Skip to comments.10-541 Orly Taitz v Thomas D. MacDonald DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.
Posted on 12/08/2010 12:35:14 PM PST by Elderberry
No. 10-541 Title: Orly Taitz, Petitioner v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.
Docketed: October 25, 2010 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.: (09-15418) Decision Date: March 15, 2010 Rehearing Denied: May 14, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aug 12 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 24, 2010) Nov 24 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. to respond filed. Dec 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.
I’d prefer he was beaten big at the election, then declared ineligible AFTERWARD. Then you get the best of both worlds.
...about the same chance as the last 11 or 12.
Note that the defendants did not respond (not required at the SCOTUS level), and the Court did not request a response (routine if the respondent waives its right to respond but the Court is thinking about a possible grant).
Distributed for conference Jan 7th...thinking positive! Hey Elder, I know your brother Dingle!
Hey Elder, I know your brother Dingle!”
As my granpa would have said, “they’re the berries!”
Funny I don’t have a brother.
Now that the left is pissed at him as well as the right so maybe someone will pull strings and make him produce his BC.
Will this be officially declared as judicial masturbation? Isn’t this getting real old, real fast? I think it is entertaining, but these cases seem to go nowhere.
Kinda like the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.
It’s just that the deck is stacked.
As I recall, distribution is pretty much automatic. Then each judge decides if there should be a conference. I think it takes 4 judges to bring it to conference, but we were never able to move it forward.
I say “we,” because I think that we the people have a right to know whether our supposed President qualifies for his office or not. And he refuses to show us or anyone else any of his paperwork.
Evidently at least one of the “conservative” judges thinks that Americans have no standing to ask whether we have a legitimate president or not.
Strangely, no one has standing to ask any question of Obama. Personally I find that very strange. It isn't lousy lawyers that is the problem, it is corrupt Judges.
And what will happen if it is discovered that he was ineligible to be POTUS from day one? Will guilty heads roll? I doubt it.
Too much is at stake for the politicians and the Supremes to admit that they abused the Constitution and should be held accountable.
Somewhere between zilch and none.
Discover it first and then we'll find out.
I pulled this from Orly’s site:
AS IVE BEEN FIGHTING AND ARGUING WITH OBOTS, I WAS DRAFTING THIS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Posted on | December 5, 2010 | 8 Comments
Supreme Court of the United States
Captain, M.D., F.S.
DR. ORLY TAITZ,ESQ
Attorney for the Plaintiff, Interested Party- Appellant,
THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
Garrison Commander, Fort Benning,
GEORGE STEUBER, Deputy,
Commander, Fort Benning,
ROBERT M. GATES,
Secretary of Defense,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Judge Clay D. Land
U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of GA, Author of Sua Sponte sanctions against the Plaintiffs Counsel
Interested Party, Appellee
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeal of $20,000 sanctions assessed Sua Sponte by the District Court Judge Clay D. Land, citing legal action to ascertain validity of deployment orders due to lack of constitutional eligibility of President Obama to be a frivolous and sanctionable legal action
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. In light of conflicting decisions of courts in CA and GA, what is the proper time to bring forward the Constitutional challenge to presidential eligibility: before or after the election and congressional confirmation?
2. If arguendo GA standard of eligibility verification is deemed to be a correct one, does adherence to CA standard represent a sanctionable offense by the counsel on the case?
After petition for writ of Certiorari was filed in the case at hand, a conflicting decision came from the Third District Court of Appeals of CA, in Keyes et al v Bowen et al C 062321 Third District Court of Appeals of CA which was based on a prior decision in Robinson v Bowen 567 F. Supp. 2d at p1147 from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA. Both Robinson and Keyes dealt with the challenge of presidential eligibility. Robinson dealt with the challenge of the eligibility of senator McCain in light of his birth in the city of Colon, Panama and Keyes challenged eligibility of senator Obama in light of lack of his long form birth certificate. Both cases were filed against the Secretary of State of CA Debra Bowen. Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA, Hon judge Alsup and the Third District court of Appeals in Ca honorable judges Scotland, Sims and Robie concurred that the proper time to challenge the eligibility of the President, is after the election and after the congressional confirmation.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial reviewif anyshould occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.] (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.) (emphasis added)
In the case of Rhodes v MaCDonald, which is the subject of the appeal, decision by Judge Clay D. Land, which was affirmed by the 11th Circuit court of Appeals, states that bringing eligibility case after the electoral and Congressional process have run their course is frivolous, as some 300 million dollars were already spent on the campaign and Judge Land has sanctioned attorney Orly Taitz $20,000 as he believed that challenging eligibility after the election and confirmation by Congress is frivolous. As such, there is a real controversy between different District Courts: District Court in the Middle District of Georgia and the District Court in the Northern District of California.
As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal, it seems to concur with the opinion of Land. On the other hand, as the District Court of Appeals in CA concurs with the decision of judge Alsup from the U.S. District Court, we have a controversy that involves four courts: two U.S. District Courts and two Courts of Appeals. In situation like that it is imperative for the Supreme Court of the United States to issue an opinion resolving this Constitutional conundrum.
It appears, that since there is such a difference of opinion, individual parties and attorneys are free to question eligibility at any time: before or after the election.
If arguendo Supreme Court of the United States decides that both Judge Alsup from the U.S. District court for the Northern District of CA and the CA court of Appeals is wrong and Judge Land is right and the proper timing for eligibility challenge is before the election, does it mean, that Judge Land and the 11th Circuit court were right in assessing sanctions against an attorney who brought the eligibility challenge after the election? As a different standard and opinion coming from the US. District Court in CA existed, Taitz was correct in bringing her legal action after the election, her actions were proper and timely and therefore not sanctionable.
Since there is a real controversy between different district courts and state courts, this issue needs to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even if the supreme Court finds that U.S. district Court for the Middle District of Georgia and Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals interpretation of the proper timing for eligibility challenge is correct and the interpretation by the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California and the California Court of Appeals is incorrect, due to existing controversy, it was reasonable for the Counsel to follow the CA interpretation and sanctions against the counsel were assessed in error and showed abuse of judicial discretion.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Actually it's those with standing don't ask the question. All this could be settled if John McCain would file suit. As the only candidate with a chance of winning he has standing to sue, as the judge pointed out in the Hollander v McCain decision.
What about Keyes? - he was a valid presidential candidate. Shouldn’t every candidate on the ballot have equal standing?
Every case filed with SCOTUS is automatically distributed for a conference. There usually are dozens-- sometimes hundreds-- of cases listed for each conference. Before the conference, each justice circulates a private list of cases they think are worth talking about. If a case is not on any of those 9 lists, it is not discussed at the conference and is automatically denied. If any justice puts a case on their list, it is talked about at the conference; it then takes 4 votes for the Court to agree to hear the case.
Keyes wasn't on the ballot in enough states with enough electoral votes to win even if he had carried them all, so to say that his chance of being president was compromised by Obama's ineligibility is pure fantasy. It's hard to show damages if you never had a chance of winning in the first place.