I’ve been holding off on this post, hoping the Taitz-Mouth spew machine* would power down for five whole minutes, but there is not even a moment of peace in sight for US Supreme Court personnel, under daily assault by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has got it in her spacious brain cavity that Supreme Court Justices personally, physically sign every bit of paper that crosses their clerks’ desks. But a clerk of the Supreme Court having now “slammed the phone” in Orly Taitz’s “face,” according to her, it seemed like a good time to catch up.
Desperately trying to get out of paying the American taxpayers the $20,000 she owes, Taitz filed an emergency petition for a stay with SCOTUS earlier this month in Rhodes v. MacDonald; recaptioned Taitz v. MacDonald, since this is an appeal of Taitz’s $20,000 sanction, levied for her bad behavior as the attorney in Rhodes v. MacDonald, not an appeal of the case Rhodes v. MacDonald. Her petition was Denied by Justice Clarence Thomas on July 15.
Court clerks have long been the bane of Orly Taitz’s existence. Too often, when a judge does something she doesn’t like, Taitz creates a conspiracy centered around a court clerk, so perhaps she is a little hard for a court clerk to appreciate.
Last year, her favorite law clerk to hound was Siddharth Velamoor of Judge David O. Carter’s district court in Orange County, California, where Taitz’s case Barnett v. Obama was Dismissed by Carter last October, and is now under appeal.
But before him, came Danny Bickell, Staff Attorney to the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter.
Taitz made an improper attempt just recently to indirectly approach Justice Thomas, through his wife’s web site, just before filing the emergency petition in Taitz v. MacDonald. What I believe was her second improper approach to a Supreme Court Justice, took place in Idaho in March 2009, (she had already improperly approached Justice Scalia at a book-signing), regarding an early Birther case Lightfoot v. Bowen. At the confrontation with Chief Justice Roberts in Idaho, Taitz made accusations of “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States” by Danny Bickell.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States? I have submitted my Lightfoot vs. Bowen case to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all nine justices on January 23rd.”
“Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord, refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief that he has hidden from you and refused to post on the docket. Additionally, my case was completely erased from the docket one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. I saw Justice (Antonin) Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. “It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice
Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the president of the United States.”
The Birthers’ campaign of harassment against Danny Bickell actually pre-dates Taitz, but she happily will pick up any Birfoon standard and run with it.
She has now hooked up with an outfit called Human Rights Alert, (which I don’t think is associated with the Scientology site of the same name), apparently devoted to going after court personnel on behalf of unhappy lawyers.
History repeating itself, Taitz is once again riling up her Birther minions to harass the Court*:
You have to go to each and every lecture, each and every appearance of these judges and demand answers, demand signatures on the orders, so they can be held liable if they violate our constitution. When judges violate the law, they can be prosecuted as well, and surely the clerks can be prosecuted as well.
I resubmitted my application to justice Alito.
I talked to the court today, they confirmed that they got the application, but I waited all day long, and they did not post on the docket, that it was resubmitted to Alito. You can call the Supreme Court tomorrow morning and demand an answer, when will they docket the submission to justice Alito. The clerk’s number is 202-479-3000 or 202-479-3472. You can demand transparency and demand an explanation from the chief clerk William Sutter, why there is no signed order from justice Thomas. Why there is no signed order from the conference on my prior case Lightfoot v Bowen.
Even though she has legally sworn she never does such a terrible thing.
Taitz posted to her website*:
Today, 07.26.10 at 8:15 PST/11:15 EST I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States, with an employee of the Clerks office by name Eric Fossum. I requested a copy of the order actually signed by Justice Thomas, denyng my application for stay of sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald #10A56.
Mr. Eric Fossum admitted that there is no order actually signed by Justice Thomas. He stated that it was reviewed by his chambers and denied. Not only they are not even claiming that Justice Thomas ever signed the order to deny my application, now they are not even claiming that he ever saw the application, now they are saying that it was reviewed by his chambers, meaning there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed by Justice Thomas himself. So who reviewed it and denied? A clerk? A piece of furniture in the chambers?
There is no order, because an order comes after an application has been referred to, and granted or denied by, the full court–which Justice Thomas did not send and was under no obligation to do, as he was denying her application from the get-go. What Taitz received is a disposition notification letter, the responsibility of the Clerk’s office. Justices do not send disposition notification letters, which have no place on the Orders List, anyhow.
