(2) Direct communication with the client or third parties regarding matters such as scheduling, billing, updates, confirmation of receipt or sending of correspondence and messages; or

(3) Accompanying an active member in attending a deposition or other discovery matter for the limited purpose of providing clerical assistance to the active member who will appear as the representative of the client.

(D) Prior to or at the time of employing a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, the member shall serve upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status. The written notice shall also list the activities prohibited in paragraph (B) and state that the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member will not perform such activities. The member shall serve similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’s specific matter. The member shall obtain proof of service of the client’s written notice and shall retain such proof and a true and correct copy of the client’s written notice for two years following termination of the member’s employment with the client.

(E) A member may, without client or State Bar notification, employ a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member whose sole function is to perform office physical plant or equipment maintenance, courier or delivery services, catering, reception, typing or transcription, or other similar support activities.

(F) Upon termination of the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, the member shall promptly serve upon the State Bar written notice of the termination.

Discussion:

For discussion of the activities that constitute the practice of law, see Farnham v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611]; Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673]; Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746]; People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363]; People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548]; and People v. Sipper (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].)

Paragraph (D) is not intended to prevent or discourage a member from fully discussing with the client the activities that will be performed by the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member on the client’s matter. If a member’s client is an organization, then the written notice required by paragraph (D) shall be served upon the highest authorized officer, employee, or constituent overseeing the particular engagement. (See rule 3-600.)

Nothing in rule 1-311 shall be deemed to limit or preclude any activity engaged in pursuant to rules 9.40, 9.41, 9.42, and 9.44 of the California Rules of Court, or any local rule of a federal district court concerning admission pro hac vice. (Added by Order of Supreme Court, operative August 1, 1996. Amended by order of the Supreme Court, operative July 11, 2008.)
——–

So if you run into this allegation, patriots, cite this rule and silence the Obot libelers…

HD,

Do you really think your are an objective source of information, seeing that you have been proven to lie on numerous occasions…?

Of course I am an objective source of information. This is no better demonstrated than that (unlike every Birther on the site) I have a 100% track record in predicting the outcomes of court cases based on my understanding of the law.

Too bad you choose to keep calling me a liar without having been able to demonstrate a single example. In every case you’ve tried, you turned out to be factually wrong.

I’m happy to let my paper trail (and my unblemished record of prediction) speak for itself.

PROOF that there IS a document that exists in real space. In other words, make the source DOCUMENT available to the public, for anyone and everyone to see, feel, examine, as they supposedly did for FactCheck “reporters.” If that document exists, if it is real, if it is a true representation of what’s on file in the Hawaiian birth certificate database, then why show ONLY a digital image on the Internet? Why not produce the actual document, especially since they profess that every piece of information on it has already been disclosed and matches what’s on the Internet?

PROOF that Hawaii produced and certified that document–signed, sealed, and delivered, according to their usual procedures, from their existing data base. In other words, let’s hear a Hawaiian official, speaking in his or her capacity AS a Hawaiian official, state in no uncertain terms that the state of Hawaii did produce that specific document, exactly as it appears on the FactCheck website, back in June 2007. Let’s see them release a copy of the request form. OR, let’s see them produce, for reporters and members of the public, another COLB FROM their database, just as they supposedly did in 2007. Let the public see it come hot off the printer, without passing through the hands of any Obama acolytes. Why not do so, IF that online COLB would exactly match whatever comes off the Hawaiian database? They have already attested that what’s on the COLB at FactCheck is true, so why not have a re-do, with all interested parties watching, so that they can put this controversy to bed once and for all?

PROOF that that document, if it exists, was scanned and placed on the Internet without any modification whatsoever to the subsequent digital image (or to the document before it was scanned or photographed for placement on the Web.) That is, prove that what is on the Internet is unchanged from the information that was printed on the REAL document by the Hawaiian DOH, IF there exists such a document in the first place. Again, produce the original document that FactCheck supposedly visited in Chicago, so that everyone and anyone can compare said document to what’s been posted on the Internet.

How can you vouch for the authenticity of that online COLB? YOU have not seen it. All you have seen is a digital image of something that purports to be his birth certificate. It is NOTHING of the kind.

Why do you accept it as a given that the online COLB IS real? That it is a scan or photograph of an actual document? Doesn’t it bother you in the least that they will not show that actual three-dimensional paper document to anybody other than a few people from FactCheck? How hard would it be for Gibbs to bring it to the next press conference and let all of the reporters “visit” it?

Won’t that prove that the online COLB is true, as they have said all along? That nothing has been changed?

Yes, Janice Okubo suppposedly stated that nobody can get a COLB that says they were born in Hawaii if they weren’t born there. But a foreign-born child CAN get a Hawaiian COLB that states that he was born elsewhere, and then change either the text on the document and photograph or scan it and put it on the Internet, or he can photograph or scan it and then change the birthplace on the digitial image. Or the person could simply create a digital image without any source document whatsoever.

None of you who accept that COLB at face value will answer these questions:

WHY won’t Obama simply produce the actual source document that his campaign claims is the document that was scanned or photographed to create that digital image that was posted on the Web?

WHY is Obama spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid producing his original birth certificate, or at least the original COLB, IF there’s no difference between what is on the Internet and what is on those authentic documents?

Too late to change gears. You already made it all about where he was born. WND and the birth certificate billboard campaign, your tea party posters – “show the thing”, lady at the Castle meeting waving her own birth certificate, WND asking Gibbs about the birth certificate. The birther campaign is tied inextricably to the birth certificate and where Pres Obama was born. Too late to switch to, “nevermind about the birth certificate, listen to this really complicated explanation we have about Pres Obama’s father and the Constitution and eligibility and deVattel and what the Founding Fathers ‘really meant’ “. America’s eyes will glaze over. “Show us the Birth Certificate” was short and snappy. Too bad you didn’t think it through before you made it your rallying cry.

Do you really think your are an objective source of information, seeing that you have been proven to lie on numerous occasions…?

I will let you into a secret.

You wrote:

“Who is Soetero? Do you mean Lolo Soetero? Then yes, he is an Indonesian citizen. Since there has been no verifiable information that a Barry Soetero ever existed, then who cares what citizenship this individual has.”

Every heard of Barry’s Indonesian school registration at the Franicscan School in Jakarta, where students needed a govt. issued idea, repleat with name and personal info, to register, and the names had to match on the registration and on the id card?

__________________________________________________________________

Yes. Do you mean the same document that says that the place of birth for Barry Soetero was Honolulu? That document? I have heard of it but birthers say that the place of birth is probably a mistake. So since they say that then how do we know that Soetero is correct either? And that document is unverifiable. The school has never confirmed it. So who knows. But OK, I guess we have to accept that it says Soetero, and we also have to accept what is says regarding being born in Honolulu. You cannot accept one part of it without accepting the other part of it.

I will let you into a secret.

You wrote:

“Who is Soetero? Do you mean Lolo Soetero? Then yes, he is an Indonesian citizen. Since there has been no verifiable information that a Barry Soetero ever existed, then who cares what citizenship this individual has.”

Every heard of Barry’s Indonesian school registration at the Franicscan School in Jakarta, where students needed a govt. issued idea, repleat with name and personal info, to register, and the names had to match on the registration and on the id card?

Guess what?

Both had the names “Barry Soetero”!

Check it out…do a google search…

[Information gleaned from pro Obama sources]