High court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader

Associated Press ^ | January 10, 2011 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the challenge to President Barack Obama's citizenship.

The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No comment, no dissent (although Justices Scalia and Thomas did dissent from other cert. denials today). No surprise, either.

[Don Corleone]

Another way for the SCOTUS to “Kick the can” down the road.

[onedoug]

The Supreme Court of Cowards

[cameraeye]

We are still awaiting the release of the BC from the Governor of Hawaii. Any day now, right? (sarc)

[DoughtyOne]

This may be more related to Tiatz than the topic at hand. From my observations her actions have seemed to draw more attention to herself than the serious matter she was trying to get addressed. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems there’s a real kook factor here. I’d rather have had someone else representing our cause on this matter.

[hoosierham]

Justices (with fingers in ears)”la,la,la, I can’t HEAR you,America!”

[hennie pennie]

*ping*

[Waco]

This court and the FBI is WELL AWARE of 0b’s use of multiple Social Security numbers and would have you or I locked up by now.

[PubliusMM]

Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years... The Supremes have secured their legacy as the gutless accomplices of those who would destroy this great nation.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with that. There are other serious matters in addition to this too.

My point was that some of Taitz’s actions caused the court to focus on her more than the merits of her actions. She didn’t get that $20k fine for nothing. I don’t believe she was proceeding in a proper manner.

I can’t put my finger on the information now, but some of her actions had me scratching my head when I read about them. That’s where I developed my views of what her efforts were actually going to gain us.

I’m open to alternative views. I’m going with my opinion on this developed over time.

[DoughtyOne]

Wasn’t this appeal focused on the $20k fine?

It wasn’t focused on the merits of the case was it?

I think folks may be reading too much into this rejection. It may not be a rejection of the facts in the case at all. It may only reference whether Taitz’s actions were proper or not.

[garybob]

My point was that some of Taitz’s actions caused the court to focus on her more than the merits of her actions.

If so, we are doomed as a nation when the actions of the highest court in the land are more in line with American Idol than with the rule of law. We have truly lost our way.

[jamese777]

Wasn’t this appeal focused on the $20k fine?

It wasn’t focused on the merits of the case was it?

I think folks may be reading too much into this rejection. It may not be a rejection of the facts in the case at all. It may only reference whether Taitz’s actions were proper or not.

---

Yes and no. Ms. Taitz could only appeal the imposition of the $20,000 in sanctions against her imposed by the original trial court judge in Georgia, US District Court Judge Clay R. Land.
However she submitted a supplemental brief to her Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking the High Court to address the following questions:
1. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

2. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 13 (1954).

3. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

4. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?

5. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn’t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?

6. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?

7. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

8. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?

9. What Constitutes “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?

If four of the nine judges had agreed to entertain the original petition and the supplemental brief, the full Court would have heard oral arguements on those points.

[DoughtyOne]

Gary, my premise was that the court was asked to rule whether the $20k fine was appropriate or not. On the merits, it may have been appropriate.

The court may not have been asked to rule on the merits of Taitz’s charges against Obama.

I don’t remember the particulars with regard to why the $20k fine first came down.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If four of the nine judges had agreed to entertain the original petition and the supplemental brief, the full Court would have heard oral arguements on those points.

Actually, not, although Orly thought so.

Orly Taitz's client, Captain Rhodes, did not appeal the dismissal of the original suit, so the only issue before the Court was Judge Land's sanction against Orly. Orly filed all sorts of briefs trying to bring the eligibility issue up, but that issue was not and could not have been before the Supreme Court in this case. (The eligibility issue was before the Supreme Court in 8 or 9 previous cases, all of which were denied without comment or dissent, and will again be before the Court this Friday in the Hollister case, which will meet with the same fate.)

[Lurking Libertarian]

I don’t remember the particulars with regard to why the $20k fine first came down.

It was not for filing the suit challenging Obama's eligibility. it was for filing a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case, in which she accused the judge of "treason" and claimed that the judge had secretly met with Attorney General Holder in the courthouse in Georgia (on a day when Holder was actually making public appearances in Los Angeles).

[jamese777]

If so, we are doomed as a nation when the actions of the highest court in the land are more in line with American Idol than with the rule of law. We have truly lost our way.

---

However, on the other side, the original trial court judge is a former Republican Georgia state Senator who was recommended for his federal judgeship by Senator Saxby Chambliss and was apppointed to the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia bench by President George W. Bush and Judge Land said of Orly Taitz’s behavior: “The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better.”
The original plaintiff in this case was US. Army Flight Surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes who refused to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility. When the trial court dimissed the complaint, Captain Rhodes deployed to Iraq and she sent a letter to the judge stating that she no longer wished to be represented by Orly Taitz after Taitz filed an appeal without asking Captain Rhodes’ permission.
Captain Rhodes wrote to Judge Land: “I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.”

Judge Land imposed a $20,000 sanction on Ms. Taitz which has already been paid.

Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on the reversing the sanction.

[chicken head]

anyone heard from the hawaii gov.. has he released it yet— “crickets”...

[jamese777]

anyone heard from the hawaii gov.. has he released it yet— “crickets”...

Under Hawaii law, he can’t release it unilaterally. He needs both an Attorney General and a Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health to do that and neither of his nominees for those positions has been confirmed by the state Senate yet.

[jamese777]

Actually, not, although Orly thought so.

Orly Taitz’s client, Captain Rhodes, did not appeal the dismissal of the original suit, so the only issue before the Court was Judge Land’s sanction against Orly. Orly filed all sorts of briefs trying to bring the eligibility issue up, but that issue was not and could not have been before the Supreme Court in this case. (The eligibility issue was before the Supreme Court in 8 or 9 previous cases, all of which were denied without comment or dissent, and will again be before the Court this Friday in the Hollister case, which will meet with the same fate.)

---

I was going with Orly’s fondest dream! Justicesw= Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas decide that they want Obama out and agree to take the law into their own hands. ;-)