Posted on 03/14/2009 9:46:52 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.
It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
There will absolutely be tape - this was the Bellwood lecture series and they're all recorded. More later as I learn it.
Looked at the Bellwood lecture series site and found nothing.
That's the understatement of this short century. It does the conservative cause no good when we have people like this fighting our fights. Her earlier pleadings to the court and statements to the media have been filled will misspellings, poor grammar and legal arguments that could be demolished by first year law students. (i.e., she said she would have the president "arrested" for contempt of court...Oh brother!).
Not only are her legal skills and acumen in tremendous doubt, be she does seem to be exhibiting signs of delusion and altered reality. This episode coupled with her Scalia claims from earlier in the week, make we wonder if she isn't in some kind of psychological distress.
Go back to Obong- and don’t forget your kneepads.
You’re wasting your time here.
If you think that this woman has even a shred of credibility, then you've got WAY BIGGER problems than who the President is.
It's clear that this is starting to take its toll. She definitely needs more sleep.
This episode coupled with her Scalia claims from earlier in the week, make we wonder if she isn't in some kind of psychological distress.
Based upon her description, my impression is that she really was at the Scalia event. Scalia was plugging a book about how to make your case to judges and he probably responded to her questions in that light. It's not clear that Scalia was aware that she already had a case before the court. Of course that fact fits in with Taitz's theory that there is a conspiracy involving the court clerks.
As Taitz has made a number of errors of fact in her blog statements, I think I would tend to wonder if she quoted Scalia 100% correctly.
“Amazing that a little Russian refugee lady has the cajones to stand up and fight for America when most of us choose to bury our heads in the sand or whine and wring our hands.”
She came here to escape the tyranny that she experienced first hand in the Soviet Union. Now she is seeking to reverse that same sort of tyranny as it is being implemented here with the ascension of this lying crypto-marxist demagogue and his corrupt allies in Congress.
The sheeple here have no idea of the socialist misery that they are in for if the Obamunists prevail.
Yes, Scalia might answer a question the way he did if it was a general question about the court's procedures and policies. But, Ms. Taitz claims in her blog that she identified herself and referenced the case that she was party to and asked a specific question to Scalia about that specific case. In no reality would Scalia have any Ex Parte discussion with counsel for a case that is either before the court or will be coming before the court.
I suppose one could chalk up these mistakes to Ms. Taitz's "English as a second language" problem. But from where I sit, it's becoming increasingly difficult.
I don’t know anything about this attorney and it’s obvious she was there, as even the Seattle paper reported it; however, there’s a couple of odd things in her account. She says she flew to Tacoma, WA. She must have meant “SeaTac” which is the airport for the Puget Sound; however, it’s not in Tacoma. Then she says she drove “a couple hours” to Moscow, Idaho from Tacoma. A couple hours? Hardly. It’s at least a 6 hour drive, especially considering she would have encountered the horrendous Puget Sound traffic and have to go over a mountain pass that can be snowy this time of year. And why fly into SeaTac? Spokane, WA would make much more sense, as it IS “a couple of hours” from Spokane to Moscow, ID. Maybe in fact that is what she did, but said Tacoma instead of Spokane. Anyway, anyone familiar with Washington would read that account and say “HUH???”
She seems to be angry at the "Seattle Washington Observer" and it sounds like she means a major newspaper, but there is no such paper. Maybe she meant the Times but two errors like that in one paragraph indicates that there is something going on with her.
Yes, I think she meant the Seattle Times, which did have a story about her being there. Of course, they painted it in a slightly different light. I sure wish we could see video to find out who’s story is closest to the truth.
The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the Supreme Court by protecting the United States Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors.[1]
Established in 1949, the Supreme Court of the United States Police were tasked to provide protection for the Supreme Court Building. The Court had previously resided in the U.S. Capitol Building, and the original force of 33 officers were selected from the ranks of the United States Capitol Police. Currently, the Supreme Court Police are responsible for protecting the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, building occupants, and the Court's historic building and grounds. Additional responsibilities include courtroom security, dignitary protection, emergency response, and providing assistance to building visitors.[1]
Units of the Supreme Court Police include:
* Uniformed Services
* Protective Services
* Threat Assessment Unit
* Background Investigation Unit
* Honor Guard
* Key Response Squad
* HazMat/Bomb Response.
I'll make some calls...night be that all off-site protective details are done by SS, but that seems odd...
See my post #53.
Also, there is a Supreme Court Marshal, not to be confused with someone from the Marshal's Service. The Supreme Court Marshal is kind of the Operations Manager of the place...oversees security, building Maintenance, etc.
It is impossible to drive from Tacoma, Washington to Moscow, Idaho in two hours. The distance from Tacoma to Moscow is about 325 miles and a fast driver making no stops will take about 6 hours to make this drive.
Perhaps, Dr. Orly was confused. She may have landed at either Spokane, Washington or Lewiston, Idaho.
It is a little problem but might be indicative of a much larger problem with the story.
The SS only protects the POTUS, VPOTUS, their families, certain foreign dignitaries and other people in the line of succession. They may also take the security "lead" in other high profile national events that may or may not be related to a Presidential visit - a la the 2002-2005 Superbowls.
You know, for all the badmouthing and picking at the lady how many of us have made half the effort she has?
Yes, I too wish she were a bit more controlled and precise but she is what she is and none of us are doing what she has tackled. Her passion, urgency and downright fear of what she sees is real.
Agreed - I’ve been away for over 4 years now, but I cannot think of any reason SS would be doing protective details for SCOTUS...Even if hypothetically a joint POTUS/SCOTUS event were to take place off fed property, protocol requires your own individual (Or Agency) protective detail be with you. Facility protection may fall to someone else, but not to personal protection.
Ummmmmm is that it. That's a small nitpick. SCOTUS fall under the protection from the United States Marshals Service, Judicial Security Division (JSD) and is easily to confuse them with the Secret Service.
So you’re missing Michael Michael.
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.