Do you remember Orly Taitz? She’s a lawyer and dentist who was promoting the goofy theory that Barack Obama couldn’t really be an American because he had a phony Social Security number. She’s back, now with a new goofy theory that a court can enjoin the Senate from proceeding with Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
We’ve got to stop codling these nut job attorneys. They have no business with law licenses. There are rules in place which can remove their licenses. Enforce them.
12 comments:
We certainly have witnessed an abundance of goofy attorneys attacking the election system without any evidence to support their assertions. They seem to pay no price for their misconduct. In Michigan there is a court rule that would result in sanctioning the attorneys promoting such senseless litigation. Most of the state attorney disciplinary systems are a joke.
Disagree. The ABA leans left as do most lawyers. We must be careful not to punish lawyers for their political beliefs.
ONCE AGAIN, this is a blog about Social Security, but you keep playing politics, WHY?
I am on SSDI; are you supporting my interests or those of the DNC? They are not mutually exclusive..we can have alternate views of the DNC and MSM and also be for people who are unfortunate enough to be on SSDI!
There were plenty of lawyers willing to go and file lawsuit after lawsuit over the elections results, I guess if the check clears doesnt matter.
That goofy lawyer may be right. Ever heard of the "Bill of Attainder" clause in this thing we used to call the Constitution? What the Senate is trying to pass by impeaching a now private citizen is a bill of attainder. I doubt the court would enjoin the Senate but they could. Most likely, the court wouldn't interfere until afterwards. This attorney may be goofy, but what about attorneys who spout about things before they actually consider whether there is a valid legal argument to be made.
Isn't it great how we have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in this country - except of course if our speech or ideas are deemed "goofy" or if they fall outside what the party that controls the media thinks is appropriate. Those voices must be silenced, musn't they? Take their licesnes away. Don't allow them to publish anything (we don't need to burn their books now, we just delete them from social media). Heck, let's just throw them in jail or send them to reeducation camps.
Why do you think Thomas Paine originally published "Common Sense" anonymously? The folks who founded this country were likely considered "goofy" by some who supported the crown. They were also considered to be traitors. We certainly must not allow anyone to challenge the established government today. We wouldn't want to start a new revolution, would we?
I wonder if any of you realize that the first battle of the revolution started when the British army was sent to confiscate weapons. This is why the second amendment is so important. Yet, some in power are waging a war to silence the NRA and those now in power would love to confiscate every gun in the country. Can't you folks see what is happening. You advocate taking a license away because you don't like the arguments the lawyer is making. That is really, really disturbing. Especially considering that there is a valid legal theory there. Lets be honest. You don't want her license taken away because you think she is "goofy." There are lots of "goofy" lawyers ou there. You want her license taken away because she is advocating for something you don't like. Its all about silencing those you don't agree with. This is a really, really, really scary trend in our country right now. Step back and look at what you're saying here.
We used to believe freedom of speech was precious and welcomed diversity of opinion. Now, we must force everyone to except the conventional wisdom and any dissent must be not only silenced but punished. Truly, truly frightening. Don't be a part of this.
9:55 by your rationale the insurrection was justified. The NRA is just another con job organization. Your logic implies armed assembly is okay. No one is coming for your guns.
My initial post was the originator of this string of disparate replies. The content and tone of the responses forces me to wonder (doubt) whether there is any future for our country.
We are two tribes living contemporaneously in two completely different "realities" tethered to two incompatible universes. Can we co-exist? Possibly, perhaps probably, not.
My objection to Ms. Taitz is that she has a reputation for signing and commencing vacuous litigation that has neither a basis in law nor the support of factual admissible evidence. When Ms. Taitz signs a pleading she has moved beyond a protected right of free speech. As an officer of the court, she has obligations owed to the bench and bar which should restrain her from initiating or promoting litigation that has no basis in either fact or law.
Witness the 62 lawsuits filed on behalf of Trump challenging the legitimacy of the election, all of which were summarily dismissed, often by federal judges appointed by Trump and the Republican Congress.
Fortunately, Rudy was sued today by Dominion based upon his multiple slanderous comments about the Plaintiff's voting machines. He should be held accountable for defamation as you or I would be held accountable for slandering the reputation of another person or business without any factual support for the truthfulness of my damaging statements.
I just don't get it. We should be able to agree upon what is and is not appropriate with regards to signing a Complaint to initiate a formal civil suit and at least have some facts to allege, some law to cite, that justify commencing the litigation.
Whatever. I've got clients awaiting a call back from me this morning.
"because you don't like it" no, slick. That isn't the reason why. Might be a nice fact that is hitching a ride along with the whole thing, but it's that the content of her statements within sworn pleadings has a history of being and is here likely to be violative of rules of civil procedure, ethical obligations for attorneys, etc.
It's not just a difference of opinion, and the free speech screamers just can't process the fact that some speech in some fora is simply impermissible or wrong or illegal or whatever.
Tough call. I am an attorney but also was a former newspaper journalist. So the First Amendment is huge for me. I am against almost any kind of censorship unless in extreme situations e.g. fire in a crowded theory.
So I am OK with any attorney making assertions outside of court. However, I do believe frivolous or baseless actual filed lawsuits should incur sanctions. Kind of what the vampire Guiliani did. This vampire should not have a law license period.
The issue is not free speech, the issue is how far does one-sided protected speech have to be endured. The courts have been very tolerant of free speech. Prisoners (with lots of time to do so) sue toothbrush companies under product liability for their bleeding gums. People can believe the sky is falling and the world is flat, and unfortunately (or constitutionally) I have to listen to it; I can't change the station and they don't have to pay attention to me.
The earth is flat; the sky is falling. Are there really two sides to this?
Orly Taitz who "is now part of what she’s called Trump’s elite strike force team." She has made a series of claims:
1. about voter fraud (Yet Giuliani admitting that the Trump campaign wasn’t actually alleging fraud in Pennsylvania and where the judge(a Republican member of the Federalist Society) called out the Trump campaign’s attempt to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters as a request that was wildly out of touch with the U.S. Constitution.
2. Her letter and lengthy report floating conspiracy theories about Obama’s social security number.(“After all, if we could have a president with a stolen SSN")
3. Taitz floated a conspiracy theory about communists from Venezuela rigging voting machines to favor President-elect Joe Biden.
4. Taitz claimed there was “total lawlessness and corruption” in majority Democratic cities like Philadelphia and Detroit. (In both cities, Trump received more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016.)
5. Obama was not eligible to be president because he was not really born in Hawaii.
What about what the other side said?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/orly-taitz-rudy-giuliani-jenna-ellis-trump-voter-fraud_n_5fbd18b3c5b63d1b7706ce52
Trump was impeached while a sitting president. It's the Constitutional way to handle Presidents. Sure, the SC may have an opinion on the Senate doing it's Constitutional duty but the whole bill of attainder thing is a red herring. Must be watching NewsMax too much.
Post a Comment