Nevertheless, she has been howling at the moon* ever since.
Does any attorney know of a case where there is a pattern in the Supreme court or any other court, where a case disappears from the docket, somebody deletes it from the docket. Later an entry appears on the docket on the weekend, when judges are not there and clerks are not there, where judges don’t have a clue about the most important case on their docket?
Here it is, Orly, the not-disappeared, not-most important case on their docket. (You have to search for the correct case number.)
I highlighted the part, where it says, that the Justice denying the application will note the denial thereon. Do you see, that it says that the justice needs to note the denial, not some faceless clerk. My application was never denied, since there is no signature from Justice Thomas, there was only a docket entry made by the clerk on Saturday the 17th, when the court was closed, Justice Thomas was in Utah, and it was backdated the 15th, even though there was no such notation on Friday, July the 16th and it is not noted on the log. We downloaded the log, it is missing. There has to be a criminal investigation of what is going on. Can you help me reach the Civil rights commission, the department of Justice public integrity unit and your congressmen and senators.
All of this for $20,000 she probably has for walking around money.
But it seems our Lady of Liberty is driving these poor clerks past all forbearance:
In regards to my Application for stay, I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court. One of the clerks, who refused to give out his name, stated that the clerk for the stays, Danny Bickel, is too busy and can’t talk to me, but that he is returning my application sent to Justice Alito without docketing it and without giving it to Alito. I asked, why. This is totally against the rules, as one can resubmit the application, if one justice denies it. Theoretically I can resubmit it 9 times. The clerk refused to give me any answer and slammed the phone in my face.
As she grows more and more extreme in advocating sedition and violence:
It is frightening that the courts are so obviously in Obama’s corner. Was there a payoff, a threat or a promise from Obama to the courts? It’s hard to determine until we have a Conservative majority in the House and the Senate. When we do, the Senators and Congressmen, MUST pursue the truth no matter where and to whom it may lead.
As for guns, etc. if it comes to that, then I have no guilt. I and millions of us did not start this, but we are going to finish it. God help us and hopefully we won’t ever have to come to that conclusion.
The Supreme Court generally waits for a Federal District or local Bar to disbar or suspend a lawyer, before they disbar the lawyer from practice before SCOTUS, but maybe that’s just when they want to be polite?
Update: Alan Riquelmy of the Ledger-Enquirer has a new piece up today. In it, he hears from an experienced attorney in Georgia, the location of the original case, Rhodes v. MacDonald:
Columbus attorney William Mason, who taught law at Columbus State University, said Taitz raises issues that someone would bring up in a writ of certiorari. To Mason, “writ of certiorari” is the key component. Taitz’s filing is an application for stay. …
A request for stay is done under extraordinary circumstances once a case has been appealed properly by filing a writ of certiorari, which hasn’t happened. If it had, the issue should have been whether the court could sanction her $20,000. Instead, Mason said, Taitz appears to challenge the underlying argument that Obama can’t legitimately be president.
“There’s no logical way to address what she’s doing,” he said. “I have written certs to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not how you do it.”
Putting the horse before the cart is normal for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has no business being a lawyer in the first place. She just can’t be bothered with proper legal procedure, professional behavior or respect for the highest court in the land. She should be disbarred; should have been a long time ago.
Riquelmy also reports:
Taitz said she’s received a letter from a Georgia U.S. attorney asking if she would pay the money.
She replied that she’s chosen to exercise her rights to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Stop wasting everybody’s time, Orly, and pay up.
