Skip to comments.Taitz v. MacDonald - Docketed with SCOTUS
Posted on 07/14/2010 5:33:30 PM PDT by rxsid
This is the docket number, No. 10A56, for appeal with Justice Thomas (Mac Donald was one of the commanding officers of Connie Rhodes, that is why the original case was called Rhodes v MacDonald et al)
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions
Then why is Apuzzo threatened with sanctions too?
“JUSTICE THOMAS IS AN OBOT!!! A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!”
And gay. Don’t forget gay.
Then why is Apuzzo threatened with sanctions too?”
Well, first I need to address that “too.” Because Apuzzo should be treated as an isolated incident for a very simple reason.
Taitz has no idea what she is doing and she blatantly insulted the court. I don't care what case you are trying—that will get you a sanction every single time. There's nothing unusual, suspicious, or controversial about Taitz’s sanction. If you don't get that, then you're simply operating from a nonfactual premise that must lead you to erroneous conclusions.
As far as Apuzzo goes, attorneys are officers of the court. They have obligations to the court. One of those obligations is to not waste the Court's time with frivolous filings. It doesn't matter whether you or I think we have a case. Once we lose, appeals are obligated to provide meaningful information, perspective, precedent, etc. that could lead a court to question the original judgment. Simply restating the same arguments in a case the Court, rightly or wrongly, thinks wasn't even close can be deemed frivolous. That apparently has happened to Mr. Apuzzo. I hope he makes a better showing in his response than Orly did.
JUSTICE THOMAS IS AN OBOT!!! A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!
“And gay. Dont forget gay.”
Sorry. I just thought it was a given on these threads that anyone who doesn’t take a delusional interpretation of either the Constitution or simple court procedures was gay. LOL.
perhaps you would like to answer the unspoken question there:
What is the exact legal definition of the US Federal Judge’s oath to defend the Constitution?
I can tell you that it doesn’t mean that they have to rule in a manner that pleases every bush lawyer and Internet crank out there.
A small handful of folks with minimal legal training or knowledge disagree with judge Thomas? That really doesn’t surprise or alarm me.
Have you considered that with any judge and any decision there will always be some folks who think the judge or decision is wrong?
FWIW - According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
YAY!!! GO ORLY!!!
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Oops. Never mind.
Your son can still NEVER be president unless you get him a fake birth certificate and have people that can help you create a fake past like obongo did. So suck it up, it is what it is.
Blah, blah, blah...
Meanwhile, a man with a foreign parent is the President of the United States and birthers have once again failed in the courtroom, --as they've done every single time.
Nobody cares anymore.
Grow up dude.
If comment #58 is true, Justice Thomas defines it as, "Get out of my face, Orly."
You grow up whiner