Posted on 03/19/2009 8:25:46 AM PDT by SloopJohnB
Will do - thanks for the email. :) Of course, it ended about 10 seconds after the point I paused and wrote my post! LOL
AND, I forgot to thank you for taking the time to edit this interview and put it up on YouTube for all of us. So, thank you very much for your efforts, it is appreciated!
Can’t imagine. Jim is in Fresno, so it’s not even lunch> He, he, he.
.
Made it past an hour, but given the number of comments this probably was not a very interesting thread.
His lawyers must be plaguing Jimbo.
THe doofus is in a real pickle. He name no longer appears as a clerk of SCOTUS on the Wiki list.
Fraud in the execution of a document of due process is a serious matter. He will be disbarred , and that is what they are trying to prevent. I hope Dr. Orly files a complaint with every bar Nickle is a memeber of.He knew the chance he was taking when he did it.Forethought was necessary. He chose politics over due process? Must be a lefty.
This is fascist action on the part of Clerk *ickle. It is how it grows and floourishes. Thats why good men and women like Orly need to speak up.
Another FR thread: Is this the Danny Bickle that is in a Pickle?
Now Dr. Taitz tells us that these cases.... NEVER REACHED conference ... and that the justices with whom she spoke ...Had never heard of them..
There is but one .... belief straining though it may be ... avenue of possibility, and that is that the Chief Clerk, working with the Clerks of individual Justices has the power to arrange the Conference Agenda.
Again, what steps can be taken? Our elected legislators have no power over the SCOTUS ... and with a hostile AG ... aren't we left up this creek without a paddle?
Thanks, but not my doing. The host of the link did it. The paragraph in post 1 is his comment.
Orly is merely showing her ignorance of how the Supreme Court works. As I pointed out at the time her cases were calendared for conference before the Supreme Court-- and got flamed for doing so-- the fact that a case is listed for conference doesn't mean it actually gets discussed. Every case filed with the Supreme Court gets listed for conference. That means dozens and dozens of cases are listed for conference on the same day. (Check the Supreme Court's on-line docket and you will see.) Before the conference, each Justice circulates a list (not made public) of which cases they want to discuss. Any case not put on the "discuss list" by any Justice is never discussed and is denied automatically, even though it was listed for conference. So it is no wonder that Justices don't seem to remember Orly's cases-- all were denied without a single recorded dissent, which means they most likely were not discussed. (Again, I pointed this out on FR at the time, and got flamed for saying so.)
Orly's claim about the docket being manipulated is also false-- every one of these cases is on the Supreme Court's on-line docket, with all proceedings and filings properly recorded. One case was off-line for one day because of a computer glitch, but was back the next morning.
My friends, the moderator is the least of your problems. Every entry on this site is logged by Google, et al. Just "Google" your Freeper handle once in a while.
One simply is not anonymous on the internet, no matter what your network or firewall.
However, given the amount of interest in this issue, and its presence everywhere on the web, would it not be unreasonable to assume that the Justices ... every Justice ... would completely overlook it, even if only to specifically refuse the case?
If I understand Attorney Taitz, she is saying the cases did not get LISTED for conference.
Kinda like when someone says they didn’t receive my email my instant response is: “Please, there is no dead letter on the Internet”.
I love saying that especially when other people where CC’d.
And I don’t care if the “Stasi” do record everything. Today it is perfectly legal and it becomes illegal tomorrow I will take my licks.
What is a network or firewall? ;-)
These cases have attracted zero attention in the legal community-- the law blogs (even the conservative ones) have never even mentioned them. When Berg and Orly filed in the Supreme Court, none of the defendants even bothered to file a response. (A response to a certiorari petition is not required in the Supreme Court, although the Court can request a response if none is filed. The Court didn't request a response in any of the Obama eleigibilty cases.) Remember that the cases came up to the Supreme Court from lower court rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing, not from decisions on the merits.
If I understand Attorney Taitz, she is saying the cases did not get LISTED for conference.
They were all listed for conference, as you can see on the Supreme Court's on-line docket. Each one shows the date the cases were filed, the date the petitioner's papers were filed, the date the respondents' papers were due (and were not filed), the date the cases were distributed for conference, the conference date, and the denial (always the next business day after the conference).
What? I’ve seen his name posted lots of times. (If it’s the one whose name rhymes with pickle.)
Is this a new rule?
Actually, his last name is spelled Bickel. I wonder if he is any relation to Alexander Bickel, who was an extremely influential law professor and constitutional expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bickel
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.