Update 7.31: Somewhere still in the Pennsylvania courts, packing for California, court personnel in Liberi v. Taitz don’t escape her wrath:
Due to the great importance of this matter, and fraud being perpetrated on the US District Court as well as the Court of Appeals, and due to the fact that the plaintiff here Lisa Liberi is currrently on probation in the state of CA as a result of 10 felony convictions of forgery, forgery of an official seal and grand theft, this motion is addressed to the presiding judge The Hon Eduardo Robreno; as well as the Chief Judge of US District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania The Hon Harvey Bartle, III; and the Chief Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The Hon Randall Ray Rader. It is cc-ed to the Public Integrity Unit ofthe Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Commission in Washington DC, the PA State Bar, the Philadelphia DA, Audrey B. Collins.. the Chief Judge of the Central District of CA, Judge David O. Carter Central District of CA, San Bernardino County, the California Probation Department, and the San Bernardino County District Attorney James Secord …
It is a known fact that FBI, Department of Justice use convicted criminals as informers and agitators. Recent trial of talk show host Hal Turner gave public a glimpse of how “patriot” leaders are used as informers and agitators. Is this a situation where criminals are brazen because they know they have a back and they will not be convicted, no matter how much fraud on the court they commit, how much perjury or forgery do they commit? Taitz is requesting clarification from the court, whether indeed the court is aware of any special informer status with the department of Justice given to the plaintiffs and Berg? The defendants are requesting a clarification, if there is a “back” for Liberi and/or Berg and other defendants represented by someone in the court? … Taitz requests clarification, whether there is a individual(s) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is (are) providing a “back” to Berg, Liberi and the rest of the plaintiffs by manipulating the docket and undermining the defendants.
She always forgets about the three felons she invited into her own cases. What a hypocrite.
07/29/2010 136 RESPONSE to the 7/26/10 Emergency MOTION by the plffs to keep transcripts under seal and motion for clarification and motion-reuqest for oer to show cause, why sanctions should not be assessed against parties defrauding the courts, etc., filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(gn, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
Olympia Snowe joins Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar and Susan Collins.
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe says she plans to vote to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.
The Maine lawmaker’s announcement makes her the fourth Republican to break with her party to back President Barack Obama’s high court nominee.
In a statement, Snowe says Kagan has met her standards for a justice with her strong intellect, respect for the rule of law and understanding of the Supreme Court’s important but limited role.
She also says endorsements from conservative lawyers show that Kagan has a reputation for a sound judicial temperament.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Monday, declaring the former Harvard Law School dean “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds.” She would be the court’s youngest justice and give it three female members for the first time.
On Politijab, we’ve been entertaining ourselves with a little contest: “The Stoopidest Thing Taitz Has Ever Done.”
I thought sure it had to be the time she went to the LGBT center to find out how to file nomination papers for the Republican Primary for California Secretary of State. But it was a tough choice. There was that affidavit about Judge Clay Land conspiring against her with Attorney-General Eric Holder in a coffee shop in Georgia. Announcing on September 12, 2009 that she’d have Obama out of office in 30 days. Instead of showing cause why she shouldn’t be sanctioned, showing cause why the sanction should be doubled. Claiming the President stole the Social Security number of a 109-year old dead man in Connecticut. Or that time she took two planes and drove a hundred or something miles to crash a speaking event in Idaho of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, leaving behind a suitcase full of Birfoonery, as she was hustled out the door. Filing not one, but two different Fake Kenyan Birth Certificates in courts in several states. Being the Jew at gun shows, hanging out with Nazis. There was the sex in the dental chair affidavit. The forgery trial in Florida when her ex-lover swore to their affair under oath, which she thought was “immaterial.” Or the one about the Pancake Painter and her vagina. I mean, where do you stop?
But leave it to Orly, bless her heart, she stopped it for us.
This right here has taken the cake, the pie, and the jelly roll.
TAITZ CALLS FOR SCOTUS TO ALLOW HER TO INVESTIGATE SCOTUS
REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas
1 On July 8 2010 Application for stay of sanctions 10A524 was docketed with the Supreme Court and addressed to Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.
2. On July 16, Friday 2010, around 9PM EST Applicant Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq (hereinafter Taitz) checked the electronic docket of the Supreme court, it showed no answer from Clarence Thomas.
3. On the same day Taitz has issued a press release, stating that there is no answer from Justice Thomas. Above press release was sent to some 28,000 media outlets and some 300,000 individuals.
4. On Saturday July 17, 2010 Taitz started getting comments on her website from some Obama supporters gloating about the fact that Justice Thomas dismissed her application. Originally, Taitz dismissed those as a dumb joke, but as those comments continued, she checked the electronic docket of the Supreme Court and to her amazement found, that somebody made a new entry on Saturday July 17, 2010, and backdated it for Thursday the 15th of July, stating that Justice Thomas dismissed her application.
Hahaha. The docket number was 10A56, you numbskull.
Points and authorities
Taitz cannot provide any points and authorities, as nothing like that ever happened in the Supreme Court and Taitz is requesting your Honor to review the above Motion as the matter of first impression.
