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 ...
>And once again, please tell me what that has to do with the allegations of misconduct by Taitz as covered in post 35? <
Nothing. Conversation closed.
Try post 35.
I believe it's been stated elsewhere, that roughly 1-2% of the docket receives some form of attention from the Court. Meaning, 98-99% are "turned away."
Correct. An unwillingness to follow the rules of court, including correct grammar, formatting, even down to type size and paper size, not to mention an inability to correctly articulate issues is the death knell to any appeal. They take no prisoners on that kind of thing.
Thomas' seriousness about "evading that one" is ambiguous at best. One usually doesn't laugh when making a statement in earnest. (Another stretch by Birthers to legitimize their claims).
His opinion. Given the high percentage of cases that get turned away, however, it could also be explained by that. We don't know.
Taitz may go down in history as the worst representative for what might turn out, in the end, to be worthy cause.
Yes, and I am not impressed with the justice system that we currently have which searches for laws on how to control the people of the federal corporation of these United States instead of allowing us to have the full liberties of the Constitution that the founders intended for us to have. Nor am I even slightly impressed with the Congress that writes the laws to allow the justice system to rob us of our freedoms and liberty.
Allow me to ask if you respect or admire Henry Kissinger. Just a yes or no will suffice.
“so why two Senators?”
Because it says so in the Constitution?
By the way, if your compelled to be a juvenile and attempt to put a label on me, call me a dualer. His place of birth is a secondary issue.
Right. His opinion, based on actually being there...on the “inside.”
"Occasionally readers of Kenny Bunk posts shall be required to develop ye olde Down east SoH."
Like photos or videos of soldiers captured by jihadists stating that the jihadis are nice guys, while using certain body language or code words to show it is under duress.
Exactly.
Moral strength among the elites is almost nil.
Or, moral decrepitude is sky high.
Another “exactly!”
I should just shut up and let you guys do the talking; you are right on!
I remember that run on the bank , and no one did anything about it. They never looked up where it came from, it is like it never happened.
I knew then that these type things cannot happen woithout someone knowing. but they were all frightened to find out who and to reveal that person. I too believe Soros was the only one with that kind of power.
Thanks, MODELSHIPS - and Candor, make sure you read his little story about what happened when he talked to the SCOTUS clerk.
There are evil doings everywhere. Blackmail, bribes, threats - I am sure all have been used generously.
Your comments are among the best.
I’m just a member of the peanut gallery on these threads.
Reading and learning, and walking over the piles of dog poo.
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.