Justice Thomas admits that SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.
They know the Constitutional term NBC is not being accorded it’s true, undiluted definition, and is thereby being sapped of its power to separate the goats from the sheep every four years.
It’s the only function the term NBC explicitly performs in the whole of U.S. law. Why must it be denied?
Justice Thomas admits that SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.
April 15, 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco3igZmHXQ
Clarence Thomas made a joke which was followed by laughter. This may help explain why birthers are sanctioned for frivolous filing when they take their crap to court.
https://casetext.com/case/mauro-motors-inc-v-old-cargo-llc
2nd Circuit, Apr 22, 2011
Mauro Motors Inc. v. Old Carco LLCOpinion
No. 10-3933-bk.
April 22, 2011.
Appeal from decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.) affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Gonzalez, C.J.) denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the district court's decision is AFFIRMED.
Leo Donofrio, Stephen W. Pidgeon, Pidgeon Donofrio GP, Everett, WA, for Appellants.
Brett J. Berlin, Jeffrey B. Ellman, Beth R. Heifetz, Kevyn Duane Orr, (Corinne Ball, on the brief), Jones Day, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER
Appellants are automobile dealers whose dealership contracts with Chrysler were terminated by Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy and restructuring. They moved the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its decision to allow Chrysler to exclude these contracts from the assets it sold to Fiat and to then reject these contracts after the sale under 11 U.S.C. § 365. We assume the parties' familiarity with, the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.
A motion to reconsider a judgment must be rejected if "there was an opportunity to have the ground now relied upon to set aside the judgment fully litigated in the original action." Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Capitol Records, 779 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks, omitted). Appellants present no evidence or arguments in this collateral attack that could not have been presented in a timely appeal from the bankruptcy court's original decision. Having failed to appeal from that decision, Appellants may not now attack it collaterally absent newly discovered evidence of fraud on the court. No such evidence has been presented, so Appellants' motion to reconsider was properly denied.
As to the merits of Appellants' claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.
The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that there was no fraud on the court. As a result, we hereby AFFIRM the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of Appellants' motion to reconsider.
In Barnett v. Hobbs, 12/05/2022, The Superior Court of Maricopa County stated, "However, the latest filing by Plaintiff causes the Court concern as to whether Mr. Donofrio may be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, despite the Court having the above discussion with him on the record in open court. To be clear, the Court makes no finding that Mr. Donofrio has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; indeed, Mr. Donofrio's name appears nowhere on the instant motion. The Court will not conduct any investigation into the issue or refer the issue to the New Jersey Bar. However, the Court will remind Plaintiff and Mr. Donofrio that Mr. Donofrio is not permitted to practice law at this time and he has certified to the New Jersey Bar that he does not draft or review legal documents or render legal assistance or advice in any jurisdiction. In the future, if Mr. Donofrio wishes to provide those services to a litigant in this State, it appears to this Court that Mr. Donofrio must adjust his status with the New Jersey Bar, and to appear pro hac vice in any Court in this State, he must first secure local, sponsoring counsel and fully comply with Rule 39(a) of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court emphasizes that the issue of Mr. Donofrio's licensure had no bearing on the Court's substantive ruling on the motion brought by Plaintiff."
Birther attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon were ordered to pay $127,987.50 in legal fees to Old Carco Liquidation Trust, April 20, 2012, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That's what happens when a mountain of nonsense is found to have been frivolous.