Oh, dear God, help me stop laughing.
Relief requested
1. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date) and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify, that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3. Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket.
She’s copied half the goddamn United Nations, in case they want a peek into SCOTUS’s computer system, too, must be.
The automated docket system is the Court’s case tracking system. It contains information about cases, both pending and decided. The docket provided on this page contains information regarding the status of cases for both the current Term and the prior Term. … Information on the docket is updated on the day after an entry is made on the docket.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is almost certain to shop for another Justice, but her first shot at getting SCOTUS to protect her from having to pay the $20,000 she owes American taxpayers is a fail. So what else is new?
No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Formerly captioned Rhodes v. MacDonald. Justice Thomas can deny it or send it to the full court for conference to deny it, but deny it SCOTUS is all but sure to do. This will be portrayed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. and her damned fool followers as treason.
In the unlikely event this case, kept alive at this point (mainly to forestall Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s paying the $20,000 she owes American taxpayers), ever reached the Supreme Court, given Mrs. Justice Thomas’s winger activities of late, would Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself?
March 13, 2009 – Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. “flew and drove thousands of miles” to Moscow, Idaho to deliver a suitcase of Birther documents to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, where he was delivering a speech. She informed him there was “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States.” That would be the same Justice Roberts who delivered the Oath of Office (twice) to the POTUS when came “The Day That Would Never Come.”
Chief Justice Roberts, more likely his staff, probably had a good laugh about the crazy peroxide blond in Idaho that time with her suitcase, but nothing ever came of it. Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has now submitted directly to Justice Thomas, according to her*, an “APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions”–he is justice in charge of the 11th Circuit, so it is certainly proper, unlike accosting a Supreme Court Justice with a suitcase. Nevertheless, I wonder if she is perhaps thinking she might have an ally in Justice Thomas’s wife.
Taitz posted to Virginia Thomas’s website for the mysteriously funded Liberty Central, (which benefited financially from Justice Thomas’s vote in the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission).
orly taitz
Member
I am a Constitutional attorney and need to talk to a staff member, please call me at 949-683-5411
Posted 5 days ago
Obviously this says nothing about Mrs. Thomas–who earlier in his tenure had given up conservative activism for fear of causing a conflict of interest for her husband–or any Birther proclivities she may or may not have, and there is nothing to say the return call was ever made. While I doubt Justice Thomas would recuse himself over this, it is the lost mind of Orly Taitz we concern ourselves with, and it does point to an improper attempt by an attorney to make indirect contact with the Justice who would be receiving her petition to SCOTUS. Thomas, if he felt any conflict over Taitz’s behavior–say if it turned out his wife or her staff did call Orly Taitz and were foolish enough to discuss this with her–could simply turn the whole thing over to another Justice of the court to handle, just for appearances sake.
This can’t be what Taitz wants, but she seems to be doing her damnedest to make it happen.
Seriously, yesterday she posted to her blog, concerning a videotape in which Thomas is joking around, as he does year after year after year, with Rep. Jose Serrano about the status of Puerto Rico, for crissake:
Justice Clarence Thomas at Congressional committee hearing is stating that the Supreme Court is evading the Eligibility issue.
Posted on | July 8, 2010 | No Comments
Taitz, of course, hasn’t met a judge yet she thinks should not recuse himself. (Serving Elena Kagan with a copy of this POS, in fact, Taitz in her petition then says Kagan should recuse herself, in the event she becomes a Supreme Court Justice.)
In the petition, she lambastes Federal Judge Clay D. Land in Georgia, who dismissed Rhodes v. MacDonald before levying the sanctions, insisting he should have recused himself when she asked him to.
October 13, 2009 – Having threatened sanctions on Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of $10,000 for misconduct in Rhodes v. MacDonald in September, Judge Clay D. Land doubled it to $20,000, after she filed to have him recused and the case reconsidered, when she was supposed to respond to a Show Cause Order for the first $10,000.
But Orly was afraid Judge Land might be, horrors, “impartial,” according to this SCOTUS filing:
When there was a clear indication of bias and Taitz requested recusal of Land, it was his duty to avoid impartiality or even appearance of impartiality and recuse himself.
Haha. We can’t have that.
