Ex parte SCOTUS, led by John Roberts, unethically meets with a single litigant
in the most imporant case before them in their entire lives.
Code of Professional Ethics? John Jay? Integrity? Ethics? the US Constitution?
Forgetaboutit.
Posted on 05/09/2009 4:13:17 AM PDT by Man50D
California attorney Orly Taitz, who has taken cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president to a number of courts across the nation including the U.S. Supreme Court, says she'll be returning to the high court, this time seeking a petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus.
"As Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor did not institute Quo Warranto and did not respond, I will go back to SCOTUS," Taitz announced today on her website.
"As you know, I am being crucified for every little error, so I have sent the draft to a couple of attorneys, paralegals, technical consultants and language consultants, to give me their input and I will file in a few days," she said.
"Bottom line, I will be filing until I get an answer," she wrote.
Taitz was the lead attorney earlier representing military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines when they cited Quo Warranto, a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers, to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama's eligibility.
The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
She certainly is a bulldog. I wish I had the money to help her.
She certainly is a bulldog. I wish I had the money to help her.
INDEED.
I feel similarly on both counts.
Ex parte SCOTUS, led by John Roberts, unethically meets with a single litigant
in the most imporant case before them in their entire lives.
Code of Professional Ethics? John Jay? Integrity? Ethics? the US Constitution?
Forgetaboutit.
There certaqinly seems to be enoguh unanswered quewtions to make this a legitimate issue.
God Bless her and WHERE IS THE CONSERVATIVES HELPING HER????
Most are trying to act like democrats so the media might one day like them.....
“I wish I had the money to help her.”
You would be surprised what 10-20 bucks can do if thousands of people do the same thing. I am sure she appreciates every dime.
Ping!
Look, guys. This case/noncase, while it is probably true Obama is not natural born citizen, has been presented wrongly from the gitgo. It can never go forward as a Civil Suit. It is unique in that the Fifth Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. HE cannot be forced to produce a document that proves he committed fraud and/or any other crime. This is a criminal act, and as such should have been investigated by DOJ or any State AG. A warrant could then have been issued to the STATE he claims to have been born in, forcing the state of Hawaii to comply.
The DOJ has NO INTEREST in removing Obama. It is never going to happen. However, a state AG MIGHT be able to press this, although that doesn’t seem probable either.
In the meantime, a lot of people are collecting a lot of donations knowing full well there can be no CIVIL resolution to this.
If it were just the birth certificate I could write it off as a fluke.
July 4 Tea Party idea : Little airplanes towing banners saying “Obama, where is your friggin’ birthcertificate”.
We have got to take some drastic steps somehow.
And what makes you think that the Supreme Court won't tell her to go away? Again?
This was interesting:
“According to a report at All The News That Fits, lawyers for Obama submitted in a court challenge late in 2008 that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation” in one of the many eligibility challenges that have been filed.”
So Obama’s lawyers think he can be protected from ‘serious embarrassment’? Is ‘embarrassment’ covered in the ‘self incrimination’ law? LOL
Being caught committing fraud is embarrassing. I have to agree with his lawyers.
If zero is legitimate, then it is the property of the people of the United States ... and so too are it's personal affects.
Thus, for the betterment of society (re-unification of a fractured nation), just friggin' storm the Honolulu State House and take it.
and your sign up date
makes for a suspicious post
You would be correct, if this was a criminal action .......... but it's a civil action. Anyhow, If he was going to assert that type of defense, he should have claimed his 5th amendment rights in his first response to the action.
Soooooo, produce the documents Zero!
I still am unclear why any citizen subject to whatever is signed into law by the President doesn't have legal standing.
I am especially unclear why members of the military do not have an even more compelling interest as their rights are more limited than non-military and they are expected to follow orders from the Commander in Chief.
By refusing to produce common paperwork that citizens are required to show for much less serious situations, obama has created doubt about the legitimacy of anything he says or does as President.
If he cannot be forced to produce documentation that might incriminate him, then is it mutiny for citizens and members of the military to refuse to accept and follow his "laws" and his orders until he does?
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.