Oh, For Goodness Sake

Orly Taitz’s War On Court Clerks Reaches SCOTUS, Again

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)

–

*No longer linking to her web site.