She is really going after Judge Land here, too:
While Taitz appreciates Land’s fondness of Lewis Carroll, it is really important for Land to wake up from his slumber and sweet dreams about Alice in Wonderland and appreciate the fact that US military did not fall in the rabbit hole and is not looking for an adventure, but is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting real Radical Muslim Terrorists, and it is important for the military officers, as well as the whole nation to know if the Commander in Chief is Legitimate, and where does his allegiance lie. While citizens of this country do not expect Caroll’s mathematical abilities to be exhibited on the bench, never the less, they do expect more than the Lilliput deductive reasoning and legal analysis…
She compares the American justice system to that of the Soviets:
Taitz was born and raised in the Communist totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, where no one single attorney was ever able to get a judgment against the Soviet Rulers and the regime. No Constitutional attorney was able to uphold any Constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, as those rights were routinely violated by the regime and the judiciary. It didn’t mean that the legal actions by the Constitutional attorneys were frivolous. It simply meant that the whole country descended in the darkness of tyranny. Similarly, allowing sanctions by judge Land to stand, will signify beginning of tyranny in the United states of America and end to the Constitutional Republic which is the foundation of this nation. The question is as follows: “If the judiciary can sanction an attorney for bringing an action to uphold a Constitutional right, what is next? Will FEMA camps be turned into the next GULAG? Will we see a wave of political assassinations of dissidents, as were seen in numerous totalitarian regimes around the World, such as regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran?” This is the most dangerous road a judiciary can take. When judiciary is pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House, using a Social Security number of another individual and not having a valid long form birth certificate, the country descends into tyranny.
And imposes more of her personal psychodrama to justify her paper terrorism:
Judge Land has stated that Taitz has resorted to political rhetoric. In reality, as the pleadings and transcripts have shown, Taitz has provided the court with the reasonable examples of members of the military following illegal orders. Taitz has provided the court with the example of three children, members of her husband’s family, who were killed in the Holocaust, when Nazi officers told these three young kids to dig their own graves, shot them and threw them into those graves. Judge Land called those statements “political rhetoric”, even though those were appropriate examples of consequences of members of the military following unlawful orders.
But our Orly is so brave:
If during the career of Thurgood Marshal, he would’ve encountered a judge like Clay D. Land, who would’ve fined him $20,000 for trying to protect the citizens’ constitutional rights, this would have put a stop to the civil right movement of the 50s and the 60s. Attorneys would have been scared, intimidated to represent the citizens who were trying to uphold their constitutional rights and someone like Barack Obama would have no chance of ever being anywhere near the ballot.
When she isn’t crying over Judge Land calling a Birther a Birther:
The decision and order by Judge Land shows clear bias. Judge Land has used a pejorative term “birther”, describing Taitz as the leader of the “birther” movement. It is not only not justified, but totally despicable that a Federal judge would use the technique of Saul Alinsky in trying to insult, assault and marginalize an attorney. Land used his color of authority to attack Taitz personally and, as one fighting for verification of eligibility.
And an eccentric an eccentric:
Land acted in a fashion unbecoming a judge, when he rudely tried to ridicule Taitz and assassinate her character. One of his statements was “perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the court should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.” Clearly there is a huge difference between actions of some eccentric person and attorney like Taitz bringing affidavits from licensed investigators and experts.” Affairs like Water –gate did not go unpunished. Obama-gate will not go unpunished. Land rudely called Taitz effords “antics”. In reality judge Land’s actions were antics. Massive fraud of American citizens perpetrated by Obama will be punished and history will not look kindly on judge Land’s antics and on any other judge who was aiding and abetting Obama’s massive fraud.
If Taitz thinks Judge Land disrespected her, I don’t know what she calls this:
Let’s imagine for a moment that someone, a janitor, decides to play a prank. He puts on a black robe and sits on the bench and signs an order for an officer to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, let’s say he signs such order when judge Land is on a bathroom brake. Say, such officer brings a complaint, that the order was illegal. Does it mean, that if the order seems to be legal on it’s face, it is actually legal, regardless of whether the person, who signed it, is actually a judge or a janitor playing a prank? Does an attorney for such officer supposed to be sanctioned $20,000 for merely bringing the claim to court and asking to evaluate it’s validity?
