Posted on 03/14/2009 9:46:52 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
Note that the raw url takes you to The Beijing Chronicle
Don’t Monkey any credit. It’s kinda easy to confuse guys in suits in a protection details of government officials. It’s not very well known that US Marshals protect Supreme Court justices.
Don’t Monkey any credit. = Don’t give Monkey any credit.
We support you Orly!
So, to be clear, you are taking at face value this woman's statement that she "gave a suitcase" of information to CJ Roberts about a pending case and Roberts responding "just give it to my Secret Service Agent and I promise I'll read it all."?
There is a very clear definition of ex parte communication that all judges, including the Supremes strictly adhere to. You don't think that this violates those guidelines?
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt (that's a big benefit) that this did indeed happen the way she described. Is it not equally reasonable to presume that Roberts felt this woman could have been some kind of threat and diverted her attention to his security detail? I would guess that's a much more likely scenario if she had any interaction with Roberts at all. But, to think, even for an instance, that Roberts would listen to her and make any kind of promise with respect to a pending case before the court IS CRAZY.
This kind of rabidly unintellectual and dare I say, crazy talk is what has allowed the MSM to paint conservatives with a broad brush of lunacy, unreasoned and illogical thinking the last several years.
There is a very clear definition of ex parte communication that all judges, including the Supremes strictly adhere to. You don't think that this violates those guidelines? to
Obama recently visited all of the Supreme Court Justices except Alito while active Obama citizenship cases were on the docket. That's an Ex Parte violation.
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt (that's a big benefit) that this did indeed happen the way she described.
I give her the benefit more than a guy named Obama who has repeatedly lied. So what do we call an excessive liar?
that this did indeed happen the way she described. Is it not equally reasonable to presume that Roberts felt this woman could have been some kind of threat and diverted her attention to his security detail?
I sincerely doubt it. Oh please, you're reaching with fantasy.
Intellectual dishonesty and lunacy is when a president will not let anyone have 10 dollar copy of his Certification Of Live Birth that has a very minimum of information on it. He should have sent out hundreds of copies to every news organization straight from the Hawaiian Department of Health - not show that stupid image of it online from a leftist site.
That's intellectual dishonesty and behavior of a criminal who wants to hide the truth.
Intellectual dishonesty is the Main Stream Presss when they repeatedly lie that the State of Hawaii has verified the Obama COLB he has placed on the Web as a genuine document.
That's intellectual dishonesty.
Say hello to Michael Michael for us.
There's something VERY screwy here. It is impossible to drive from Tacoma, Washington to Moscow, Idaho in a couple hours. It's a minimum of 250 miles as the crow flies. It would take a very minimum of 4-1/2 hours, not counting time to get a rental car and find where you're going. Also, she had to cross the Cascade Mountains, and there's a LOT of snow at the Pass. If there was fresh snow, she may have had to stop for avalanches or to put chains on.
Even leaving at 3 A.M., she made huge cross country zig-zags to fly from San Diego to Tacoma. If she had flown non-stop straight up the coast the flight would be three hours, but she made it into a major expedition by going via Salt Lake City. Justice Roberts must have spoken in the evening, or she'd have never made it.
Well, we do have the left slant blog/news rag (I think) talking of her bringing it up, laughter from the crowd and Roberts blowing her off...so I believe she WAS there and brought it up. It’s the SS Agent contact that bothers me. They would not have been there and she said one agent identified himself as SS.
No that's not a violation of anything. Did Obama discuss the case with any of the Justices? - no. It's a far cry from having a discussion with the plaintiff's attorney about the case while removed from the defendant's attorney. That is Ex Parte communication.
This is the second time you've reference "michael michael". I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this a "special friend" of yours that only you can see and hear?
I live fairly close to her office in Mission Viejo, CA and I just sent her an email volunteering to help out if she needs it. If we all do our part to keep the issue alive and keep the process moving forward, we can make a difference.
Any Orange County FReepers are encouraged to do the same.
You don't know one way or the other. What we do know for sure Obama spoke with them when there were active cases on the Supreme Court docket against Obama.
MM is not your special friend? We don’t see or hear from him because he got zotted for being an Obama sycophant troll.
By that definition, the Supreme Court Justices could never have any conversations, meetings or attend any Presidential functions EVER. You see, during each session of the Court there can be as many as a dozen cases (or more) pending on the Court's docket that would feature President as either the Planfiff or the Defendant.
Please remember that her report was typed hastily on the fly after a long day following a short night’s sleep. Perhaps the report may have a few things technically incorrect or vague (like if the security dude was actually secret service or with a different protective agency) but her cause is just and we should give her the benefit of the doubt unless and until there’s something conclusive to show otherwise.
None of us have walked in her shoes. I’ll refrain from criticizing her and spend my time applauding her noble efforts.
If Orly gets another Obama case before SCOTUS will Roberts recuse himself from her case? I doubt it. But it will be up to Roberts to determine if he’s been compromised by Taitz. We may see....
I noticed that earlier, but it's obviously not what Taitz is talking about since there's nothing on there about her and it's not a major media site. It looks like it is just someone's personal blog.
I'm guessing that the media institution Taitz decries as "leftist media thugs" and calls the "Seattle Washington Observer" is probably just the Seattle Times. So she is being pretty careless with some of her facts although you would think she would want to get that one right.
Personally, I would cut her slack on this. How many types of police do most people know? They can recognize patrol cops (uniform and badge), if they live by a freeway they’d be familiar with Highway Patrol types, and they’ve seen Secret Service types on TV (suits and dark glasses). Most of us haven’t travelled to DC, haven’t seen the SS in person. If the SCOTUS use a special security detail, I’m guessing the odds are they look a lot like SS, and since most of us aren’t that familiar with all the different types of security/police, any of us might assume they were SS. And even if they said “Security guy” or “Security detail”, etc., if she’s assuming that they’re SS, that’s probably what she thinks she heard....
I’ve known female Russian immigrants, and when they get excited, they’re just like Orly. I think it’s just a style that’s part of her culture, and only seems weird to us because of the cultural differences. In other words, I don’t think that style is seen as “out of control” there, as it is here. Maybe others have more insight and can chime in.
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.