Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

10-541 Orly Taitz v Thomas D. MacDonald DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.
US Supreme Court ^ | Dec 8,2010

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; orlytaitz; taitz
Any Chance on this one?
1 posted on 12/08/2010 12:35:21 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

I’d prefer he was beaten big at the election, then declared ineligible AFTERWARD. Then you get the best of both worlds.


2 posted on 12/08/2010 12:39:15 PM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (Leftys who zone in on Palin miss the point. America's not about single figures. That's for NK/Cuba.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Any Chance on this one?

...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).

3 posted on 12/08/2010 12:39:23 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Distributed for conference Jan 7th...thinking positive! Hey Elder, I know your brother Dingle!


4 posted on 12/08/2010 12:39:37 PM PST by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1

Hey Elder, I know your brother Dingle!”

As my granpa would have said, “they’re the berries!”


5 posted on 12/08/2010 12:42:06 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1

Funny I don’t have a brother.


6 posted on 12/08/2010 12:44:01 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

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.


7 posted on 12/08/2010 12:44:23 PM PST by Aria ( "Remember, attitudes are contagious, so make sure yours are worth catching." Sarah Palin 9-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

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.


8 posted on 12/08/2010 12:49:20 PM PST by SERKIT (We need more of Barry's "Wet Diaper" news conferences. He gets smaller and smaller each time.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Kinda like the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.
It’s just that the deck is stacked.


9 posted on 12/08/2010 12:56:50 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

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.


10 posted on 12/08/2010 1:00:12 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT
but these cases seem to go nowhere.

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.

11 posted on 12/08/2010 1:02:45 PM PST by itsahoot (We the people allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aria

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.


12 posted on 12/08/2010 1:07:48 PM PST by 353FMG (Soon, the peoples of the West will have to choose between ISLAM and their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

13 posted on 12/08/2010 1:11:29 PM PST by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Any Chance on this one?

Somewhere between zilch and none.

14 posted on 12/08/2010 1:12:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
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.

Discover it first and then we'll find out.

15 posted on 12/08/2010 1:13:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

I pulled this from Orly’s site:

AS I’VE BEEN FIGHTING AND ARGUING WITH OBOTS, I WAS DRAFTING THIS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Posted on | December 5, 2010 | 8 Comments
No.
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
CONNIE RHODES,
Captain, M.D., F.S.
Plaintiff,
DR. ORLY TAITZ,ESQ
Attorney for the Plaintiff, Interested Party- Appellant,

v.
THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
Garrison Commander, Fort Benning,
GEORGE STEUBER, Deputy,
Commander, Fort Benning,
ROBERT M. GATES,
Secretary of Defense,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendants,
Judge Clay D. Land
U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of GA, Author of Sua Sponte sanctions against the Plaintiff’s 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
Tel. 949-683-5411

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?
ARGUMENT
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 review–if any–should 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.
CONCLUSION
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


16 posted on 12/08/2010 1:15:43 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Strangely, no one has standing to ask any question of Obama.

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.

17 posted on 12/08/2010 1:17:06 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

What about Keyes? - he was a valid presidential candidate. Shouldn’t every candidate on the ballot have equal standing?


18 posted on 12/08/2010 1:33:30 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
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.

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.

19 posted on 12/08/2010 1:36:44 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Triple
What about Keyes? - he was a valid presidential candidate. Shouldn’t every candidate on the ballot have equal standing?

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.

20 posted on 12/08/2010 1:37:12 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Triple
What about Keyes? - he was a valid presidential candidate. Shouldn’t every candidate on the ballot have equal standing?

Keyes was on the ballot in vey few states. Even if he had won every state where he was on the ballot, he could not possibly have been elected. If I remember Judge Carter's decision correctly, Keyes was denied standing on that basis.

21 posted on 12/08/2010 1:39:11 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Triple
vey few

Should have been "very few."

22 posted on 12/08/2010 1:40:20 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

if obama had been declared ineligible - then Keyes might have been able to get the most electoral votes. Early races for the presidency have many candidates receiving electoral votes.

Because a Keyes win was improbable, and with hindsight it did not happen, he has no standing? What is the legal likelihood of victory that would grant standing?

I submit that it should be *any* probability level above zero.


23 posted on 12/08/2010 1:52:45 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Triple
I submit that it should be *any* probability level above zero.

Since Keyes was on too few state ballots to have been elected even if he had won every state he ran in, his possibility was zero.

24 posted on 12/08/2010 2:00:51 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
...no one has standing to ask any question of Obama...

