Skip to comments.Supreme Court upholds 'birther' sanction (Alito & Thomas okay fine of Taitz)
Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge's October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a "frivolous" litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz's second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
He certainly did and we know why too!
So, once again, please tell me what that has to do with Taitz's antics as described in post 35. Sorry, but ANY attorney who pulled that kind of nonsense would be getting thrashed by the courts.
So tell me again what that snippet of banter has to do with Taitz’s antics as described in post 35.
Taitz is a nutjob who hasn't a clue what she is doing and sees irrational conspiracy in everything she doesn't bother to try and understand.
There is that possibility...
I suppose you fully support addressing judges as, Your Honor too.
I am not an a lawyer but I have seen judges tell attorneys to resubmit paperwork and or rephrase something. How did Taitz get her bar permit if she wasn’t qualified?
It's not qualifications, it's misconduct.
The Supreme Court just doesn't go out looking for cases, cases have to be brought to it by those who have an understanding of how the process works. Countless cases get tossed aside for exactly that issue.
Are you suggesting that only Taitz’s “eligibility” case has been submitted to SCOTUS?
Do I recall that Zero had a meeting with Justice Roberts before he was elected? Is that right?
No, I am not, I am aware that there have been others. However, once again, you have to have a good understanding of how the process works to get a case there. I think they turn aside at least ninety percent of the cases that are presented to them for possible consideration.
And once again, please tell me what that has to do with the allegations of misconduct by Taitz as covered in post 35?
I am not questioning that there is an interesting and compelling case around Obama's failure to present an actual long form. I am instead in this specific instance seeing Clarence Thomas upholding a lower court ruling against Taitz for some very blatant legal transgressions. It has nothing to do about the merits of the birther case.
This is far bigger than the (procedurally & grammatically) inexperienced Taitz. That's precisely the point of my post to #59.
I wouldn’t go so far as saying SCOTUS is specifically evading the issue, I think they also might not have had a well-crafted filing - once again, I believe over 90 percent of potential Supreme Court filings are turned aside or backwards.
Moreover, Land served three terms in the Georgia State Senate as a Republican, during a time when Democrats still controlled the Governor’s office and both houses of the legislature.
I have thought Soros was behind everything, starting with the rise in oil prices in January of 2008, which turned out to be manipulation rather than market forces. Given his track record of messing with other countries’ economies, and his hatred for the US, he has been the prime suspect IMHO. Add in voter fraud and the absolute unwillingness of our elected officials to listen to us and our opinions, we are in what amounts to a bloodless coup.
IMO any judge that has had this subject brought to his court and has shuffled it off is a coward. I also think that the Republican congressmen and senators are TOTALLY corrupt because they havent stood up and demanded to see Zeros full history. Just the fact that he is hiding it is a full indication that corruption and fraud exist in the matter.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.—October 29, 2009
A spurious claim questioning the Presidents constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Courts placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald September 16, 2009
Could you please tell me, in simple English, what exactly you base your unfounded and somewhat irresponsible statements regarding the efforts Dr. Taitz has put forth consistent with her chosen profession. Are you a member of the Bar? Have you even taken the time to read one page of Dr. Taitz’ motions? How do you know the “clerks” in the Supreme Court are not guilty of altering records? I, for a fact, have spoken directly with Mr. Eric Fossum on July 27 2010, a clerk in the Supreme Court when Dr. Taitz first heard of Justice Alito allegedly denying her motion. She discovered that not only were her documents not entered into the log of the Court, there was no “Official” signature by Justice Alito, or any other Justice. When I asked Mr. Fossum if this was true, he initially told me “A clerk signed it” and when I tried to question him further by asking him “Is this the same as a “Real Justice” signing the documents”he was something less than forthcoming in his answers and finally told me”I’m not going to go down this road any more any more”, and hung up on me.
Until you take the time to read and digest the details involved in these proceedings, such as your actually finding the necessary “Legal and Official” signatures denying these motions I will consider your statements nothing more than “opinion”, to which you are most certainly welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.