Or this:
Additionally Land assessed costs of litigation against the client. He never revealed, what was the amount of the costs and there is no record of Capt Rhodes ever paying those costs, so it was clear that a deal was made, whereby if Capt Rhodes decides not to pursue the appeal and if she dismisses Taitz as her counsel, costs against Cpt. Rhodes would be waived by Land and/or military. Not only this issue of costs showed bias against Taitz, and reason for disqualification under 28 USC §455 (a), it needs to be investigated by an independent counsel for purpose of Judicial Misconduct by Judge Land and violation of Taitz civil rights under the color of authority by Judge Land.
Accusing a Federal judge of collusion with, not only the Defense, but with her own client–that’s gotta go over well–but the truth is, as Orly Taitz knows as well as anyone, Capt. Rhodes fired her ass, having nothing to do with costs, but for her “reprehensible” and “unprofessional” conduct of the case. If Taitz had her way, then, Connie Rhodes, just returning from her tour in Iraq, would face an investigation brought about by a slander of her committed by her own attorney.
Taitz even threatens SCOTUS itself with felonies:
The fact that Judge Land refused to review any evidence, and attempted to intimidate Taitz with sanctions, assassinate her character and endanger her law license, means that he intentionally used his authority to aid and abet those crimes. If this court does not reverse such sanctions and does not order an independent investigation, this court will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of the felonies committed by Obama. This court will be guilty of misprision of multiple felonies.
Here is a laugh and a half, though, coming from her:
The whole world is looking at the United States in complete bewilderment, not understanding what mental disorder has afflicted US judges and US attorneys and other officials in allowing such insanity to go on for a year and a half now.
And blah, blah, blah, pancakes, for 26-50 pages, depending on format, which Jack Ryan Scribd has been kind enough to post, so nobody has to visit her malware-ridden website* to read it.
She already has the full brief on special!
Full brief with attachments is about 300 pages. We can have it copied, made in a book form, autographed and mailed to you for a minimum donation of a $100 or more. It will help cover our costs and fees and will help Dr. Taitz to continue fighting for your freedoms and for your children’s future.
Heh heh.
# Old Man
July 8th, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Lady Liberty, I want to buy ten copies for the Republican club at my retirement community. I read your blog posts to them every week and they love you. Can you give me a bulk discount?
# dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 8th, 2010 @ 10:51 am
yes, 10% discount for 10 books
The crux of the matter is she doesn’t want to spring for the $20,000:
Sanctions assessed by Land constitute an irreparable harm to Taitz. Land not only assessed sanctions against Taitz and verbally assaulted and insulted her, but he also submitted his order to the CA bar with the clear intent to undermine her law license and take her livelihood away from her. If sanctions are not stayed and reversed, there will be an irreparable harm to the professional license of Taitz and her ability to earn livelihood.
What livelihood is that? Has she ever had a paying client?
October 4, 2009 – Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. submits an unauthenticated affidavit in Rhodes v. MacDonald by a Birther who swears he saw AG Eric Holder in a coffee shop in Columbus, Georgia; of course, there to pressure Judge Clay Land, who had never met the man in his life. This was supposed to have happened during a hearing on Cook v. Good, on a day Holder was in Los Angeles promoting the Recovery Act.
The Coffee Shop Affidavit made a fresh appearance on Taitz’s website* this week, shortly before joining the SCOTUS appeal, and she had this to say about it:
2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 7th, 2010 @ 6:41 am
This statement is not brought to show that Holder was definitely there, but there was a possibility, this man provided me with an affidavit, I had to submit it to court. Judge Land already used inappropriate language and remarks, he showed himself to be biased, it was his duty to recuse himself, yet he didn’t.
It was her duty as an attorney and officer of the court to substantiate that charge before frivolously filing the affidavit; that’s what Orly Taitz had to do and didn’t do. Judge Land, who should know, stated that he has never met the AG Holder, so there was no “possibility”; besides, Holder was covered by the media in Los Angeles that day. Why on earth would anyone expect a judge to recuse himself over common Birfer gossip he knows for himself is untrue?
And yet, here is false evidence being filed, again, this time with a petition to SCOTUS. Irreparable harm to the professional license of Orly Taitz? One can only hope the California Bar Association will wake the fuck up one of these days.
