Replies

Judge Carter hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a very visible case involving a client of Perkins-Coie. The Judicial Code of Ethics deals with that. (Don’t have time to look it up right now but will cite it when I put this all together eventually)

Judge Robertson trying to slap frivolous lawsuit penalties because the issue had already been Twittered. Can you think of a more blatant example of ex parte influence than a judge openly proclaiming that the case was already decided through Twitter? Every person in the country who knows anything about law knew the guy was up to his ears in BS when he made that ruling.

Even Denise Lind pulled a surprise in her decision. There are 3 basic sections to her decision. The first part is where she outlines what each side claimed. In that part she referred to “Barrack Houssein Obama” - which the folks at nativeborncitizen.com suggested she had quoted directly from Lakin’s defense, who had put in the misspellings to allow for future action based on technicalities. (The only reason I even knew about the misspellings was because they were being discussed there, since I hadn’t gotten around to reading her ruling by then. After reading about the misspellings my curiosity was piqued and I read her ruling)

The last part is where she goes through the hypotheticals (totally butchers the issues by talking about embarrassing Congress, whether Lakin had to obey the orders even if they were unlawful, etc - ignoring and/or labeling as irrelevant any evidence regarding the real issue before her: whether Lakin disobeyed a lawful order). In that part she refers to “President Obama”.

Between those two parts is the one place where Lind herself enters a fact into the record. She says that Barrack Obama was installed as President and has been acting as President.

Now if Lakin’s counsel misspelled Obama’s name in order to leave open the possibility of an appeal on technical grounds, then why do you think Denise Lind, in the only place where she entered something factual into the record, misspelled Obama’s first name?

Those are a few examples that come to mind immediately. And I should say that I have not followed the court cases very closely at all. If I know what’s going on, then it’s because the information is blatantly out there. These are not judges trying to quietly slip something past; these are shouts of “Hey, look at me doing something totally ridiculous on this eligibility case!”

And if these were the only cases where the anomalies leaped out at a person it might be different too. But 4 conservative SCOTUS justices and one liberal justice have all had some kind of supposed SNAFU regarding Obama’s inauguration as POTUS. That’s a majority of the SCOTUS justices.

Chief Justice Roberts screwed up the oath. There is no video of Roberts giving the correct oath, just audio.

Justice Stevens called Joe Biden “Mr President” after administering the oath of office to him.

Justice Thomas made a serious comment about SCOTUS evading the eligibility issue - an uncomfortable situation until Thomas smiled as if to give the excuse that he was joking. That comment was out of place and totally unsolicited - obviously something on Thomas’ mind.

Justice Alito refused to attend when Obama and Biden met privately with SCOTUS (which itself was an ex parte violation initiated by Chief Justice Roberts, since there were multiple cases involving Obama waiting to be considered by SCOTUS. So that’s another situation of questionable ethics which I didn’t even think of off-hand).

Justice Scalia pretended to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing about the eligibility cases even though the later comment by Thomas showed they HAD seen the cases. There was also some question about that because there was funny business with several different dockets via SCOTUS Clerk Danny Bickel.

So there are a lot of different behaviors that individually wouldn’t be so significant, but taken together they definitely make a person go Hmmmmm.....