even the Judges are reluctant to explore the case/issues.
Posted on 03/12/2009 9:57:48 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
A California attorney whose emergency submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on President Obama's eligibility was turned back without a hearing or comment now is submitting a motion for re-hearing, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.
The motion for reconsideration alleges a court clerk "of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices petitioners' supplemental brief presented on January 15, 2009."
Orly Taitz, who is working on the case Lightfoot vs. Bowen through her foundation, Defend Our Freedoms, told WND that she started checking back through her paperwork after asking Justice Antonin Scalia this week about the case.
His response was that a petitioner needed four affirmative votes among the nine justices for a hearing to be held. Taitz interpreted to mean that among the four justices generally considered conservative, at least one had been voting against hearing the Obama eligibility issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Hm.
ping.
If a USSC clerk did this, what would the charge be? Curious.
According to what I read at her site, Justice Scalia seemed never to have heard of her case!
There’s another thread about this same subject,
I thought I’d read the same thing. Wasn’t she at a lecture and he told her he’d never seen her case?
For starters.
I figured there was a long-winded legal name for it. If it is true, the clerk needs to arraigned on every charge and prosecuted.
“Wasn’t she at a lecture and he told her he’d never seen her case?”
Yep. That’s what I read, too!
Sounds like the clerks have been interfering in SCOTUS’s legal workings! Time to clean house and do some rehiring.
I betcha ten to one that the clerk in question voted for Obama. Any takers?
America the land of strange, unusual family names.
(Of course, if I Anglicized my name it would light bulb.) LOL!!!!
"...Further, on March 9, 2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs..."
Didn’t this Bickle guy try to give Leo Donofrio the run around, too?
Sounds both plausible and possible.
Right or wrong, isn’t it the job of the ‘clerks’ to ‘screen’ cases? It’s unreasonable to believe that the Judges would be able to do this themselves. I don’t know the oversight, if any, that is afforded to these clerks (and their particular opinions). (IIRC, Ann Coulter clerked for a justice, perhaps she has written something about this?)
This is also similar to our elected “representatives” reading and making positions on all of the bills which are presented. Unfortunately this is delegated to their interns/clerks who provide the research and opinions which are passed along to those who cast the vote.
Of course their (the interns) opinions will have NO affect upon the information passed along. (snicker/gag/choke)
We might remember the saying(s) about sausage and how it’s made (ie, you might not eat it if you knew how it was made) and ‘in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls’.
the stay law clerk is (was?)
Dan Bickell and he’s been jerkin everyone around.
Yep. If I remember correctly, his name is Daniel Bickle, or Danny Bickle.
And probably a Democrat.
According to Leo D’Onofrio’s website, the proper way to go about addressing the eligibility question surrounding Obama’s Presidency, is “Quo warranto”.
See: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE - SEPARATION OF POWERS
There is Part I, Part II, and Part III. They are very lengthy and will take some time in reading.
Leo no longer believes that a frontal assault on the Supreme Court is the correct manner of handling this eligibility situation.
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.