Secret donors make Thomas’s wife’s group tea party player
When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife announced in 2008 that she was going to help run Washington operations for a Michigan college once described as “a citadel of American conservatism,” she said the move was her “way of pulling away from politics” and the “safest place for me to be when it comes to conflicts” with her husband’s position on the court.
But, less than two years later, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas has returned to partisan politics as a fully engaged opponent of President Barack Obama, whom she has described as “hard left” and steering the nation “for tyranny.” As founder and president of a think tank and advocacy group called Liberty Central, she quickly established herself in the tea party movement by drawing on her longstanding ties to Washington’s conservative establishment and by landing two big donations — one for $500,000 and another for $50,000 —that put her group on the map.
The two donations are the only sources of money the group, which she established in November, reported to the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, according to a recently released report, which blocks out the donors’ names, as allowed by the section of the tax code under which the group is registered, 501(c)4. Yet, its size sets Liberty Central apart from other new tea party groups that have struggled to raise money from mostly small, grass-roots contributions. …
Neither a Liberty Central official, nor a Supreme Court spokeswoman would say whether the group would disclose the names of its donors to the Supreme Court legal office or to Thomas’s husband so he can avoid ruling on cases in which a major Liberty Central donor is a party.
It’s like a Catskill Mountain Resort — a Jewish comedian playing to a bunch of senior citizens (but in this case, there are more gentiles than Jews in the audience).
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Case Challenging Hillary Clinton’s Eligibility As Secretary Of State
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t hear arguments that Hillary Rodham Clinton is ineligible to be secretary of state because of an obscure rule about pay increases.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, without ruling on the underlying issue.
Judicial Watch’s lawsuit had been thrown out by the lower courts without a “final judgment, decree or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State,” the high court said. “… The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”
11/03/2009 36 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the U.S. Supreme Court as to 35[RECAP] Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 34[RECAP] Memorandum & Opinion by DAVID C. RODEARMEL. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 00900000000002007126. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Orfanedes, Paul) Modified text to include U.S. Supreme Court on 11/4/2009 (td, ). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
KAGAN:
1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States
REHNQUIST:
1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel
Earlier this year, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision wiping out restrictions on corporate expenditures in American elections — a decision that could open up the door to foreign money flowing into campaigns in this country. As it turns out, according to a Quinnipiac poll out today, voters are not at all happy with the decision.
Voters disapprove 79 – 14 percent of the Supreme Court’s January ruling removing limits on the amount corporations and unions could spend attacking or boosting political candidates, with consistently strong opposition across the political spectrum.
These numbers largely jibe with data released earlier this year by Pew, which found 68 percent of Americans disapproving of the decision, while just 17 percent approved. With margins like these, it is not out of the realm of possibility that a constitutional amendment seeking to overturn the decision is out of the question.
But looking more broadly, it is interesting to see the damage the decision has inflicted on the Court. Just last summer, Quinnipiac found the Supreme Court to have a +40 net approval rating, with 62 percent of the country rating the high court positively and just 22 percent rating it negatively. Today, however, the Court’s rating has fallen dramatically to just +16 (49 percent approve / 33 percent disapprove) — a statistically significant fall for the institution. It turns out that conservative judicial activism isn’t actually popular with Americans.
Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).
The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court’s decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored has three extremely interesting pieces up, which should be read in concert, and in their entirety, by anyone interested in the non-question of President Obama’s eligibility. Proving there is nothing new under the sun in American politics, they date to the controversial (who knew?) Rutherford B. Hayes presidency.
What people seem to have forgotten is that in the 19th Century, Congress was faced with a very similar situation in the Election of President Hayes. We can observe how Congress approached matters in those days, their reasoning and the outcome. For instance, Congress considered a bill in which the title of the President Elect could be challenged in Court, either the Supreme Court, or the Circuit Court if the Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction. Senators strongly opposed this and argued that having the outcome of the elections decided by the judiciary was counter to the idea of the Founders, that the title of President could only be addressed by Congress via the 12th Amendment (the 20th Amendment did not exist yet) and that once a President was elected, his election was to last 4 years, even if errors were made as the decision to elect a President would be final and irrevocable.
What history shows is that when Congress had to deal with a similar situation as to whether or not a duly elected President’s title could be tried. And they clearly show that
1. Congress is the final arbiter per 12th amendment and its decision is final, and irrevocable, even if later found to be in error.