I regret that I have lost patience with the many kind-hearted, sincere souls who have tried to explain to me how it is even remotely possible that a Citizen of the United States of America does not automatically have all the “standing” in the world while questioning the Constitutional qualifications of the alleged President.

25 posted on 12/08/2010 2:08:55 PM PST by ExGeeEye (Freedom is saying "No!" to the Feds, and getting away with it. "Speak 'NO' to Power!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
...no one has standing to ask any question of Obama...

I regret that I have lost patience with the many kind-hearted, sincere souls who have tried to explain to me how it is even remotely possible that a Citizen of the United States of America does not automatically have all the “standing” in the world while questioning the Constitutional qualifications of the alleged President.

26 posted on 12/08/2010 2:08:57 PM PST by ExGeeEye (Freedom is saying "No!" to the Feds, and getting away with it. "Speak 'NO' to Power!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Then Sarah must have standing.


27 posted on 12/08/2010 2:11:52 PM PST by Aria ( "Remember, attitudes are contagious, so make sure yours are worth catching." Sarah Palin 9-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Aria
Then Sarah must have standing.

She wasn't running for president.

28 posted on 12/08/2010 2:24:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aria

She and McCain were partners and was as affected as McCain by zero’s supposed fraud.


29 posted on 12/08/2010 2:29:22 PM PST by Aria ( "Remember, attitudes are contagious, so make sure yours are worth catching." Sarah Palin 9-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Any Chance on this one?

LOL--I hope you're not asking the betting public.

30 posted on 12/08/2010 2:43:18 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

You all realize, don’t you, that this appeal not only has no chance of being heard, but even if it were, it’s no longer about eligibility?

The sole issue in this case is whether Judge Land was wrong to sanction Orly $20,000. Otly is pretending that raising that question will get the Supreme Court to go back to square 1 and investigate Obama’s eligibility.

Go back and check the earlier stages of this case. Orly was sanctioned for very specific behavior, and no matter how she spins it there’s no way SCOTUS is going to see this as an eligibility issue.

This, like all the others, will be DENIED without comment.


31 posted on 12/08/2010 2:43:56 PM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Ah geez...

Not again.


32 posted on 12/08/2010 2:53:21 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

33 posted on 12/08/2010 3:01:21 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria
“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.”

Whatcha gonna think when that continues to not happen?

34 posted on 12/08/2010 3:26:35 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

same ol...same ol...


35 posted on 12/08/2010 3:44:00 PM PST by Aria ( "Remember, attitudes are contagious, so make sure yours are worth catching." Sarah Palin 9-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

You all realize, don’t you, that this appeal not only has no chance of being heard, but even if it were, it’s no longer about eligibility?

The sole issue in this case is whether Judge Land was wrong to sanction Orly $20,000. Otly is pretending that raising that question will get the Supreme Court to go back to square 1 and investigate Obama’s eligibility.

Go back and check the earlier stages of this case. Orly was sanctioned for very specific behavior, and no matter how she spins it there’s no way SCOTUS is going to see this as an eligibility issue.

This, like all the others, will be DENIED without comment.


Ms. Taitz petitioned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for an injunction to block imposition of the sanctions against her. Justice Thomas rejected her application. Ms. Taitz then resubmitted her application for an injunction to Justice Alito who submitted it to the full Court. It was rejected.
The $20,000 in sanctions were imposed on her by US District Court Judge Clay R. Land of the Middle District of Georgia.
Judge Land is a former Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia and was appointed a US District Court Judge by George W. Bush.


36 posted on 12/08/2010 4:27:13 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Wrong - the electoral college does not require a majority of initial votes to finally elect a president in later rounds. You need to study US government and history a bit more.


37 posted on 12/09/2010 6:33:12 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the Vice President by majority vote, with each Senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. “ - A Procedural Guide to the Electoral College
Prepared by The Office of the Federal Register


38 posted on 12/09/2010 6:47:55 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Triple; Lurking Libertarian

i guess from your lack of response - you concede that Keyes chance of winning was greater than zero, based on the being on the ballot in several states.

So, what is the minimum chance of winning to have standing in a case about opponents are cheating - or are ineligible (and have zero legal right to win).

Is it a 1% chance? 10%?, 50%? - I submit any chance greater than zero for a candidate - so on *any* ballot legitimately - gives them standing.

I happen to think that people presented with a ballot with Obama on it also have standing - because their right to cast a valid vote is directly impacted. - but that is another story.


39 posted on 12/10/2010 8:42:50 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Triple
I agree that Keyes would have had standing had he sued before the election. Once the voting took place, no one had standing but McCain and Palin.

