Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taitz v. MacDonald - Docketed with SCOTUS
supremecourt.gov ^ | 07/14/2010 | Taitz

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; orlytaitz; rhodes; taitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last
To: curiosity
Probably because folks hope some of the Justices on SCOTUS might remember their oaths to defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

At some point they will guess themselves what Obama is and what he intends to do, and indeed their own eventual fate under the “new order.”

Just pray they find a legal technicality to help Orly and trip up the budding dictator.

51 posted on 07/16/2010 1:39:46 PM PDT by Exmil_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Too late.


52 posted on 07/16/2010 1:46:26 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes.......is facist... ...He meets every diagnostic of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
LOL. I love how you guys like to lecture a man with two law degress.
53 posted on 07/16/2010 1:48:45 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes.......is facist... ...He meets every diagnostic of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK

Although I see you “converse” with the gang fairly regularly...a FReindly note of suggestion...don’t give the Obots the Kool-Aid they desire. Their only intention on the eligibility threads is to attempt to dissuade, discredit or otherwise libel the non Obots.


54 posted on 07/16/2010 1:58:54 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I take your point. But I find it ironic that the very legal system the American Lawyers Guild uses so skillfully is the one that will be switched off when their ultimate political fantasy system is born as the US republic dies out.

As for going too far, which I think you hint at, what other label can you apply to a man who describes the freedoms granted to the people of the US by the constitution as “Negative Liberties?”


55 posted on 07/16/2010 2:15:47 PM PDT by Exmil_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK
I believe it was Doc Savage who said...

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

It truly is astounding.

56 posted on 07/16/2010 2:41:32 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK

Excellent points —


57 posted on 07/17/2010 7:54:23 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.

Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.


58 posted on 07/17/2010 3:06:39 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

No surprise there.


59 posted on 07/17/2010 3:50:30 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
So let's see.

Either Taitz is incompetent, can't behave like a lawyer, and is in so far over her head she doesn't even know which end is up...

or

JUSTICE THOMAS IS AN OBOT!!! A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!

I guess it wasn't very possible after all that the Supreme Court would take this up to relieve Taitz of her well-earned sanctions, a point we naive people with actual training in the law did make.

60 posted on 07/17/2010 4:16:31 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
You can mock a citizen lawyer of limited skills but answer me this:

Then why is Apuzzo threatened with sanctions too?

61 posted on 07/17/2010 4:51:24 PM PDT by Exmil_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

“JUSTICE THOMAS IS AN OBOT!!! A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!”

And gay. Don’t forget gay.


62 posted on 07/17/2010 4:59:02 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK
“You can mock a citizen lawyer of limited skills but answer me this:

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.

63 posted on 07/17/2010 5:19:18 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

“JUSTICE THOMAS IS AN OBOT!!! A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!”

“And gay. Don’t 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.


64 posted on 07/17/2010 5:21:10 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

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?


65 posted on 07/17/2010 5:23:59 PM PDT by Exmil_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK

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?


66 posted on 07/17/2010 7:36:04 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK

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.”


67 posted on 07/17/2010 7:39:00 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DCmarcher-976453
I wonder what the Supremes will say?

Aw, jeez...

68 posted on 07/17/2010 7:40:12 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (For the first time in half a century, there is no former KKK member in the US Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"Jul 15 2010: Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas."

 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10a56.htm


69 posted on 07/18/2010 6:06:38 AM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.

YAY!!! GO ORLY!!!

Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.

Oops. Never mind.

70 posted on 07/18/2010 10:35:43 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


71 posted on 07/25/2010 11:14:37 AM PDT by mojitojoe (When crisis becomes opportunity, crisis becomes the goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
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.

72 posted on 07/25/2010 11:47:37 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: mojitojoe

Grow up dude.


74 posted on 07/25/2010 12:48:10 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Exmil_UK
What is the exact legal definition of the US Federal Judge’s oath to defend the Constitution?

If comment #58 is true, Justice Thomas defines it as, "Get out of my face, Orly."

75 posted on 07/25/2010 1:11:22 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You grow up whiner


76 posted on 07/25/2010 1:18:29 PM PDT by mojitojoe (When crisis becomes opportunity, crisis becomes the goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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