2. There is no place for the judiciary to decide on Presidential election. This means that the use of Quo Warranto to try the title for Presidency is not provided for.
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.
Republicans’ outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor’s musings about how her identity as a “wise Latina” might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any “identity” — black, brown, female, gay, whatever — has to be judged against this supposedly “objective” standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings — as he did at his confirmation hearings — but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge’s work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.
I’m okay with SCOTUS’s decision, mostly, though I agree with the dissent, too, on the Connecticut firefighter’s case. It was a tough one, plenty of stupid all around, and I wouldn’t have wanted to be the justices hearing it.
But, no question about it, this decision is God awful. I don’t understand it at all.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory from the Supreme Court over their free speech rights.
The justices Monday rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials.
The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for “the sin of homosexuality,” through events including soldiers’ deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Blew Up the Troops” and “AIDS Cures Fags.” A lower court had granted an injunction blocking enforcement of the law until it could be challenged.
Dr. Orly Taitz, one of the more, let’s say, colorful of the rag tag army of Birther lawyers, received some recent coverage in the Orange County Weekly, pointed out by Dave Weigel. The piece, called “Birth of an Obsession,” is worth reading in full.
Also worth reading is Dr. Taitz’s response on her website to a commenter who had read about her interest in Obama and referred her to an article about Obama’s great-great-great grandmother’s grave, which was found last year in Everett, Washington.
It certainly does read as obsession.
1. a man who threatened to shoot me and burn my body for the world to see was tracked to a computer server in Everett WA. Another person that threatened me was traced to Chauhelis WA and yet another one to Canada (from what I understand not far from the border with WA state). A few days after the threat there was a clamp missing and a disconnected fumes emissions hose in my car and my husbands car died, suddenly a fuse was missing.
2. Obama does not talk about it, but his mother wasn’t in HI when he was a baby, she was enrolled in the U of Seattle WA from August 1961-till June 1962, which means that as a baby he lived in WA.
-snip
6. Stanley Ann Dunham also went by the name Shirley Ann Dunham. We found a Dunham organization, owned by Shirley Ann Dunham; one location was in Seattle another in Bellview WA. They dealt with insurances, lawyers, mortgages- you can get ss numbers from all of these records.
7. From what I recall, there was a discrepancy between Intellius records and Secretary of state records. According to the sec. of state a man owned that co. One of our volunteers pulled court records in Bellview for the Dunham organization. This man, Mr. Dunham (don’t remember first name) kept changing his middle initial in several court cases, which was suspicious by itself.
8. There was a very strange newspaper article in WA (I believe Seattle), from what I recall, when Obama supposedly was in Columbia. It stated that one, Roman Obama studied at the university of Patrice Lumumba in Moscow, Russia, and had some financial difficulties.
-snip
10. Based on all of the above, I have a nagging feeling, that there is somebody there in WA, some relative of Obama, somebody who we might think is no longer with us.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Based on all of the above, I have a nagging feeling somebody is no longer with us. No wonder the SCOTUS dismissed another of these “cases” today, if other Birther lawyers are anything like this one.
I can’t help but notice that the sole reason So-So (my very appropriate name for Sonia Sotomayor) was chosen as Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is that she shares the life story of J-Lo, Jennifer Lopez.
He might as well have picked J-Lo for SCOTUS, I suppose, since they’re interchangeable, though you’d have to wonder why J-Lo went into the movies at all with a background like this:
- Five years as a prosecutor for DA Robert Morgenthau on robberies, assaults, murders, police brutality and child pornography cases.
- Eight years as associate and partner in a corporate law firm representing business clients in intellectual property, commodities trading, etc.
- Six years as U.S. district court judge in Manhattan.
- Eleven years on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
- Veteran of two prior confirmation hearings; nominated to the district court by the first President Bush and to the appeals court by President Clinton; confirmed by a 68 to 28 vote.
-Member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts.
- Served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and State of New York Mortgage Agency.
- Lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School, teaching appellate and trial advocacy since 1999.
- Graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and awarded the Pyne Prize. Graduated from Yale Law School in 1979 after serving as a law journal editor. Passed the bar exam in 1980. Honorary degrees from Princeton University and Brooklyn Law School in 2001 and from Herbert L. Lehman College in 1999. She serves on the Board of Trustees at Princeton.