Under the election laws of many states, any voter has standing to sue to determine a candidate's qualification for office, but, to the best of my knowledge (I haven't checked all 50 states' election codes) those states all require that suits be brought during a narrow time frame-- after a candidate has filed his intention to run but before the ballots are printed.

40 posted on 12/10/2010 10:04:48 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter
Have you read any of the 63-page Writ of Certiori? I have. Its worth reading. Fascinating stuff.

In your ridicule, you join a judge who ridiculed from the bench and fined a lawyer appearing before him. He called her case "frivolous" and unsubstantiated but cited no single point that he found unworthy.

Orly has not been politically correct (to put it mildly). English is not her first language (I think). She gets angry and flustered when interviewed by hostile media persons. She passionately holds her principles and the principles of our country to be important. In my opinion, it is the passion and not the many other details (documents with misspelled words, awkward phrases, etc) that has been the fuel that got her to this point.

From my perspective (and having limited understanding of all the facts) I can even forgive some of the problematic conflicts of interest between her and other lawyers and plaintiffs, the filings to the court without the permission of all of the plaintiffs in a case, etc.

It is to the benefit of the O-bots to portray her as crazy. Perhaps the photo that you posted indicates your true disposition in this matter?

But Judge Land betrays (in writing) both his personal grudge and opposing political opinions as reasons for dismissing a case and fining the attorney for the prosecution. He called her "Alice in Wonderland" on the record, and inaccurately portrayed her case as unresearched. That judicial review and sanction of the attorney rather than the case is in violation of federal law and the constitutional principle of due process.

I recognize that she is far from perfect, but who needs to be perfect as they approach getting their case before the SCOTUS. Words just don't matter all that much outside the courtroom. And even in the courtroom, it is procedure, points of law, precedent, and facts that are held to be more valuable than hearsay. Anyone dispute that?

So far that standard has been ignored by not only Judge Land but almost every Judge who comes near Obama-eligibility cases. (My favorite is the statement by one judge that his eligibility was "vetted by the mainstream media" and "twittered" as a means of verification. This is telling in that these two standards of verification are held to be equally valid, LOL).

Now the writ is surely enough --by God and Damn the Torpedoes-- before the SCOTUS. Not many have accomplished that. The writ brings forth evidence of Obama's use of a fraudulent SSN. It brings forth quite a few valid points of law. Reading the writ is encouraging. Do I think the Supremes will do anything other than disregard it? No. But its on the Effin record.

In summary, she may not be the best spokesperson for birthers. Okay, she isn't. But how effective is she in getting cases before judges? And which is more important?

So here is something to consider. This time its her and her client that gets no hearing, no forum for redress of grievance, no way to even address the case by the hearing of oral arguments! She was fined, dismissed summarily and ridiculed by a judge. (I know, I know, thats how most of our judiciary behave anyway.) But next time it could be you.

You post a photo of a bird in a wig.

*shakes head*

41 posted on 12/19/2010 8:11:24 AM PST by txnuke (Obama votes "PRES__ENT" because he has no ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Any Chance on this one?


Infinitesimal I'd guess since she no longer has a client in that Capt. Rhodes fired her. This filing is nothing more than an attempt to get her $20,000 back which she had to pay. This has already been denied by a court of appeals so I'd not expect a review on this matter from the SCOTUS, jmo.

42 posted on 12/19/2010 8:22:08 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
"....this appeal not only has no chance of being heard, but even if it were, it’s no longer about eligibility"

In order to point out the focus of the writ, I say this: The writ of certiori, while addressing the unfair sanctioning, does cover many other points of law that were not addressed by Judge Land in the original case. It may be true that Orly is using her sanctioning as a way to try to get the other issues heard. However, the majority of the writ of certiori does address Obama's (lack of) eligibility and possible fraud. You can reply that her (only?) intentions were to fight the sanction. But that is speculation on your part and her persistence proves that the eligibility issue is her passion.

Also, if i recall correctly, another judge threatened sanctioning an attorney for a similar case. The attorney made it known that such a sanction would then bring about good cause for discovery in the case. The threat of sanctions was then removed.

Orly was sanctioned for very specific behavior

And that was what?

This, like all the others, will be DENIED without comment.

Like many others in America and here on Free Republic, I wish that were not true. Alas, you may be correct.

If nothing else, let my comments encourage people to read the writ.

43 posted on 12/19/2010 8:32:38 AM PST by txnuke (Obama votes "PRES__ENT" because he has no ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson